Anders Behring Breivik, a militant Christian?
Firstly, - did (or has) Breivik actually call / called
himself a Christian of any kind, radical, militant, fundamentalist or
otherwise? Answer, - Well it seems he
has, at least in some degree, taken the label “Christian” for himself. Once again, I learn something new every
single day, according to a Wikipedia write-up, I see that “
The
manifesto states its author is "100 percent Christian",[3] but he is not "excessively
religious"[3] and considers himself a "cultural
Christian" and a "modern-day crusader".[2][3]”
[
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anders_Behring_Breivik&oldid=495027620]
Secondly, a “militant Christian”? Isn’t that a rather brazen oxymoron!
There are three (3) things I’d like to hone in on about the
content of the above Wiki article. The
first one being “A” the words “cultural Christian”, the second one being “B”
the phrase “Christian-agnostic” and finally the third one being “C” the phrase
“Christian-atheist”, and I suppose I could even add a fourth one being “D”,
what really is a “Biblical Christian”?
Let’s look very briefly at each of the three, well okay now four (4), A, B, C
& D things noted above, and some short definition(s):
“B” – Christian-agnostic: “
Christian Agnostics (distinct
from a Christian who is agnostic) practice a distinct form of agnosticism that
applies only to the properties
of God. They hold that it is difficult or impossible to be sure of anything
beyond the basic tenets of the Christian faith. They believe that God exists,
that Jesus has a special relationship with
him and is in some way divine, that God should be worshipped and that humans
should be compassionate toward one another. This belief system has deep roots
in Judaism and the early days of the Church.[3]” [
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agnostic_theism&oldid=486001370]
Before I truly bore you out of your mind, with endless Wiki
quotes, and also before I make note of the fourth item noted above, please let
say this: In my opinion, and yes I truly
mean my opinion. (I say this because,
although I feel given sufficient space I could provide many compelling
arguments in support of said opinion, yet I do not believe that I would be
capable of irrefutably and empirically PROVING my position.) In my opinion, there is an almost immeasurably
vast difference between bonā fidē Biblical Christianity and, either all three
collectively or individually of, the type(s) of Christian / Christianity noted
above and defined by Anders B. Breivik.
Also before I move onto the fourth item “D”, I’d like to
draw particular attention to a few of either direct or implied quotes of
Breivik’s.
You will notice that he (Breivik) in the above quotes “i”,
“ii” and “iii” takes the liberty of defining what a Christian is,
in his opinion. The use of
words and phrases like “considers
himself” and “It is enough” and “believe
in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes
us Christian”. Additionally, you
will notice that Breivik in this “third” quote makes the assertion that: “If you
have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious
Christian …” And to that
expression, I do take personal exception, and say “what bunk”!
The rudimentary definition of RELIGION (religious follower of something) is:
a) a series of man-made do’s, don’ts and veritable ‘wherefore art thou’s’,
based upon some man’s interpretation of something else. Said interpretation may well be based upon a
first hand reading of source material (reading from the God’s (Christ’s) Holy
Word, the Holy Bible) , or be effectively based upon years N’ years of handed
down traditions (a virtual hearsay, if you will) of do’s, don’ts &
‘wherefore art thou’s’! and
b) an adherence to said series of man-made do’s, don’ts and veritable
‘wherefore art thou’s’.
The very notion that a “personal relationship with Jesus
Christ, makes one a religious Christian is almost beyond comprehension for me. Please permit me to digress for a moment,
whilst I address the concept and definition of religion(s).
Religion is defined by:
Dictionary dot com as:
“noun
1. a set of beliefs
concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when
considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually
involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code
governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific
fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of
persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons
adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of
religions.
4. the life or state
of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
Merriam-Webster online as:
“RELIGION
1:
a : the state of a religious <a nun
in her 20th year of religion>
b :
(1) : the service and
worship of God or the supernatural
(2) : commitment or
devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized
system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3: archaic : scrupulous conformity :
conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of
beliefs held to with ardor and faith” [
Merriam-Webster
online] and finally…
Now I find it personally interesting and also noteworthy
too, that out of all the various points noted to define religion (religious
following) by non-church related sources, very few even infer (let alone
clearly define) having a PERSONAL REALTIONSHIP with the Living G-d, Jesus
Christ as a “religion” or religious. The
dictionary dot com list includes such comments as: “…devotional and ritual
observances…” and a “…set of beliefs and practices generally
agreed upon by a number of persons…”, ergo man-made…
The other two Merriam-Webster online and Wikipedia seem to offer little in
terms of variants from the broad notion of ‘adherence to man-made rules N’
reg’s’ by way of defining what “Religion” is.
Alas enough about “religion”, I am in no way either impressed by that
word, or even remotely motivated towards any sense of “religious” adherence. I might be perhaps one of the LEAST religious
people you know, or will ever meet.??
Back the opening points, three (3) to begin, then bumped to
four (4) “A”, “B”, “C” and “D”, they have not been forgotten. The first three “A”, “B” & “C” have been defined
above, and I will address them vs. bonā fidē Biblical Christianity
shortly. The fourth “D” I will attempt
after I address the first three in more detail.
But first please permit me to digress one more time from these four,
while we explore the term “christian” in a very broad and perhaps overly
simplified manner.
In the broadest sense of the word “christian” it very simply
means to be christ-like or a “follower”, “believer in” and “worshipper of christ”. Great, now then, what does the word “christ”
mean? By the way, although I am sure that
you already KNOW this, Christ is NOT Jesus’ surname. Christ literally means Messiah, ergo Jesus
Christ or Yeshua Ha Mashiach essentially means: “the Christ who is Rabbi Jesus,
the son of Joseph / the Messiah who is Rabbi Yeshua Bar Yosef”.
So, who is Messiah then? Or a better
question might be who THE Messiah is then?
Once again, by way of reminders, a christian is NOTHING more than a
follower of, believer in and worshipper of Christ (messiah). Thus it would seem that defining clearly WHO
this Messiah is would be an important step.
Are there more than one “messiahs,” or is there but ONE Messiah (THE
Messiah, if you will)? Several of the
world’s religions purport having some sort of messiah. The
Zoroastrian’s
do, for example, have a messiah, who is known as “
Saoshyant” {Persian
for messiah} by the name of “
Zarathustra”. How about some other religious order’s
“messiahs” then, say for example “
Muntazar”
the Sunni Muslim’s “messiah”, or what about an Aztec or Mayan “messiah” known
as “
Quetzalcoatl”?
Based upon the above very broad and simple, perhaps
oversimplified, definition of a “christian”, any follower, believer in and
worshipper of ANY of these few noted above (amongst many indeed, please see – “
Name That Messiah!”
for more info on numerous “messiahs” throughout the ages), by merely
translating the word messiah (or the linguistic equivalent from whatever
original language “messiah” came) to the English word “christ”, and *bam* any and ALL followers of said “christ”
become, by definition “christians”. Hardly a “bonā fidē Biblical Christian” mind
you, more on this when we define and address “D” Biblical Christianity from
above.
And now back to those first four points “A”, “B”, “C” and
“D”, the first three of which have been defined above. Now let’s look at addressing them one-by-one
and their respective connection with Christianity. Let us begin with a look at phrases (labels)
like a Militant Christian, and also from above, “A” “cultural Christian”, “B”
“Christian-agnostic” and “C” “Christian-atheist”. All three (3) of these labels are really
oxy-moronic of what Biblical Christianity means, at least according to the
source, the Holy Bible.
First, let’s refer back to the opening comment a militant
Christian. “Militant” literally means
confrontational, aggressive, radical, revolutionary, combative, rebellious, and
belligerent and while I would whole heartedly agree that individual persons may
demonstrate any number of “militant” traits, I would have to say that Biblical Christianity
as a whole does NOT fit said description.
Next “A” The notion of a “cultural Christian” seems at best
to fly in the face of the definition of a Biblical Christian (in its simplest
and broadest of forms from above at east), being: “to be christ-like or a
“follower”, “believer in” and “worshipper of christ””, as the cultural
Christian it would seem follows no ONE single messiah. Leaving us with the “B” “Christian-agnostic” and “C” “Christian-atheist”,
and if ever I saw something that epitomized an oxymoron it would be either of
those two, especially the latter - “Christian-atheist”. For, to be a Christian or “to be christ-like”
or a “follower”, “believer in” and “worshipper of christ” means, (or at least
implies at some level) acknowledging a deity, if not THE Deity. Thus it would seem that both “A” the “cultural
Christian” and “C” the “Christian-atheist” do not appear to fit the Biblical
definition of Christianity.
Agnosticism on the other hand, combined with Christianity
may seem like less of a stretch (at least at a glance), as the agnostic
generally believes in some form of higher power, but lacks the conviction (or
is lacking in being personally convinced) that there is but ONE SPECIFIC
GOD. A God who is both Truly God and who
also absolutely out ranks all other gods.
To that end I suppose one could argue that my short list of three
messiahs from above, leading to three possible definitions of a “christian”,
might be defined as “B” “Christian-agnostic’s”.
I’d have to agree with said assertion, and that definition too flies in
the very face of what Biblical Christianity is.
Thus it would seem that all four labels from above, Militant
Christian, “A” “cultural Christian”, “B” “Christian-agnostic” and “C” “Christian-atheist”
are somehow lacking in terms of meeting basic, rudimentary and foundational
Biblical Christianity criteria. But
wait, you haven’t yet even defined or otherwise explained “Biblical
Christianity”. And how can one either
agree or disagree without seeing / reading said definition? Great question, let’s do just that… So now
let’s continue with the fourth item “D” from above by asking the question, and
then eventually (hopefully) defining precisely, what really is a real bonā fidē
Christian (Biblical Christian)?
“D” – A real Christian – being a real Christian is a sort of
THREE-FOLD process, a process that involves three things, and defining
which of (in any one) is more important that either of the other two, is indeed
a challenge. A real Christian is someone
who:
Now again, is “
Surrendering” to Christ's
Lordship the most important of the three?
Is “
Surrendering”
to Christ's Lordship more important than the other two? What if the christ one has surrendered to is
the half-brother of Lucifer, as some churches teach? Or what if the christ one has surrendered to
is also Michael the Arch-Angel, as some other churches teach? Are these people Christians...? I'd be sceptical, as they (these churches)
deny the
Deity of Christ, YET as one can see
from passages in
Jeremiah
17 “…
I the Lord search the mind, I try the heart, even to give to
every man according to his ways…” and
1
Samuel 16, “
… the Lord looks on the heart.” T'is God (Christ) who
both KNOWS and Judges a man's heart. Thus it would seem that “
surrendering”
alone, one’s life to the Lordship of a christ, will not in fact make one a
Biblical Christian.
And finally what about doing GOOD WORKS and “
BEARING FRUIT” are these the most
important of the three? Is doing a GOOD
WORK and “
BEARING FRUIT”
more important than the other two...? I
think if one would just read the Bible, one’s self, one would agree; we do NOT
get saved (or even
STAY SAVED)
by doing Good Works. That's a very
legalistic works based view, and one that get's many churches and well
intentioned Christians in trouble. The
WHOLE reformation of Martin Luther revolved around “
…the just shall live by Faith…”
Hebrews 10:38 KJV, see also
Habakkuk
2:4,
Romans
1:17,
Galatians
3:11 and of course Hebrews 10:39 “
…but of them that believe to the saving of the soul!” So once again, it would appear as though
doing a good work / “
bearing fruit” is not, intrinsically sufficient to
make one a Biblical Christian.
Two more quick thoughts before I wrap up.
- The
word “opinion”, I clearly said that it’s my opinion that there
is an almost immeasurably vast difference between bonā fidē Biblical
Christianity and, any one of “cultural Christian”, “Christian-agnostic”
and “Christian-atheist” concepts.
And yet I also made a point of minimizing Breivik’s opinion when I
said that Breivik “…takes the liberty of defining what is, in his
opinion, a Christian.” The
difference between the two is that Christianity is something that springs
forth from the Holy Bible, and as such should best be defined by said Holy
Bible, and NOT by someone’s varied or varying “opinions”.
- Giving
that the very concept of a “militant” and Biblical Christianity are
virtually 180º opposed to each other, I’d have to ask if the words
militant and Christian should even be used as a compound word, “militant
Christian”.
Was, or rather is, Anders Behring Breivik a militant? I’d say it’s a safe bet to say “yes”. Is he a Christian? Well I suppose if it would be okay for one to
define what a Christian is, in his opinion, then one could, in
his / her opinion, make the brazen statement that “I am a
Christian”. Similarly, one could define
say a Medical Doctor, in his / her opinion, and then
subsequently, proclaim himself / herself (based upon his / her opinion)
to be a Physician. Now there’s a scary
thought! Thus, Breivik a Christian..
sure I guess in his mind he is. Does he
represent,, even remotely (let alone fairly) mainstream Biblical
Christianity? Read the Holy Bible, G-d’s
(Christ’s) Holy Word for yourself, and you decide.
As noted earlier, the dictionary dot com list includes such comments as:
“…devotional and ritual observances…” and a “…set of beliefs and
practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons…”, when it
comes to defining religion.
And for many folk, that is essentially what being a Christian is,
adherence to a series of “do’s” and “don’ts” (especially man-made “do’s” and
“don’ts”. Folk often times think of
following a but of edicts and commands (Commandments), but did you know that
Jesus Christ / Yeshua Ha Mashiach (Rabbi Yeshua Bar Yosef) had (HAS) very very
few express / specific commands / commandments?
In John 14, Jesus said – “If ye love me,
keep my commandments.”
John 14:15 KJV So what are the
commandments of Jesus? See footnote [1] below for more information. In the mean time, would you like to know the one true God, Jesus
Christ / Yeshua Ha Mashiach (Rabbi Yeshua Bar Yosef)? Please read on.
“Know Jesus, know peace whereas no Jesus, no peace”
How does one get to “know” Jesus? Simple, invite Him into your heart, as Jesus
says: “
Here I am! I stand at the
door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and
eat with him, and he with me.” [
Revelations 3:20 NIV] How can we be assured that this Jesus stuff
means anything, anything at all? Well
because the Bible tells us so, as the Apostle Paul wrote:
“
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and
believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10
For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with
your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.” [
Romans 10:9-10 NIV]
And for those of you who say to me, I can’t be bothered
reading the Bible, “it’s confusing” or “it’s a waste of my time”, may I draw
your attention to what the Bible says about wisdom: “The fear of the LORD is
the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.” [
Proverbs 9:10 NIV]
John 3:16 says: “For God so loved the world that he gave his
one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal
life.”
And
John 14:6 says: “Jesus answered, “I
am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except
through me.”
Well that’s it, that’s Da Bauz’s Take on, Breivik, a
militant Christian – this 3rd day of June 2012 © 2012, All Rights
Reserved. wr (Da Bauz, Christian Zionist N’ “creationist” too)
Footnote [1] – What is / are Christ’s “Commandments”? According to Matthew,
