Blaming Christians For All Problems In The World, Then Killing Them


I’ve been documenting over time the rising level of anti-Christian sentiment sweeping the world , and in our own country.

Whether this disturbed gunman was moved to kill because he was scorned, or whether he always held animus, or was goaded into acting we may never know. What we do know is that he hated Christians, and wanted to kill as many of them as possible, even if he died in the process. His own personal jihad.

Sadly, his comments are familiar and the causal blame of the worlds woes on Christians populates internet forums and chat rooms to a rising chorus of agreement.

Colorado gunman posted anti-Christian manifesto: report

DENVER, Colorado (AFP) — The gunman responsible for shootings at two religious centers in Colorado warned of his plans for the rampage in anti-Christian rants posted on the Internet, it was reported Tuesday.
Matthew Murray, who shot dead four people in separate attacks on a missionary training center and mega-church on Sunday, published more than a dozen writings online prior to his shooting spree, KUSA TV reported in Denver.

“You Christians brought this on yourselves,” Murray reportedly wrote on a Web site for people who have left Pentecostal and fundamentalist religious organizations, shortly before the second of his two attacks.

“I’m coming for EVERYONE soon and I WILL be armed to the @#%$ teeth and I WILL shoot to kill. … God, I can’t wait till I can kill you people. Feel no remorse, no sense of shame, I don’t care if I live or die in the shoot-out.
“All I want to do is kill and injure as many of you … as I can especially Christians who are to blame for most of the problems in the world.”

KUSA reported that the wording of Murray’s rant mirrored language used by one of the Columbine High School gunmen, Eric Harris, before the 1999 massacre that left 12 students and a teacher dead.
Meanwhile it emerged Tuesday that Murray had killed himself following the shootings, rather than being shot dead by a security guard at the New Life evangelical church as had been previously thought.
A Colorado Springs police spokesman said the investigation by El Paso County Coroner’s Office showed that Murray died from a “self-inflicted gunshot wound” following the rampage.
Murray was armed with two handguns, an assault rifle, around 1,000 rounds of ammunition and several smoke grenades as he began his assault on the New Life church, which was packed with around 7,000 worshippers.
In other postings made on the day of the shootings, Murray says goodbye to people he has corresponded with in recent months.
“You guys were awesome. It’s time for me to head out and teach these (expletive) a lesson,” he wrote.
“Thanks for listening and all … even though even many of you ex-Pentecostals don’t understand …… (sic) See you all on the other side, we’re leaving this nightmare behind to a better place.”

The website address was not published by KUSA TV, which reported that Murray’s writings were removed on Monday.

It emerged on Monday that Murray had been expelled five years ago from a program run by the Youth With a Mission training center in the Denver suburb of Arvada, the scene of his first attack where two workers were shot dead.
Police said on Monday forensic evidence found at the two shooting scenes showed both attacks were carried out by Murray acting alone.



Filed under Chrisitan Viewpoint, Culture War, News

13 responses to “Blaming Christians For All Problems In The World, Then Killing Them

  1. petersonion

    It seems to me that Christians should embrace the persecution and anti-Christian sentiment they see rising around them; after all, it was through persecution that they solidified themselves as communities in the very beginning.

    What business does Christianity have being triumphant? Massive influence in Politics, nations built on Christian principles, wealth and mega-churches and websites and coalitions and T.V. programs, books (though Jesus only scratched a little in the dirt with a stick) and record-labels . . . only a hypocrite could have all this and call himself persecuted. And Jesus didn’t like hypocrites.

    But who am I kidding. Christianity is a religion of victims. Even in triumph they have to seek out enemies to feel themselves justified.

  2. invar

    It seems to me that Christians should embrace the persecution and anti-Christian sentiment they see rising around them

    I’m awful glad our Founders did not think like that and try to embrace the Crown’s desire to expunge Evangelical Christianity from these shores and put it back under the yoke of the Church of England’s Popery.

    When persecution comes full bore to this land, it will be because Christians did nothing to stop it, when they were blessed with the freedom and opportunity to do so.

  3. petersonion

    Wait, so who were our founders? The Puritans? By the time of the Revolution most of the idiosyncrasies of the biblical codes they had set up had been cleansed in favor of something more like English common law, something that actually worked on a broad scale. The bits that were left over could hardly be called enough for a foundation. But you know, Jesus figures SO prominently in the Constitution.

    “If the Kingdom of God is in the sea, the fishes will precede you; if the Kingdom of God is in the air, the birds will precede you; but the Kingdom of God is spread out upon the earth and you simply fail to see it.” . . . That is real Christianity, something that does not bother with culture and statehood. It cannot be persecuted.

    But oh, where is the fun in that? Can’t write a blog on that.

  4. invar

    y the time of the Revolution most of the idiosyncrasies of the biblical codes they had set up had been cleansed in favor of something more like English common law,

    Did you come to that deduction by yourself, or from reading Dawkins?? Your understanding of our true religious heritage is horrifyingly void.

    As it is with most.

  5. petersonion

    This is a long post, but you might want to read it because I am actually making an argument, instead of only smugly referring to someone’s “horrifying void” in understanding.

    First of all, Dawkins? What does a British evolutionary biologist have to do with American policy? You must think I am an atheist. I thought my last post made it clear I am Christian – just not your kind.

    I arrived at these facts (not deduction) by studying the history of American law, the actual documents. I will draw a quick contrast for you between the legal and governmental systems of the early (puritanical) colonies and the system established by the framers.

    Puritanical law was based on statutes, like the Code of Hamurabi, the Law of Manu and the Ten Commandments. In other words a list of “Thou Shalts” to be interpreted by the governing authority.

    The courts made no clear distinction between Legislative, Judicial and Executive offices. The governor of a colony also sat on the high court and could over-turn in appellate fashion (or not) any decision made in the more colloquial county courts. These high chancery courts did not require a jury of peers.

    Legal decisions in the early colonies were marked by a severe recommendation of death penalty for even minor infractions: blasphemy, public drunkenness, perceived witch-craft, disrespect to elders, and so on.

    As the colonies grew and diversified not only ethnically and culturally, but also grew more economically sophisticated, statutesque law could no longer cope with the complexity. Enter the beginning of common law.

    You will notice that we no longer function on a system of statutes. The bill of rights are rights, not “Thou Shalts” which are commandments. There is nothing like a written “covenant” in our foundational documents.

    We, of course, have a system of checks and balances, a clear distinction between Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches, so that no one authority is judge, jury and executioner.

    And common law makes certain that all judges are aware of the long history of how a particular law was interpreted, encouraging him/her to defer to precedent, but not necessarily be bound by it.

    As you can see, the systems are very different.

  6. petersonion

    I apologize for the length, but if you respond to me I would also like arguments instead of assertions. I took the time to read your “recapturing our heritage” slide-show to see if there was a void in my understanding. There is not, thank you.

    This is my problem with your intentions.

    There is a separation of church and state, and this is a good thing. In Christian ethics sin and evil are central concepts. According to Christian doctrine they should be rooted out and discarded at all costs, they have no business existing.

    What happens if these concepts enter into national legislation? As Katherine Harris so frighteningly said, “If you do not elect Christians, you are effectively legislating sin.”

    What I want to know is, who gets to decide what is a sin and what is evil? Who decides where the line is drawn between sins and evil that require the death penalty and others a slap on the wrist? These notion differ greatly amongst Christians, not to mention the many other types of people who make up our nation.

    Our founders spoke of escaping a “popery of politics” — this is exactly what a separation of church and state guarantees. And anyhow, which church would you like to bind to the state? The Catholic, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran . . ?

    What it really comes down to is personal effort. Only a person can decide for himself whether he is truly living according to God — it is not for government to decide, as our founders said, “every man to judge for himself in religion.”

    I do not disagree that we have a Christian heritage in our country. No one even needs to read the letters and speeches of our founders to acknowledge this. Everyone knows they were Christian.

    However, the personal letters and speeches of the founders ARE NOT THE OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS OF GOVERNMENT. And those documents are all that matter. I suggest you read them.

    Do you know why, as Adams said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people”? – – It is because the constitution does not require morals and religion. It grants such great personal liberty that people without morals can easily fall into corruption, having no guide but themselves to make that decision.

    But we must have faith that people can make the decision on their own. Government has no business making that decision for them.

    If you want a more ethical and spiritual nation, revolutionize Christian culture. Make it vibrant and attractive. Make it make sense in the face of science and our modern world. It is people like you who are turning the intelligent and creative away from Christianity.

    With respect to your passion, I am afraid you are what makes Christianity ugly.

  7. What am I supposed to think that you won’t (can’t?) respond to my argument?

  8. invar

    I don’t toss pearls before swine.

  9. Swine? You should be ashamed. I devoted a lot of time looking through your sight to see if I was indeed mistaken in some things; and I gave you some real questions and points that need to be answered if you want your evangelical movement to be legitimate and taken seriously.

    And all you can do is insult me?

    I can see your interpretation of Christianity has failed to make you a balanced and pleasant person.

    This is why you are a periphery movement and will never succeed.

  10. invar

    Your Jan.2 reply revealed with clarity that there was absolutely no point in having a discussion with you.

    You’ve already trampled pearls underfoot – and revealed your agenda and mindset. Why would I toss more in your direction and give legitimacy to absurd and ridiculous assertions you continue to make even after you say you read The Heritage Slide Show?

    I make no claim to be either ‘balanced’ or ‘pleasant’. Enough Christians have cowered to people pushing your agenda to be ‘pleasant’ to the point we’re losing the culture to hedonistic slavery along with the rest of our liberties.

    I stand in the gap other Christians refuse. They call it a culture war for a reason, and I’m willing to fight it.

    Whether or not we succeed is dependant upon motivated Christians doing what was expected of them, and not upon reasoning with people like you.

  11. I am pursing this conversation because I am interested, not because I am trying to cause grief.

    I am making arguments to have those questions answered, not to make assertions.

    I am genuinely interested in your response and you are denying me it. I’ll I get is ignored, dismissed or insulted.

    Why do you perceive disagreement or a challenge as disrespect? – An admission of interest is an admission of respect.

    You say: “Whether or not we succeed is dependant upon motivated Christians doing what was expected of them, and not upon reasoning with PEOPLE LIKE YOU.”

    Sir, this is were you are fundamentally wrong: I am exactly the type of person you want to persuade. I am a culture maker (not the greatest, but that’s not the point). If you want to win the culture war you have to enlist the culture makers: the artists, poets, musicians and thinkers. And at this present Christianity is failing.

    Look at Christianity when it was triumphant, look at its artists and thinkers: Michelangelo, Dante Aligheri, John Milton, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Pascal, Descarte, Raphael, Erasmus, Meister Eckhart, the Gregorian melodies and sublime requiems . . . to name a few. Christianity could call the greatest it’s own.

    Where are its culture makers now?

    There is most certainly a culture war going on, and I am very interested to see who will win it.

    You say know my “agenda and mindset”? I don’t even know my agenda and mindset. I go on all types of sites and challenge them to see how they will answer: the progressive secularists and liberals and libertarians and atheists and Buddhists and Muslims and environmentalists.

    I have no agenda, just an aesthetic requirement. I need to see that a culture can be beautiful.

    So these are my questions, which I hope you will answer:

    1) What do you think my agenda is?

    2) If your agenda is triumphant, what will America look like? (I need more than Ann Coulter’s “everyone will be Christian and happy”.)

    3) What is modern Christianity doing to cultivate a beautiful, creative, artistically rich and living culture?

    I have ideas how Christianity can be beautiful once again, I just want to know if the evangelicals do too.

  12. invar

    Why do you perceive disagreement or a challenge as disrespect?

    Depends on how the disagreement is presented. There is this thing called Wasting One’s Time, and my comment to you was a scriptural admonition of what NOT to do by arguing with certain people.

    I am exactly the type of person you want to persuade.

    Are you?

    Your Jan. 2nd reply tells me otherwise.

    I am a culture maker (not the greatest, but that’s not the point). If you want to win the culture war you have to enlist the culture makers: the artists, poets, musicians and thinkers.

    What makes you think I believe the culture is dependant on Intellectuals and the Bleeding Hearts? If anything – that crowd today is the greatest deconstructors of our Christian culture – not the promoters or Apologists for it.

    Where are its culture makers now?

    Turn on MTV, CNN or a College Access station.

    The Marxists, Atheists, Progressives and Social Liberals in Academia, entertainment and politics are shaping the culture with ideals anethema to both Christianity and our liberties.

    You say know my “agenda and mindset”? I don’t even know my agenda and mindset.

    Let me help refresh your memory: “There is a separation of church and state…the constitution does not require morals and religion. It grants such great personal liberty…”

    I don’t waste time with those of that agenda, especially if they say they read the proofs of the Founders’ beliefs of Christian principles as presented on this site, and then make the claims you did.

    First of all, the Constitution grants absolutely no liberty whatsoever and the Founders made that perfectly clear in their writings. The Constitution exists to limit government, and protect liberties that are God-ordained, not to grant them.

    Second, there is no separation of church and state in any of our Founding documents. The First Amendment is quite clear that government has no authority to either establish a state-religion, or to prohibit the free exercize of any religion. Yet today, the Courts have decided to do just that – and prohibit the free exercise thereof, and abolish this right.

    Third, the Founders made it perfectly clear that only a biblically religious and moral people could keep a republic.

    It is clear you are looking for superficial, emotional and aesthetic ideals of a culture that is soothing and pleasing to the five senses.

    That is not what Chritianity is about. That is Satan’s realm and playground, not God’s. God is looking for inner character of a people and individuals to sustain a culture of the kind of liberty Christianity has been blessed with understanding – not a superficial face.

    It requires obedience to God’s laws and fulfilling a commission given to the church, something being wholesale rejected by a secular culture that hates any such requirements.

    The Secularists want what you want – pseudo-tolerance and acceptance of debaucherous expression and lifestyle, no matter how vile.

    Their ideals of what is beautiful is what has brought our culture to this current state.

  13. You sort of answered one of my question. I like it, that’s a start.

    Your perception of my agenda was what I expected. But please remember, I said I like to challenge people. That doesn’t mean my arguments reflect my “agenda”.

    I didn’t ask who today’s culture makers are in general, I asked who today’s Christian culture makers are. Who are they?

    And I didn’t say that Christianity needs “liberal” and “bleeding heart” culture makers, I said Christianity needs its own.


    How was it possible that a small group of Christians in the early centuries A.D. managed to grow a culture that successfully supplanted the sprawling pagan culture of the Roman Empire?

    And conversely, how is it possible that a very small group of secularists today are successfully getting a secular agenda passed that is anathema to the far, far larger Christian population?

    Answer: case of Rome: pagan culture had weakened and lost all vitality, while the nascent Christian culture had brilliant and creative people behind it. It was inevitable.

    Answer: case of modern America: . . . Perhaps the same thing is happening? If there is no parallel here, please explain to me why.

    And also, let’s not be silly and reject all aesthetic interest as “Satan’s realm”. The five senses, just like this world, are gifts of God. End of story.

    Real beauty doesn’t exist without a strong spiritual and moral component, which is why everything you mentioned (MTV, etc.) as the areas of modern culture that I am supposedly interested in are decidedly NOT BEAUTIFUL.

    However, I also see very little beauty being created these days by Christians. Does that mean modern Christianity has lost its spiritual and moral component?

    You have expressed your disappointment with modern Christians — I share the same disappointment. I need these concerns addressed because I could be a better Christian were it not for the mental besottedness of Christians. It seems to me a community lacking verve and creativity, and that I can’t respect.

    If you can’t answer these questions for me, please direct me to someone who can.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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