Originally Posted by sjh

When interviewed the most frequent source of news (by their statements) for young people (which was either 25 or 30 for this survey) was the Daily Show.

PS: John Stewart, by his own admission, has an agenda and a bias and he does not claim to be even-handed in his ridicule or humor.

Originally Posted by tjts1

Citation needed.

Originally Posted by sjh

The murderer, according to his written manifesto, uses the word 'christian' to mean, non-Islamic European. He also states (paraphrasing) that he has not accepted Christ as his savior.

The hatred of Jesus and His absolute message has existed for 2,000 years. That's not a topic of interest on this board and I will not pursue it.

But the bias of the media (with this being another example) should cause any intelligent person to know better than to accept their remarks without careful review.

Originally Posted by tonkovich

no hate here. you are merely exhibiting the traits of a cult member. whenever the cult is questioned, members must immediately circle the wagons, and move into that oh-so familiar "seige" mentality.

"Jesus and His absolute message"? that's pretty rich. do you have some proof of the purity and truth of this "message? somehow, i doubt it. yet, i am sure you believe, nevertheless, in this ridiculous fairy tale, either because it was drilled into you as a child, or, in a moment of desperation, you grabbed at whatever fantasy was handy. if you had been born on a different continent, you would probably be a hindu or a muslim.

carry on.

Originally Posted by sjh

You chose words with emotional bias. So be it.

The absoluteness of Christ message refers not to the Truth (which you don't believe) but His statement that there is no alternative.

I call it hatred. You call it intelligence or wisdom or something similar. Since we both know our belief's and that somehow I can state yours without personally attacking or degrading you but you do not reciprocate.

Regardless. The thread started of with factual inaccuracies. I've addressed them. I'm aware of the attitudes of a number (but not all) of the members here. I try to not initiate discussions that are pointless on this board but, when well enough, will respond to inaccuracies.

Perhaps while you congratulate yourself on your wisdom and my apparent limited capacities you might also consider the value of civility.

Originally Posted by tonkovich

there's nothing "civil", as you say, about proselytizing about your belief in some "unique absolutist" message that you are wise enough to understand, and which the rest of us should pay heed to. having grown up with people like you - true believers - i have seen the detrimental effects such beliefs have on the believer, and those within his - or her - orbit. that you would teacha child that they suffer from "original sin" is, basically. child abuse. that you would glory in the person of abraham, who would have gladly sacrificed his own child to gain favor with some imaginary, sadistic "god" shows the depths of your depravity, and the unreal world you live in.

Originally Posted by sjh

Read my posts. There is no proselytizing. I (accurately I hope) stated what was required to address the initial post while attempting to NOT get involved in another pointless discussion on this board about religion.

Since YOU raised a few issues I'll respond. My comments may be useful

1. I cannot speak for others but have never believed that my Faith indicated superior intelligence or that I am superior than others. It actually is my acknowledgment that I am not capable of living as I believe I needed to and that I sought assistance.

2. Original sin is a concept introduced by Catholicism to justify infant baptism. It is not Biblical. It is not the doctrine of my Faith or Church.

3. You know nothing about me. You, apparently have had negative experiences with religious people. Who hasn't. You err when you generalize your experiences and imposes them on all members of the group.

PS - Usually when one refers to another's comment with quotes they are stating that they have written exactly what the other party said.

Originally Posted by veggihatetank

A review of Anders Behring Breivik's 1,500-page manifesto shows the media's quick characterization of the Norwegian terrorist as a "Christian" may be as incorrect as it was to call Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh one.

Breivik was arrested over the weekend, charged with a pair of brutal attacks in and near Oslo, Norway, including a bombing in the capital city that killed 7 and a shooting spree at a youth political retreat on the island of Utoya that killed more than 80 victims.

Piecing together Breivik's various posts on the Internet, many media reports have characterized the terrorist – who says he was upset over the multiculturalist policies stemming from Norway's Labour Party – as a "right-wing, Christian fundamentalist."

Yet, while McVeigh rejected God altogether, Breivik writes in his manifesto that he is not religious, has doubts about God's existence, does not pray, but does assert the primacy of Europe's "Christian culture" as well as his own pagan Nordic culture.

Breivik instead hails Charles Darwin, whose evolutionary theories stand in contrast to the claims of the Bible, and affirms: "As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science, and it must always continue to be that way. Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I'm not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe."

In a question-and-answer section of his manifesto, Breivik asks himself, "What should be our civilisational [sic] objectives, how do you envision a perfect Europe?"

His answer is hardly the response of a "Christian utopian": "'Logic' and rationalist thought (a certain degree of national Darwinism) should be the fundament [sic] of our societies. I support the propagation of collective rational thought but not necessarily on a personal level."


Breivik also claims membership in the Freemasons, which many Christians consider to be a cultic organization.

Over and over again, Breivik goes out of his way to make clear to readers of his manifesto that he is not motivated by Christian faith.

"I'm not going to pretend I'm a very religious person, as that would be a lie," he says. "I've always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment. In the past, I remember I used to think: 'Religion is a crutch for weak people. What is the point in believing in a higher power if you have confidence in yourself!? Pathetic.' Perhaps this is true for many cases. Religion is a crutch for many weak people, and many embrace religion for self-serving reasons as a source for drawing mental strength (to feed their weak emotional state [for] example during illness, death, poverty etc.). Since I am not a hypocrite, I'll say directly that this is my agenda as well. However, I have not yet felt the need to ask God for strength, yet."


LOL he sounds more like some of the confused atheists posting on here than any Christian I know of.

Originally Posted by LaRondo

Citation? Your last line is about as "out of Bounds" as it gets. Not funny.

Originally Posted by veggihatetank

Are you responding on behalf of atheists, confused people on this post ,Darwinian terrorists or all combined?

Originally Posted by LaRondo

I think you need to find your owners manual and flip open the page that expands instructions on how to keep your marbles together.

Originally Posted by veggihatetank

It sounds like I struck a nerve..It's funny how a little bit of truth will do that.

Originally Posted by sjh

The murderer, according to his written manifesto, uses the word 'christian' to mean, non-Islamic European. He also states (paraphrasing) that he has not accepted Christ as his savior.

The hatred of Jesus and His absolute message has existed for 2,000 years. That's not a topic of interest on this board and I will not pursue it.

But the bias of the media (with this being another example) should cause any intelligent person to know better than to accept their remarks without careful review.