WHY Does Mainstream Media Propaganda Brand Norway Killer Breivik As A ‘Christian’ And A ‘Right-Wing Radical’?

Is Anders Behring Breivik a “Christian”?  Not so much, it turns out.

Not that facts stop the mainstream media propaganda machine from attacking the religion they hate more than any other (that’s YOU, Jesus):

Monday, July 25, 2011
Lamestream Media Lets Norwegian Terrorist Define Christianity, then Link Him to Sarah Palin!

The lamestream media is tripping all over itself to pin “Christian fundamentalist” on Anders Breivik’s murderous terror spree in Norway.  Of course to do so, the lamestream media had to make a decision to ignore the terrorist’s
own manifesto.  In it, he claims he wants to launch a “crusade” against those who would destroy Europe’s traditional institutions, which he rightly points out are the product of Christian civilization.  However, he further states that it is not necessary (!!!) to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior to qualify under his definition for the word “Christian”.  Or in the words of Breivik’s manifesto:

“If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.” (source)

So apparently, if you are an European atheist who wants to continue to enjoy the political and cultural benefits of Christianity, in Anders Breivik’s terrorist world that makes you a “Christian”.  And if you murder a bunch of people in the name of Christianity, that makes you an even better “Christian”.   Of course, it goes without saying that the lamestream media will jump at every opportunity to smear Christianity, so they are running with the terrorist’s definition of what constitutes the same without any context or opposing points of view.

Now if the terrorist turned out to be a Muslim, and murdered all those people in the name of Allah, you can bet the lamestream media would be breathlessly filling their rags full of Muslim apologetics explaining why it’s impossible for a true Muslim to commit acts of terror because “Islam is a religion of peace.”

And wouldn’t you know it, the revolutionaries masquerading as the media are now trying to link the murder spree in Norway —and— the murder spree in Arizona that left six people dead and thirteen more wounded to–yep, you guessed it–Sarah Palin.

Jesus and Sarah Palin.  Public enemies number one and two on the left’s hit list.

We find out that Breivik’s link to “Christianity” was manufactured AFTER THE FACTSee that proof here.

The UK Guardian correctly points out that:

The Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik, who shot dead more than 90 young socialists at their summer camp on Friday after mounting a huge bomb attack on the centre of Oslo, has been described as a fundamentalist Christian. Yet he published enough of his thoughts on the internet to make it clear that even in his saner moments his ideology had nothing to do with Christianity but was based on an atavistic horror of Muslims and a loathing of “Marxists”, by which he meant anyone to the left of Genghis Khan.

See more here.

Jesus told us that we must be born again through faith in Him (see John 3:1-16).  He told us that He is the Living Water Who alone can quench our thirst for life (see John 4:5-26).  Jesus was clearly not speaking about “Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform”; He was speaking about a personal transformation in Him and through Him.

Liberals argue that Breivik says he is a Christian and therefore he’s a Christian.  I wonder if they would affirm their logic if I said I was a liberal and then went on a murder spree.  Would my claiming I was a liberal be enough to vilify liberalism even though I don’t believe in any of the key elements of liberalism?  I have a feeling it wouldn’t work that way.  What if I started calling myself a New York Times reporter?  Would that mean I am one?  So the fact that the Bible and 2,000 years of orthodox Christian tradition that affirms that one needs to have a personal encounter with Jesus Christ in order to be saved (which is what makes you a “Christian”) ought to be important.  Ought it not?

To make a further distinction between Christianity and Islam, Islam literally IS following a set of rules.  And this is not an attack against Islam; Muslims themselves would affirm this.  You do not pray and receive Allah or Muhammad into your heart.  There is no theology of being personally filled with the Spirit of Allah within Islam.  Nor do Muslims call Allah their “Father.”  Christianity is not “acting” a certain way; the Christian life only begins after receiving Jesus Christ by faith and not by works (Ephesians 2;8-10).  You receive a new life in Christ.  Or you are NOT a “Christian.”

Anders Behring Breivik specifically denies that he has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.  But Jesus said, “I am the Good Shepherd.  I know My own and My own know Me” (John 10:14).  He is not a Christian.

The mainstream media is simply profoundly dishonest and depraved in refusing to treat Christianity in terms of its own central claims.

The second thing the mainstream media has routinely done is link Anders Behring Breivik to the “far right” and describe him as a “right-wing radical.”

First of all, this is a tactic that LEFT-wing “journalists” have been employing since they were taught by their communist handlers.  As I pointed out in a previous article:

To put it briefly, the communist Soviet intellectuals – and all leftist Western intellectuals influenced by them – created a false dichotomy between fascism and communism.  Zeev Sternhall observed how study of fascist ideology had been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism” [Sternhall, “Fascist Ideology,” in Fascism: A Reader’s Guide: Analyses, Interpretations, Bibliography, p. 316].  Marxism simply redefined fascism as its polar opposite in order to create a bogeyman: If Marxism was progressive, fascism became conservative.  If Marxism was left wing, fascism had to be right wing.  If Marxism championed the proletariat, then fascism had to champion the bourgeoisie.  If Marxism was socialist, fascism needed to be capitalist.  And the fact that none of the above was even remotely true was entirely beside the point.

“Nazi” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party.”

As Gene Edward Veith points out:

“The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism.  Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism.  Whereas Marxist  socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist  national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity.   [And in fact, Both movements were “revolutionary socialist ideologies.”   Going on,] Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie.  Both  attacked the conservatives.  Both were mass movements, which had special  appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as  workers.  Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the  free economy and the ideals of individual liberty.  [And finally,]  Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left.   They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best  of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].

And if the Nazis didn’t represent the far left, they were at best the right wing of the extreme left wing.

Hate and intolerance is bad, therefore leftwing media propagandists define it as “Christian.”  And racism is bad, therefore leftwing media propagandists define it as “right-wing.”

Here’s a brief summary of a McClatchy article that ran on page 1 of the Los Angeles Times on Monday, July 25:

far-right extremists … far-right and anti-immigrant parties … right-wing fanatics … far-right groups … a right-wing extremist … right-wing political muscle … Right-wing radicals … right-wing activism … right-wing extremists …  Far-right radicals … far-right extremist communities … far-right groups in Sweden, Russia and other parts of Europe …

Well, tell us your opinion.  Do you think this loon maybe came from the political right???

Other than one assertion after another, there is not a single shred of evidence that Breivik was “right-wing” rather than “left-wing.”  It’s really just assumed.  I mean, after all, the guy was a racist and he was anti-immigrant.  What more do you need?  It’s the same bogeyman-building project we’ve seen for going on a hundred years: “If Marxism was progressive, fascism became conservative.”  The left is good, so the right must be evil.  And “reporters” can assign whatever is negative to them.  The right is bad by definition.  And said definition was created by the left, so you can know it’s legitimate.

Well, is it the “right-wing” that’s racist?

An SEIU Union VP said:

I’ve organized huge numbers of conversations among workers about immigration, comprehensive immigration reform.  And there is significant worker opposition to comprehensive immigration reform.  And, appallingly, among African-Americans.  People have gone overtime in trying to organize a battle royale – right? – for the country between African-Americans and Latinos on this whole issue.  So I’ve got a feeling it’s got some legs. […]

On white workers, I think we’ve got some real problems. I’ve spent a lot of time in Wisconsin and places like that where I have heard some of the most anti-immigrant sentiments around. It’s also, and this is where you get the black workers first; it’s so fucking rabidly racist – ’till black people get scared.  They don’t just mean you.  So you can organize them quicker.”

“F-ing rabidly racist,” huh?  But wait a minute.  The SEIU couldn’t BE more “left-wing.”  Remember Andy Stern and his “Workers of the world unite – it’s not just a slogan anymore.  It’s the way we’re gonna have to do our work”???

Labor unions have ALWAYS been left-wing.  But lo and behold, they have also ALWAYS been racist:

By giving labor unions the monopoly power to exclusively represent employees in a workplace, the Wagner Act had the effect of excluding blacks, since the dominant unions discriminated against blacks. The Wagner Act had originally been drafted with a provision prohibiting racial discrimination. But the American Federation of Labor successfully lobbied against it, and it was dropped. AFL unions used their new power, granted by the Wagner Act, to exclude blacks on a large scale. Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. DuBois, and Marcus Garvey were all critical of compulsory unionism.

Democrats were the party of slavery, and the party of the Klu Klux Klan (and see the link here for a thorough treatment).  They were the party of the Klanbake at the 1924 Democrat National Convention.

Let’s see how that trend has continued.  In the fact that the last politician who had not only been IN the Ku Klux Klan, but a Grand Wizard, was a DEMOCRAT who continued to SERVE as a Democrat until his death last year.

Or how about more recently, in former President Bill Clinton:

Bill Clinton helped sink his wife’s chances for an endorsement from Ted Kennedy by belittling Barack Obama as nothing but a race-based candidate.

“A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee,”the former president told the liberal lion from Massachusetts, according to the gossipy new campaign book, “Game Change.”

The book says Kennedy was deeply offended and recounted the conversation to friends with fury.

After Kennedy sided with Obama, Clinton reportedly griped, “the only reason you are endorsing him is because he’s black. Let’s just be clear.”

Or for that matter in Hillary Clinton, at least according to liberal Obama supporter Michael Pfleger, preaching in Obama’s own church:

“When Hillary was crying, and people said that was put on, I really don’t believe it was put on. I really believe that she just always  thought, ‘this is mine. I’m Bill’s wife. I’m white, and this is mine. I just gotta get up and step into the plate.’

Then out of nowhere, ‘I’m Barack Obama!’

Imitating Hillary’s response, screaming at the top of his lungs again, he continues, ‘Ah, damn! Where did you come from? I’m white! I’m entitled! There’s a black man stealing my show!’”

And how about liberal protestors who first called the Tea Party “racist” and then said of Clarence Thomas:

Quote from liberal protestor about black Justice Clarence Thomas: “Put him back in the fields  He’s a scumbag.  He’s a dumbshit scumbag.  Put him back in the fields.  [And what about Justice Samuel Alito?]  Alito should go back to Sicily.”

Another liberal “Common Cause” protestor took that racist ball and ran down the field.  Of black Justice Clarence Thomas she said, “String him up” [as in “Lynch him!”].  Another liberal said of Justice Thomas: “I dunno, ’cause I’m all about peace, but I would say torture.”

Like this, maybe?

Yeah, you string that black man up, liberals.  You torture him.  You put his “kind” back in the fields where they belong.  You use your organizational power as a labor union to keep him down and out of a job.  He ought to be serving coffee, not running for president.  Hillary Clinton ought to be president, because after all, she’s WHITE and ENTITLED.

Here’s another very recent example of racist bias and the left versus the right:

Juan Williams’ Wife: NPR Liberals Are Hypocrites
Wednesday, 20 Jul 2011 11:34 AM
By Ronald Kessler

Delise Williams, the wife of Fox News contributor Juan Williams, tells Newsmax that “so-called liberals” at NPR treated her — a light-skinned African-American — as if she didn’t exist.

“The NPR people were hypocrites because they are supposed to be the liberals who are accepting of all kinds of people and inclusive, and they were the most exclusive group in my experience of going to events related to work that I have ever seen,” says Delise, a former social worker who is the daughter of a doctor.

Juan Williams’ book “Muzzled: The Assault on Honest Debate” hits bookstores next week. It reveals that for years before NPR fired him, NPR executives harassed him over what he did or did not say on the air.

NewsmaxTV interviewed Juan about the book, including how Fox News President Roger Ailes expanded Juan’s role at Fox and made sure he would not suffer a pay cut because NPR had fired him over what he had said on Fox.

In the meantime, Delise says that she and Juan were the only blacks at NPR parties, a point confirmed by Juan. In general, both say, African-Americans were found only in low level jobs such as security guards.

So other than – to paraphrase that SEIU Vice President, “fucking rabidly left-wing” pseudo-journalism – why on earth would ANYBODY with even a scintilla of objectivity assume that just because someone is racist or anti-immigrant, they must therefore be “right-wing”???

These “journalists” and “reporters” are biased to the cores of their shriveled little cockroach souls.  They have been playing this same dishonest flagrently biased game for so long it is unreal.

If you read them and assign them any credibility at all, you are filling your own soul with lies.  And it is long-passed time for you to quit stupidly and naively filling your soul with blatant lies and propaganda.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

8 Responses to “WHY Does Mainstream Media Propaganda Brand Norway Killer Breivik As A ‘Christian’ And A ‘Right-Wing Radical’?”

  1. Free Market Capitalist Says:


    I’ve just recently found your blog and, I must say, that it has been refreshing and a great help to me in defending individual liberty against the Marxist socialist liberals. You have a gift for so eloquently telling the truth about the left and exposing the crafted lies that they produce.

    I’ve been a futures trader for some time and have been active in trader message boards, too, sharing ideas about the market. There is one board that goes beyond just trading, where it’s founder, a devout and very angry marxist socialist, often goes off about republicans and conservatism. His biggest complaint is that he believes that corporations control the government in attempts to manipulate and, ultimately, enslave the poor and middle classess. He blasts that conservative republicans are behind this “fascist” agenda. I’ve had countless arguments with this person, especially recenlty with the debt ceiling crisis.

    In your most recent posting, you’ve hit the nail right on the head by stating:

    “To put it briefly, the communist Soviet intellectuals – and all leftist Western intellectuals influenced by them – created a false dichotomy between fascism and communism. Zeev Sternhall observed how study of fascist ideology had been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism” [Sternhall, “Fascist Ideology,” in Fascism: A Reader’s Guide: Analyses, Interpretations, Bibliography, p. 316]. Marxism simply redefined fascism as its polar opposite in order to create a bogeyman: If Marxism was progressive, fascism became conservative. If Marxism was left wing, fascism had to be right wing. If Marxism championed the proletariat, then fascism had to champion the bourgeoisie. If Marxism was socialist, fascism needed to be capitalist. And the fact that none of the above was even remotely true was entirely beside the point.

    Although, I think corporations attempt and do influence government through special interest and lobbying, they do so only to protect their interest from a Marxist left wing government that is hell bent on redistributing the wealth. This individual that I’ve described, as I’ve stated before, believes that coporations and the right wing idiology are evil; whereas, I believe that it is really the goverment that is truly evil and the root problem, not really the coporations. He is a great example of the false dichotomy that was created between fascism and communism. This individual that I speak of is also an athiest and I truly believe that he is under the heavy control of demonic spirits – his marxist, progressive liberal beliefs are his religion (doctrine of devils) and a false on at that.

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    Free Market Capitalist,

    I think it was in this article – https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/ap-reported-fact-u-s-economy-the-worst-since-the-last-time-we-let-a-socialist-run-it/ – that I went into the concept of “crony capitalism” and how it happens. Somewhere I have pointed out in the past that the essence of national socialism (also called FASCISM) is “crony capiticalism.” Hitler, Himmler, etc al were not CEOs who took over the government the way the leftist propaganda describes it; they were politicals who took over the corporations. In communism, corporations are nationalized; in fascism, they are coerced to do the state’s bidding by regulations and threats. In fascism, you don’t have to “nationalize” corporations; you simply regulate them and coerce them and threaten them to do your bidding. And that’s just what Obama is doing now. It is also to a great extent what China is doing. Since both fascism and communism are merely forms of socialism, it is relatively easy to blend them into a hybrid.

    Obviously, corporations try to influence and control policy. We could alleviate a great deal of this by means of TERM LIMITS and LOBBYING REFORMS. Corporations SHOULD have influence over society and its laws because of their power to create jobs that benefit a society; they should NOT have influence that derives from inherently corrupt practices of politically-connected insiders trading influence for money.

    There are obviously corporations that have done some pretty vile things. That gets us into issues of basic morality and religion more than economics. John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” And George Washington may have been even stronger yet: “Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.” Which is to say that if a people aren’t moral or religious, their businesses won’t be, either. And for liberals to undermine morality and religion and then attack businesses as “immoral” shows that they are actually far more evil and far more part of the problem than the businesses they attack. It is beyond asinine for liberals to argue that people should have no moral responsibility whatsoever, but that businesses should either be saintlike or be nationalized.

    Ultimately, you are correct. As long as there are politicians like Obama and like the Democrats who demagogue and demonize business, business will have to take extreme measures to try to protect/insulate themselves. Which is to say, liberals force businesses to make poison, and then complain about the poison they themselves forced the businesses to make.

  3. bill Says:

    Christians haven’t killed that many people in norway since Hitler and his christian army invaded

  4. Michael Eden Says:


    There are people with things called “facts” that disagree with you.

    See for example: “Hitler Wasn’t ‘Right Wing’, Wasn’t ‘Christian’; And Nazism Was Applied Darwinism”

    Breivik wrote about his belief in Darwinism; he said you could be a “Christian atheist.” No you can’t. And for you or Breivik to think you can redefine “Christianity” over what Jesus Himself and His Apostles taught is morally insane. We’ve got the teachings of Jesus, the writings of the Apostles, the Bible, the Church Fathers, 2,000 years of Christian tradition saying one thing and you and Breivik saying something different. What is morally wrong with you that you give yourself the right to define groups by your own hate and bigotry rather than what Jesus Himself said about the group He forged???

    You are a bigot and the worst kind of hater. People like you always talk about “tolerance” when YOU are the most intolerant fascists of all.

    Hitler said: “Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.”

    Hitler said: “after difficult inner struggles I had freed myself of my remaining childhood religious conceptions. I feel as refreshed now as a foal on a meadow”.

    Hitler said: “We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany.”

    Hitler said: “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”

    Joseph Goebbels – who understood Hitler and what he believed FAR better than you – wrote in his diary that: “The Fuhrer is a man totally attuned to antiquity. He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity…”

    Goebbels also wrote in his personal diary that “Hitler had “expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity.”

    Hannah Arendt – who had been Heidegger’s mistress – describes Nazi spirituality in her book “Eichmann in Jerusalem”:

    When convicted Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann went to the gallows, “He was in complete command of himself, nay, he was more; he was completely himself. Nothing could have demonstrated this more convincingly than the grotesque silliness of his last words. He began by stating emphatically that he was a Gottglaubiger, to express in common Nazi fashion that he was no Christian and did not believe in life after death” [p. 252].

    Why do you feel so comfortable living in and spreading lies, Bill???

  5. Germán Says:

    Lol, try being a Muslim to write so much about demonization of a religion.

    I am a Muslim convert, but of course I agree with you on this one. It is just the fanatic secularist narrative. Secularist fanatics get away with beheading the father of modern chemistry, Antoine Lavoisier, with their secularist fanatic tribunal stating “The (Secularist) Republic does not need scientists”, and they have the nerve to claim Christianity is against science or backwards because Galileo Galilei was placed under home arrest…

  6. Michael Eden Says:


    As you know, I am a Christian and I have enjoyed arguing with Muslims over theology (which is to say we had a good discussion; we weren’t shouting at each other; we parted friends).

    There is an extremist form of Islam – held by such as Osama bin Laden – which essentially wants to make the world Muslim by FORCE.

    I would never force you to become a Christian. And the reason is that Jesus said mere outward conformity does nothing; people need to experience a transformation from within that can only result from choice.

    You and I would probably agree that people OUGHT to live as though they are religious; which is to say that there are certain moral precepts which most religions recognize and embrace that govern human morality. We are both “people of the book” in that very real sense.

    Btw, one of my favorite arguments for the existence of God is the Kalam Cosmological Argument – which actually had its origins among Muslim intellectuals (it has been developed since).

    This idea that God and science somehow contradict is absurd; and it is a pleasure to have people from other religions affirm that.

  7. Germán Says:

    I am aware, a real Christian would never force anyone to become a Christian, and the same goes for a real Muslim, since the very Quran talks against compulsion in religion, and the 7th century Achtiname of Mohammad sets the protection to Christians very unambiguously. Both religions command the human being to study and observe nature, as a direct proof of the existence of the Creator.

    Bin Laden and the Saudi-made Salafi cult altogether are just as “Muslim” extremism as the Norwegian terrorist is a “Christian” extremist. That is, they are not members of the religion attributed to them at all. Because religion (just as goodness, kindness, etc.) is not a club membership, but something which is enacted. “Muslim” itself is a verb: submission to the Almighty (an Almighty who commands the good, not evil deeds), and therefore an action, and not a passive label. I regard Christianity similarly, since I used to be a Christian and respect it much to this day.

    One can’t complain at the labeling of the Norwegian terrorist as “Christian” extremist, while at the same time calling Osama Bin Laden a “Muslim” extremist. For Bin Laden disrespects Islam just as deeply as Breivig disrespects Christianity when claiming any — even remote — relation to it.

    I personally advocate for Islamic Fundamentalism, that is, deep faithfulness to Islam and taking its fundamentals seriously. For just as taking Jesus’ message from the Gospels seriously and adhering to them faithfully and consistently could never turn anyone into an evil or dangerous person — but the very opposite — the same applies in the case of Islam.

    I see things like the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Umeyyad and Ottoman invasions of Europe, the War on Terror, 9/11, and Colonialism, not as products of “religious extremism” (a concept that belongs to a secularist historical narrative which doesn’t really make any sense to me and sounds to me like an oxymoron similar to “kindness extremism”), but the very opposite: the lack of religious regard, deafness toward the message of all prophets of God, and the disrespecting of the fundamentals of Christianity and Islam, at the hands of corrupted rulers who gave more value to the worldly than the Hereafter (and therefore I consider them much more secularists than religious people).

    As a matter of fact, as the Umeyyad caliphs were invading Spain in the name of Islam, they were slaughtering and persecuting the very grandsons and daughter of Mohammad, whom our Prophet himself declared as their heirs in spiritual leadership, and burning and forging Islamic traditions to award themselves more power.

    History seems to repeat itself, and it is only us to blame if we don’t learn to see beyond the misconceptions and ignore the message of our religions to study the world and use our God-given intellectual faculties for His sake.

  8. Michael Eden Says:


    You clearly have excellent intentions with regards to your religion.

    Obviously, as a Christian, I don’t agree with Islam and many of its tenets; so I don’t say the above as agreeing with Islam, but merely to point out that you as a religious person have noble ideas.

    I would disagree with you regarding your statement that Breivig can be considered a Christian in a way that Osama bin Laden could be considered a Muslim for one reason:

    In John 3:3, Jesus said to Nicodemus: “Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God’.”

    Breivig specifically says you do NOT have to be born again to be a Christian. But the “born again” experience is fundamental to the Christian life in a way that I do not see any parallel in Islam.

    It would be tantamount to Osama bin Laden saying, “You don’t have to follow the Five Pillars of Islam to be a Muslim.”

    When a Christian celebrates communion, we are engaging in a physical ritual which mirros a spiritual reality. The bread represents the result, and the blood represents the means by which the result is attained. God created us in His image so that He could assume our image (I know you as a Muslim do not believe this; I am merely explaining the concept that Christians embrace). He added a human nature to His divine nature so that He could represent the human race. And as a human He vicariously bore our sins; He took the blame for us would be another way to put it. Such that if we accept His sacrifice and accept Him as Lord (the wine or blood element), we receive Him in a unique way (as represented by the bread or body of Christ). When you eat the bread, you take it into you; and it becomes part of you. And every Christian has the life of Christ dwelling within him or her.

    Jesus said in Revelation 3:20, “‘Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.”

    1 Corinthians 6:20 says, “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?”

    I don’t see anywhere in Islam where Allah personally comes inside of your heart and dwells within you.

    And that’s the aspect that makes Breivig fundamentally incompatible with Christianity. You’re only a Christian if you have Jesus in your heart, and he says you don’t need to have Jesus in your heart.

    There is simply no denying that Islam has a far greater issue regarding totalitarianism, oppression and yes, terrorism than does Christianity. I can’t imagine someone making a rational argument otherwise. If you go to any “Christian” country, you can freely wave your Qu’ran and preach for people to embrace Islam and reject Christianity. How many Muslim countries would allow me to wave my Bible and urge people to renounce Allah for Jesus? And when we look at the sheer number of “terrorist attacks,” there no longer remains any question whatsoever.

    So I utterly reject the idea that there is any sort of moral equivalence between Osama bin Laden and this Breivig freak. Because the former is merely one of HUNDREDS of thousands just like him, who think like him and have acted just like him; whereas the other is an isolated lone freak who publicly rejected the fundamental tenet of the religion that secular humanists have tried to link him to.

    That said, I most certainly affirm that Islam does not require one to be a “terrorist,” nor does it require one to be at enmity with either the West or with Christianity. And that one can be a Muslim and truly want and seek peace. And I have met “fundamentalist Muslims” such as yourself at lectures, and argued with you, and enjoyed myself quite immensely in your company!

    As for your remarks re: the Crusades, we can come to large agreement. I am glad you affirm that Muslims committed many wrongs; and I affirm that Christians committed many wrongs as well.

    Here is the central wrong, from my perspective as a Christian: I believe and accept that Muslims have a “holy land” (Mecca), which is a literal, geographical place. I also believe and accept that Jews have a “holy land,” (most particularly Jerusalem), which is a literal, geographical place.

    Christians do NOT have a “holy land” in that sense. We don’t have a “Mecca” or a “Jerusalem”; heaven is the only “land” we inherit.

    I’m not sure I’m being clear, but my point is that when Christians went into the Holy Land and fought for it as some physical kingdom of God on earth for Christians, they were wrong because no where in our Scriptures are we ever told to fight for a physical land like that.

    I don’t say this to in any way denigrate Mecca OR Jerusalem; both Muslims and Jews share this aspect of being a people tied to a physical land in their Scriptures; Christians specifically are NOT tied to a physical location.

    And, yes, history DOES repeat itself. What is interesting is that, as much as Osama bin Laden attacked Christians or the West as “Crusaders,” NO ONE was acting more like a “Crusader” than Osama HIMSELF. As an example, he went to our land and attacked us.

    I am glad you chose to visit and comment here, German. I know that we disagree over a great many things, and that if we were to talk together we’d argue. But we would not argue as hateful people, but as friends.

    Dennis Prager once said something that I very much agree with: “I prefer clarity to agreement.” I don’t seek to forge some pseudo-consensus with you; I merely seek to better understand. And I have a feeling you think the same way.

    We both agree that there is a God. We both agree that He is personal. And we both agree that He is the sort of Being who revealed Himself to humanity through prophets in a written Word. We also both agree that this Being called us to live differently in light of His revelation. And in fact we even agree on many of the ways in which we should live.

    Now, in many other ways, Islam and Christianity are fundamentally and profoundly different from one another, and those differences cannot be reconciled (e.g., Jesus cannot be the Son of God and share in the full nature of the Deity and NOT the Son of God at the same time; one religion must be wrong). And while I believe we must contend with one another in debate and argument, there is no reason that we must physically fight one another or even hate one another.

    It is a fools’ errand to pretend we have no differences, as many do. We have MANY differences. But as we both recognize that God gave us free will to accept Him or reject Him, we can grant one another the right to believe as we choose and treat one another with mutual respect. Tolerance does not mean we have to agree; it actually PRESUPPOSES a disagreement. But when you tolerate me, you understand that we are different and respect my right to be different – even though you think I’m wrong.

    There’s something else upon which I believe you and I would agree. And that is the idea as to who should judge/condemn who. And the answer is that God/Allah should be the One who judges, not man. I could kill you, or you could kill me, and neither act would determine the ontological validity of either of our competing truth claims. If I beat up and elderly disabled woman, does that “prove” that my way of thuggery is superior to her way of life? So why on earth would we engage in violence, as though might somehow made right?

    God/Allah will ultimately judge between us, just as He will ultimately judge ALL things.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: