The shooting of 70+ people who had assembled to watch The Dark Knight Rises just after midnight July 20, 2012 by 24 year-old James Holmes is truly deplorable - tragic - and can't be valiated or rationalized in any way. I mean he killed twelve people! I don't think that any sane person who thinks that this was a good thing in any kind of way. When Christians point out that Atheism doesn't give unbelievers a moral foundation they are not arguing that Atheists cannot recognize evil nor deplore it. They should! We all should! I am glad that people like John Loftus can write:
My heart goes out to all of the victims including the people of Aurora and the owner of the theater who's business will never be the same. There is a lot of commentary about this tragic incident and its repercussions in our free society. I would like to discuss why it was wrong. Do I even need to say why? Source
No - we know it is wrong. And yes, Loftus is right that innocent people suffered and didn't deserve to have their lives stolen from them in varying degrees. However Loftus did not talk about why that is wrong. I agree that it wrong but if you think that we all products of random, uncaused, undirected, and natural processes, why does it matter? Of course it matters but why? If those people who died in such a terrible way no longer exists or if Holmes gets off (unlikely) how is Justice served? Does it even matter if Justice exists? Who says? Who decides? What if you disagree? It's questions like these that a godless worldview cannot answer. But I don't want to digress too far from the faceplant of the day.
This incident reminds me of the massacre in Norway from last year when Anders Behring Breivik went on his shooting spree in Norway. We all wanna know what happened. Why did this happen? Last year John Loftus blamed the incident on Anders Behring Breivik being a Christian (source) Fortunately he avoids this blunder regarding Holmes but Cathy Cooper falls for it.
I see about three reasons that are being given for Holmes' rampage. Some Christians are blaming Hollywood and or comic books inspiring violence. I totally reject this because anyone who knows anything about what the Batman character symbolizes and stands for could not bed inspired to hurt others. If someone were that confused that would mean that they were completely incapable of understanding written text or television or images or movies. Such a person should be locked up. I really liked how Comics Alliance posted a single image from one Frank Miller's Batman stories that sums up Batman's relationship with guns (on the right)
As for how Cathy Cooper blames Christian doctrine, let us look at a faceplant in the making.
In times like this, when something horrendous happens, people tend to hypothesize as to the reasons why. As most everyone knows by know, the "nice Christian boy," James Holmes massacred 12 innocent people and wounded many more in his rampage in a Colorado movie theatre.
What does a "nice Christian boy" believe? What does a "nice Christian boy" do? Does a "nice Christian boy" shoot over 70 people? Being raised in a church or even attending a church does not make you a Christian. I'd like to know what is about Holmes that leads Cooper to conclude that Holmes is a Christian. Fail number 1.
One hypothesis was put forth by the Christian apologist, Rick Warren, in one of his latest tweets, when he said, "When students are taught they are no different from animals, they act like it." The implied hypothesis being, that it's the result of teaching science, and in particular, Darwinianism and materialism. I propose that there is a better explanation.
"Impiled hypothesis"? So Cooper is putting words in Pastor Rick Warren's mouth and has no proof that he was saying that Holmes did what he did because he was taught that science was bad. I wonder if she knows that Holmes had been a graduate school student in neural biology which would mean a steady stream of Darwinism. If I were more like Cooper I would suggest that it was studying neural biology that drove Holmes insane, but I don't think that way. Neither does Warren. Warren does not hate science and he would not equate learning that we are no different from animals with all science. I mean let's have some honesty here. Fail number 2.
My hypothesis, which is not new by the way [and wrong], as I have pointed out numerous times, the great Christian philosopher Pelagius pointed out long ago, that if you promulgate the notion that people are born bad, and cannot help but to sin, but will still gain entrance into paradise as long as they "repent"-- they are more likely to sin, repent, sin, repent--and repeat when necessary. Pelagius was wise, and realized that this belief would lead to "moral laxity"--which is quite evident in our predominantly Christian society, and amongst Christians in particular.
And I point out again that Pelagius does not represent what Christians believe in the slightest. We never have. He was defeated and rebutted centuries ago! If she is so familiar with Pelagius she should also be familiar with Augustine and should be willing to explain why Pelagius is right but Augustine is wrong other than Pelagius butchering of the Gospel fits with her meanderings. Fail number 3. Here this will help if you don't know how about the debate between Pelagius and Augustine. Click here. Spoiler: Augustine won.
My hypothesis is that when Christians are taught they are "born sinners" and cannot help but to sin, as they are taught it is not possible for them to be perfect, and that they are nevertheless given the "free gift" of salvation, they will have more of a tendency to act immorally, or, when Christians are taught they live in a world that is dominated by Satan, that it leads to immorality. Either way, it leads to immorality, and chaos, and Christianity provides believers with a basis for the belief that they are absolved from taking responsibility for their own bad behavior. Jesus does that for them.
Nope. Jesus does not absolve us of responsibility. Jesus makes it possible for us live free from sin. Here Cooper really butchers what Christianity is. Why would the free gift of Salvation lead to a tendency to act immorally? It doesn't and it shouldn't. Paul was accused of this and as I have shown before in previous posts, Paul would not agree. Regardless of whether or not you think that the Bible is wrong and not truth, you cannot agree that the Bible teaches us that it is okay for us to continue to sin. And if you think it is just Paul, look at the mistake you are making:
Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us. - 1 Peter 2:12
I do not think that we can say that James Holmes lives up to that. Failure number 4.
As Benge Nsenduluka pointed out in the article he wrote for the Christian Post, James Holmes was a "
normal Christian boy" heavily involved in his local Presbyterian church. As Rev. G. Aiken Taylor pointed out in his article,
What Presbyterians Believe:
Next we see how Cooper hilariously tries to throw Christian doctrine under the bus.
Everything is Determined by God
Presbyterians believe that everything which happens takes place according to the will of God and can be fully understood only in the will of God. Nothing can come to any man that He does not allow for his own purposes and glory. He overrules the actions of evil men and brings their evil to naught. He works all things after the counsel of His own will and turns all things--even apparent evil--to ultimate good in the lives of those who love Him, who are called according to His purpose.
Yeah, so?
Original Sin
Human nature is rather sinful and "inclined to evil as the sparks fly upward." We see undesirable behavior and sinful tendencies in the smallest infant, and we observe that without discipline and restraint human beings inevitably live selfishly. This view of human nature Presbyterians describe by the term "Original Sin" because human imperfection seems to be both innate and instinctive. This imperfection (sin) taints every facet of our personalities. Consequently the description of Original Sin to which Presbyterians subscribe is summarized in the doctrine of Total Depravity. Mankind, we say, is inevitably (originally) and altogether (totally) marked by sin on account of the Fall.
That describes our state without Jesus. It is what you are born into and what you choose to continue to be in when you reject God. Good luck with that.
Total Depravity
The doctrine of Total Depravity also suggests man's helplessness. Human beings are not only sinful, they are also helplessly sinful. We are spiritually dead in our sins, bound under the guilt and penalty of sin and unable to do anything to please God. None of our works are pure and therefore pleasing to God. All our righteousness is as filthy rags. We do not even have it in us to turn to Him that we may be cleansed and healed.
Agreed. Honestly look at yourself. You know you have failed to live up to the standard of right and wrong you have placed on yourself, let alone God's.
Jesus Takes Responsibility for Their Sins, and Absolves Them from Having to do so Themselves
He, the Eternal Son, took upon Himself our nature, lived a sinless life as a man and died on the Cross in a sacrifice which somehow paid the price of our redemption from sin-we know not how but we believe it. In a victory over death and the grave our Lord rose from the dead and returned to the Father from Whom He sent the Holy Spirit to apply to those who would believe the effects of His work. In the gift of the Holy Spirit-by grace through faith-the originally sinful nature of man is transfigured to become Godly and possessed of the capacity to be God-like. This "new life" begins now in the hearts of those who believe in and receive Jesus Christ.
Jesus does not take the responsibility for our sin or the responsibility to do right! Jesus takes the accountability. He is our propitiation. We are never declared "innocent" but in Christ we are "Not guilty". Cooper has this confused.
Everything, Including Faith and Salvation is Determined by God
In keeping with the doctrine of Sovereignty, under which God is seen to determine all things, Presbyterians believe that the knowledge of Christ and the acceptance of Christ which leads to Salvation also come from God. We are saved by faith alone and this faith itself is a gift of God. Our personal redemption is not due to any goodness of our own for we have none; neither is it earned by our good works for sinners cannot accumulate "credit" leading to redemption.
Now we can see that while they say it is possible to become "Godly"
[where?] they counter that with Original Sin, which would indicate that no matter what, humans have a tendency to be immoral.
Original sin is not in contention with salvation. Original sin is the reason we need a savior. We need to be freed from sin. Read Romans 5 again. And keep going to Romans 6.
Now follow the logic. If one like James Holmes, performs an act such as murdering innocent people, then that act could not have occurred unless God willed it to be. Recall, as stated above, that
Presbyterians believe nothing can come to any man that He does not allow for his own purposes and glory. He overrules the actions of evil men and brings their evil to naught. Now we see the double bind message that is propagated by the Christian Presbyterian belief system.
Yes, God is in control of everything! But Holmes sin in killing and shooting so many people is not part of something that God desired or even wanted. God has a reason for willing it. God has reason for allowing it. I don't know what it is but I know God is good and God knows what God is doing. Cooper is missing something. Whenever any one of us does anything good, that is because God over-ruled our evil nature and blessed us to do good. I don't think she understands Christian theology in general or Presbyterians in general.
As to not having to "reinvent the wheel," and to save time, I will quote at length as to the meaning of "double bind":
Gregory Bateson and his colleagues defined the double bind as follows (paraphrased):
The situation involves two or more people, one of whom (for the purpose of the definition), is designated as the "victim". The others are people who are considered the victim's superiors: figures of authority (such as parents), whom the victim respects.
Repeated experience: the double bind is a recurrent theme in the experience of the victim, and as such, cannot be resolved as a single traumatic experience.
A "primary injunction" is imposed on the victim by the others in one of two forms:
(a) "Do X, or I will punish you";
(b) "Do not do X, or I will punish you".
(or both a and b)The punishment may include the withdrawing of love, the expression of hate and anger, or abandonment resulting from the authority figure's expression of helplessness.
A "secondary injunction" is imposed on the victim, conflicting with the first at a higher and more abstract level. For example: "You must do X, but only do it because you want to". It is unnecessary for this injunction to be expressed verbally.
If necessary, a "tertiary injunction" is imposed on the victim to prevent them from escaping the dilemma. See phrase examples below for clarification.
Finally, Bateson states that the complete list of the previous requirements may be unnecessary, in the event that the victim is already viewing their world in double bind patterns. Bateson goes on to give the general characteristics of such a relationship:
When the victim is involved in an intense relationship; that is, a relationship in which he feels it is vitally important that he discriminate accurately what sort of message is being communicated so that he may respond appropriately;
And, the victim is caught in a situation in which the other person in the relationship is expressing two orders of message and one of these denies the other;
And, the victim is unable to comment on the messages being expressed to correct his discrimination of what order of message to respond to: i.e., he cannot make a metacommunicative statement.Thus, the essence of a double bind is two conflicting demands, each on a different logical level, neither of which can be ignored or escaped. This leaves the victim torn both ways, so that whichever demand they try to meet, the other demand cannot be met. "I must do it, but I can't do it" is a typical description of the double bind experience.
For a double bind to be effective, the victim must be unable to confront or resolve the conflict between the demand placed by the primary injunction and that of the secondary injunction. In this sense, the double bind differentiates itself from a simple contradiction to a more inexpressible internal conflict, where the victim really wants to meet the demands of the primary injunction, but fails each time through an inability to address the situation's incompatibility with the demands of the secondary injunction. Thus, victims may express feelings of extreme anxiety in such a situation, as they attempt to fulfil the demands of the primary injunction albeit with obvious contradictions in their actions."
The Christian belief system has many "double binds" as illustrated above, such as the free will/determinist double bind, and the godly/born sinner double bind, and so forth. Now, these double binds lead to mental illness, such as schizophrenia, as indicated below:
No double binds. We don't have free will. We do have will of our own but it is enslaved to sin - that is what a "born sinner" means. That is why we must be Born again if we are to be godly. If there is confusion here it belongs to those who would reject the scripture. Funny how it makes no sense when you start by rejecting it at the start. Fail number four.
The Double Bind Theory was first articulated in relationship to schizophrenia, but Bateson and his colleagues hypothesized that schizophrenic thinking was not necessarily an inborn mental disorder but a learned confusion in thinking. Many people have forgotten that Bateson and his colleagues were working in the Veteran's Administration Hospital (1949–1962) with World War II veterans. As soldiers they'd been able to function well in combat, but the effects of life-threatening stress had affected them. At that time, 18 years before Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder was officially recognized, the veterans had been saddled with the catch-all diagnosis of schizophrenia. Bateson didn't challenge the diagnosis but he did maintain that the seeming nonsense the patients said at times did make sense within context—and he gives numerous examples in section III--Pathology in Relationship (in Steps to an Ecology of Mind). For example, a patient misses an appointment, and when Bateson finds him later the patient says 'the judge disapproves'; Bateson responds, "You need a defense lawyer" see following (pp. 195–6) Bateson also surmised that people habitually caught in double binds in childhood would have greater problems—that in the case of the schizophrenic, the double bind is presented continually and habitually within the family context from infancy on. By the time the child is old enough to have identified the double bind situation, it has already been internalized, and the child is unable to confront it. The solution then is to create an escape from the conflicting logical demands of the double bind, in the world of the delusional system. (see in Towards a Theory of Schizophrenia-Illustrations from Clinical Data.
One solution to a double bind is to place the problem in a larger context, a state Bateson identified as Learning III, a step up from Learning II (which requires only learned responses to reward/consequence situations). In Learning III, the double bind is contextualized and understood as an impossible no-win scenario so that ways around it can be found.
Bateson's double bind theory was never followed up by research into whether family systems imposing systematic double binds might be a cause of schizophrenia. This complex theory has been only partly tested, and there are gaps in the current psychological and experimental evidence required to establish causation The current understanding of schizophrenia takes into account a complex interaction of genetic, neurological as well as emotional stressors, including family interaction and it has been argued that if the double bind theory overturns findings suggesting a genetic basis for schizophrenia then more comprehensive psychological and experimental studies are needed, with different family types and across various family contexts.*
We have already heard of some of the emotional stressors that triggered James Holmes' rampage, such as dropping out of the PhD neuroscience program at Colorado University. I hypothesize that this combination of factors including the double bind message of Christianity that he was taught and believed, combined with the stressors of his life, led him to his rampage.
Wonder where her psychology degree is. And she still hasn't explained how she thinks Holmes is a christian or that she even understands what that means.
The other horn of my disjunction goes without saying. I merely note that we are all aware of the cases of the immoral actions and chaos committed by those who, whether they are Christian or non-Christian, are the result of their belief that they are controlled by Satan or possessed by demons or Satan and so on, and is the result of the teachings of Christianity. So either way, whether it be cases such as James Holmes or the other cases just mentioned, they are the result of the teachings of Christianity. This is the best explanation. Yes, James Holmes was a "normal Christian boy"--what a scary thought.
Satan does not need to take control of the godless. All Satan would have to do is just let you do just what you would naturally do - sin. In effect you can't argue that Satan possessed or controlled a person because original sin means that one could not tell a difference. I don't think she managed to show at all that Holmes is a Christian or acted within Christian concepts or ideas. Had he been a Christian this tragedy would have never happened.
_______________
Cathy Cooper
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind
Addendum: I merely mentioned the other disjunct because I was waiting for an example, and I knew it was forthcoming. Christians are so predictable. Here it is: http://christiandiarist.com/tag/james-holmes/
The Christian Diarist says it all in his title, "Satan Rears Himself in Colorado Shootings."
According to the Christian Diarist:
The suspected triggerman, 24-year-old James Holmes, will be described variously as “troubled” or “unstable” or “detached from reality.” But I am convinced that the young killer was operating under satanic influence.
Of course, to attribute today’s murder spree in the Rock Mountain State to the supernatural machinations of the evil one is to invite ridicule from those who refuse believe there are demonic forces at work in this fallen world of ours.
But the Scripture warns us that “we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”
Now, we have both disjuncts. In this case, James Holmes is absolved of his responsibility by the Christian Diarist as his actions are "due to Satan." Whether the person claims they are guided or controlled by Satan or whether others make the claim, either way, we can see the negative consequences of the Christian belief system on this subject.
No where did The Christian Diarist say that Holmes was not responsible. Holmes is a sinner. That is what sinners do. Same thing for all of us. I see nothing wrong with point out that there is such a thing as Satan action is wrong, but that does not mean we are not responsible. We are. Why do you think unrepentant sinners end up in hell? Sinners deserve hell because we have rebelled against God. Repentant sinners get grace - not of themselves. Hell is default.
Note, that the Christian doctrine expressed by the Christian Diarist is also a Christian double bind, as it teaches that everything is determined by God, and then turns around and blames Satan when something bad happens, as they claim he is responsible for the evils in the world, when they just said that God determines everything!! Again, this lead to mental illness such as schizophrenia.
Nope. There is plenty of blame to go around. More than enough of it is yours.
I hypothesize that this combination of factors including the double bind message of Christianity that he was taught and believed, combined with the stressors of his life, led him to his rampage, or it's the result of people believing the Christian teachings and doctrines that we live in a world that is dominated by Satan, which leads to immorality. Either way, it leads to immorality, and chaos, and Christianity provides believers with a basis for the belief that they are absolved from taking responsibility for their own bad behavior. Jesus does that for them.
How do you know what Holmes' believed? WE are not told in the Bible that we are not having to take responsibility for own bad behavior (and we all have bad behavior). AS stated above. We are responsible. If you want to be saved you need God. to save you - and it's not because you deserve it more than another. It's by grace. We are told to control ourselves and that if you don't it's proof that you are not one of God's people.
13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. - Galatians 5:13-26
This subject inevitably bring up the issue of theodicy. I think the best way to anwer how God could allow such suffering is to remind anyone reading this Jesus' answer.
Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”
6 Then he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree growing in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it but did not find any. 7 So
he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, ‘For three years now
I’ve been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven’t found
any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?’
8 “‘Sir,’ the man replied, ‘leave it alone for one more year, and I’ll dig around it and fertilize it. 9 If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.’” - Luke 13:1-9
I doubt that we will be get an apology for trying to paint Holmes as a Christian. There was no such retraction regarding Anders Behring Breivik.
Debunking Christianity: Why James Holmes' Rampage is the Result of the Teachings of Christianity
