The alleged Norwegian attacker

Started by Michael Slusser, July 23, 2011, 07:51:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic


As for the Norwegian killer...

He was not, is not a Christian. He clearly rejects Christ, while embracing "Christianity" as a cultural heritage thing to be protected. I suppose he could have just as easily embraced his Viking roots and made the same case for whatever it is he was trying to do.

I really don't understand this weird obsession to try to "blame" something or someone for what he did.

Can't we just accept that one of the horrible manifestations of original sin are these gross outbursts of violent murder?

Now there's a concept even more radical than anything the media is trying to spin up for this situation.


I said I was a registered Democrat, didn't say who I voted for. I have lots of pictures of Jesus and church fathers in my office, no room for the others you mention. I listen mostly to Bach and Led Zepplin, Bach more in the office, LZ more on the ride home.

I do not hang out in any of your old stomping grounds, no.



Quote from: PTMcCain on July 25, 2011, 05:53:23 PM

And you probably missed the post where I said I was a registered Democrat. I'm just full of little surprises, Scott.



I think the term must be "Andrew Jackson Democrat." I was reading over at DeYoung's about how you never came North of the Mason-Dixon line until you went to seminary, or some such thing.


We made furtive visits to Saint Louis when I was a small boy at least two times to see relatives, but no...I never ventured into Union territory seriously until I went away to college.

Michael Slusser

RC Cardinal cited in the big manifesto. Curiouser and curiouser.

Fr. Michael Slusser
Retired Roman Catholic priest and theologian


The guy is a nut, Michael, so what's your point? Just curious.

Michael Slusser

Quote from: PTMcCain on July 25, 2011, 07:57:19 PM
The guy is a nut, Michael, so what's your point?

That's essentially what you said in your first post on this thread, too, Paul. I'm not a fan of amateur psychiatric diagnosis, even when I've met the person in question. Insanity is not yet the opinion of those who arrested Breivik--rather the contrary. You may have your own sources, but what's your point, beyond your summary diagnosis?

On the other hand, the sources that Breivik used to furnish his thinking, even when those sources are not explicitly  religious, can be worth examining: they are sources from which he fashioned a poisonous error. We may be living among ideas that seem ordinary and innocent enough to us, but that in the wrong hands can be very destructive. If you don't want to talk about that, there are other threads.

Fr. Michael Slusser
Retired Roman Catholic priest and theologian


Quote from: Michael Slusser on July 25, 2011, 08:28:55 PM
We may be living among ideas that seem ordinary and innocent enough to us, but that in the wrong hands can be very destructive.

It seems to me that all manner of "ordinary and innocent" ideas can be "very destructive" in the "wrong hands."  Thus, while we by all means should learn what we can from the despicable acts involved here, we should take great care not to single out particular "ordinary and innocent" ideas as the cause of the acts.  They manifestly are not.  To act as if they were most assuredly would not prevent violence in the future.  It would only weaken the social fabric of a civilization built upon fundamental rights, including the right to free speech and the right to free association. 


OK, Michael, what are those "ideas that seem ordinary and innocent enough" but "in the wrong hands can be very destructive."

I'm happy to talk about that, but I'd like to know what you think those ideas are.


Has anyone heard yet any explanation for why, if he was opposed to Muslims, chose to kill fellow Norwegians?

David Garner

Quote from: ScottG on July 25, 2011, 05:45:13 PMI find that most interesting and rather surprising.  I say this because in many regards (at least on this forum and on your blog) you tend to fit the American right wing caricature and stereotype.  You have a handgun for your avatar with VDMA on the handle which just seems like a contradiction and yet at the same time so American.  Also, when someone speaks from a liberal perspective whether socially or theologically your none too good at responding to their insights in a gentle manner thus fulfilling the reactionary right wing caricature.

Isn't that rather the problem with caricatures and stereotypes, though?

My brother is probably in the top 10 most liberal people I know (by American standards -- by European standards he's pretty moderate <G>).  He's a professor of political science at a major university, and he is partisan Democrat to the core.

But he carries a gun and drives a Jeep.  Go figure.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).


Quote from: PTMcCain on July 25, 2011, 08:45:10 PM
Has anyone heard yet any explanation for why, if he was opposed to Muslims, chose to kill fellow Norwegians?

The explanation is that they were the youth segment of the Labor Party.  Further, I believe that he was actually targeting Gro Harlem Brundtland (3-time Norwegian Prime Minister, Labor Party) who had been out on Ut√łya earlier that day to deliver a speech.  So, both the bomb and the mass shooting were to hurt the Labor Party. 

The Labor Party has been very prominent in the past few decades in national Norwegian politics.  They are fairly leftist, and if you're a guy who doesn't like immigration of Muslims, then they're the ones who get blamed because they're the most prominent ones who made the immigration laws.  As for not targeting Muslims, he was fairly explicit that by attacking Muslims, you merely make them appear more persecuted.  He believes that the Democratic process cannot reverse what he describes as "Cultural Marxism", and therefore armed revolution needs to take place; and his actions were apparently supposed to be the opening salvo.

Also, just to note:  I in no way condone any of this--just have read a lot about it.  But I don't think we're dealing with just a "nut", but rather with somebody who is REALLY obsessive (I suppose that obsessiveness could be likened to nuttiness, but I don't think they're quite the same). 


OK, thanks for connecting the dots.


Very few people are totally nuts. Whether the issue is environmentalism, abortion, race issues, taxation, or any of a number of other things, a passionate sense of wrong coupled with a profound sense of helplessness to do anything about it makes some people go over the edge. Picture Edvard Munch's painting The Scream. It is like a slow-motion panic about the state of the world that suddenly catches up to full speed with some kind of crazy stunt. The Unabomber and Timothy McVeigh and their kind generally have at least a few interesting points but they have no sense of proportion and are driven more by despair than anything else. Evil always makes the least irrational and unjust argument it can get away with and still win the internal debate. Satan prowls, and his main weapon is lies, but they are always believable lies.


Or, on the other hand, Peter, thanks to original sin and its devastating consequences for the entire creation, we are all nuts, in varying degrees.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk