Could anyone claim that Christianity is a violent Religion?

[Bandit]

Would you? When Christ is proclaimed as the Prince of Peace why/how is violence so accepted among Christians? Is Christianity the most violent Religion? What does History say on the matter. Was it Christians that first attacked the Muslims or the other way around. Who launched the Inquisition? I don't understand how Turn the other cheek or love thy enemy became "Glass em"..:shrug: I don't wish to start a flame war but I am really confused as to how it all came to be.

[FreedomAngel82]

1. When fundies ignore Jesus' anti-violence message

[valerief]

2. Fundies can deny anything

They don't let facts get in the way.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

3. Yes

Joseph Lynch examines the Crusades and concludes that they emerged out of long-term theological developments that changed the way Christians viewed war and warriors. Some Christians adopted the concept of holy war in the Old Testament through allegorical interpretative methods whereby the crusaders saw themselves as the new Israel fighting for territory under God’s leadership. Furthermore, the crusades were also unimaginable without the transformation of medieval knighthood into a religious calling.

snip

Richard Mouw tries to defend the Reformed tradition of the substitutionary atonement of Christ by insisting that the nastiness that has often characterized Calvinism flows more from their general picture of a distant and angry God than from their understanding of the meaning of Christ’s death. A reader can commend Mouw’s effort while also concluding that the time has come to explore alternate ways to explain what Christ’s death means to the violent world we live in.

http://www.christianethicstoday.com/Issue/048/Must%20Christianity%20Be%20Violent%20Reflections%20on%20History,%20Practice,%20and%20Theology%20by%20Kenneth%20R.%20Chase%20&%20Alan%20Jacobs%20Reviewed%20by%20John%20A.%20Wood_048_26_.htm

[pitohui]

4. anyone could claim anything

there is a strong history of violence associated w. the various christian sects killing ea. other over doctrinal differences and when bored w. that killing the muslims for a change of pace

christ says i come not to bring peace but a sword

it's likely he actually meant what he said

[Dr. Jones]

14. Wrong, that was allegorical.

what He meant was that the message He brought, claiming to be God in the flesh and that one must accept Him in order to be saved and get to heaven was a very DIVISIVE one. Of course He came to bring peace, but He also knew that humanity would be divided throughout time as to who He was and our decision to accept/reject Him.

[Bill McBlueState]

103. as usual

If it meshes with one's worldview, it's to be taken literally. If it clashes with one's worldview, it's allegorical.

There would be much less division in the world, literal or allegorical, without religion fanning the flames.

[Hoping4Change]

38. With regard to what Christ taught, Christianity is non-violent.

Clearly Christ said to turn the other cheek, and forgive ones enemies. He said the meek will inherit the earth.

In no way does he mention the need for holy wars to promote his views. That Christ was a complete pacifist is a no brainer.


"Jesus was clearly a revolutionary thinker who challenged the seemingly natural idea of retribution. Rather than vengeance, Jesus commanded forgiveness (Mt. 18:22). Instead of the pagan ideals of strength and power, Jesus offered the Christian ideals of humility and meekness (Mt. 5:5). Jesus went so far as to demand that His disciples love their enemies (Mt. 5:44).

The above is not in dispute. Even most atheists would agree that Jesus’s teachings were wise precepts concerning the uselessness of hatred and revenge. But did Jesus literally require pacifism?

A straightforward reading would suggest that He did. He literally (given the translation) commanded "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Mt. 5:39). But perhaps this was just a specific rule? Well, immediately before this famous injunction, Jesus also gave the general rule, forbidding resistance to evil. It is this passage that inspired Christian pacifists such as William Lloyd Garrison and Leo Tolstoy, and I find their interpretation entirely plausible."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy60.html

[DeaconNoGood]

53. I tend to cring when I hear people say.............

that Jesus was a pacifist.

I know the money changers and those who sold doves in the Jersualem temple didn't think he was a pacifist. He overturned their tables and ran them out of the temple (Matthew 21:12-13). I would call this an example of "righteous" anger.

Jesus did not come to "bring peace". That concept is counter to Jesus' very words in Matthew 10:34-39. Jesus is a great divider - either you stand with Him or you stand against Him. There is no "in between" and He gently calls everyone with the words found in Matthew 11:28-30

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

[zonmoy]

76. Even if christ was a pacifist

the fruits of his followers is definately not peacefull or even good.

[Sammy Pepys]

5. People are violent, period...

I think it has more to do with mob mentality than religion, frankly. I'm not saying religion is innocent, though.

[bryant69]

6. Yes I look forward to a reasoned measured discussion of the

upside and downside of Christian History. I'm sure that this will be interesting and enlightening and will, in no way, turn into another pointless flame war.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[TahitiNut]

10. Indeed.

:popcorn: :popcorn:

[noonwitch]

7. You can claim that some christians practice violence and try to justify it

with religion.
Just like some muslims use their religion to justify the killing of jews or the mistreatment of women.
Or some wiccans use their religion to justify orgies and other debauchery-oh, wait a minute, they aren't hurting anyone doing that.

[TahitiNut]

Well, nobody ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.

:shrug:

[Viva_La_Revolution]

24. I started humming the Inquisition song as soon as I read the OP!

Mel Brooks was a genius.

[liberalpragmatist]

8. Fundamentalists of any Stripe Will Eventually Succumb to Violence

... that's true of religious fundamentalists, cultural fundamentalists, and, of course, political extremists as well. When someone is so totally defined by an ideology, and when believes that everybody MUST follow that ideology, that person winds up finding anything acceptable in the pursuit of that goal. It's easier to do away with people that disagree with you.

So what does it matter if there isn't textual evidence to support your claim? Fundamentalists will use other textual evidence or try to argue that the text that condemns violence doesn't apply in this case.

[DeaconNoGood]

43. The Christian Fundamentalist that I know ...........

"believe that everybody SHOULD follow their idealogy", but would NEVER use violence as a tool to further the cause of Christ. A true Christian does not "Succumb to Violence". What do you mean by "do away with people" that disagree with you?

[savemefromdumbya]

9. Tell that to the Spanish Inquisition!

Christianity has a history of burning people alive, torture, humiliation, stealing. What's new?

[demosincebirth]

28. Sure it happened...but your trying to make it look

like it happened in your life time or is still happening.

[Goblinmonger]

29. Perhaps not the burning at the stake

but look at the treatment of gays. The complete coverup of pedophilia. The horrible effects of contraception "bans" in third world countries. Those are pretty bad and happening right now.

[demosincebirth]

30. I think you are painting with a big, big, brush.

I don't think the Church uses the "rack" anymore. Also the only place you have to be constantly wary about being gay, would be in the Muslim countries. eom

[Goblinmonger]

32. I think you are painting with your eyes shut

I didn't say there was "the rack," but to say that there is no problems in the US is ignorance. Here's a little diddy from a LTTE in my local newspaper just yesterday:

Why should one alternate sexual orientation (homosexuality) be exempt from intolerance, but the others aren't? Why is it OK for Kahl to be intolerant and hateful if two homosexual men happen to be brothers - and consenting adults? Why does he want laws to protect his sexual preference but not that of pedophiles?


He also referred to "sex between a father and daughter, a man and a boy, a woman and a dog" as "perverted." By what standard does Kahl determine that those are perverted, but men having anal or oral sex with other men is not perverted?


Kahl's tolerance for his own sexual deviation, but intolerance for other "perverted" behaviors highlights the hypocrisy of those trying to justify same-sex marriage. The Bible says that all sexual relations outside of a marriage of one man to one woman are sin.

http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060303/OSH06/603030416/1191/OSHopinion

Yeah, all is GREAT in the US for gays. Religion is doing nothing against them.

[ButterflyBlood]

88. But homosexuality is not punishable by death in the US

like it is in many Islamic countries. Bad as the homophobes can be here, comparing it to Islamic persecution is like comparing a tricycle to a monster truck.

[manic expression]

36. Not to mention

the treatment of non-Christians and atheists. For example, Neo-Paganism is, for its size, the most attacked religion in the US. Neo-Pagan demonstrations have been intimidated by stone-bearing opponents, it is not safe to come out of the "broom closet" for many. And that is just one religion.

[greyl]

72. Remember the monk who crucified a nun in Romania last year?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4269312.stm

[ButterflyBlood]

89. and note this part:

The Orthodox Church condemned the incident as "abominable", banned Father Daniel from the priesthood and excluded the four nuns from the church.

This guy was arrested, defrocked and condemned by his own church. After all that, it's rather ridiculous to blame the entire religion over the actions of one loon who was universally condemned.

[greyl]

99. See post #28 that I was replying to.

The point is that insane stuff like that still happens today in the name of religion.

[Proud_Democratt]

112. And that's just a start!!!

see post 86

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

11. It was, but it was dragged, kicking and screaming, into nonviolence

by the Enlightenment.

It wants to get back. Badly.

[RethugAssKicker]

21. So it stopped during the Enligtenment?

How do you explain the murder and slavery for another 300 years following the enlightenment? Both were done in the name of Christianity!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

23. It sure didn't end, but it started to gradually diminish at that point.

And the fundies HATE the secular laws of Western states. With a passion. I refer you to (a) Fred Phelps, and (b) Christian Reconstructionism.

[DeaconNoGood]

55. get up to speed.....

Slavery still exists today in Muslim-dominated countries in North Africa and the sex-slave trade is one of the largest businesses in eastern Europe.

Murder continues everyday in every country and 75% of all murders go unsolved.

Christianity is not the cause, nor is it responsible for curing, every f*cked up thing that happens on the face of the earth.

[beam me up scottie]

57. The poster didn't say christianity causes "every f*cked up thing"

Needed a strawman to rail against?

Rent another pulpit.

[DeaconNoGood]

59. Check it out....

The guy said that slavery and murder were "done in the name of Christianity". Talk about broadbrushing a group of people. Sheesh.

[beam me up scottie]

61. Sorry, but "the guy" is right.

Look up the definition of broad brushing.

He didn't say ALL slavery and murder were done in the name of christianity.

How clueless does one have to be to ignore the fact that much of it WAS done in the name of that religion?

[DeaconNoGood]

63. Don't play

word games. You know what the guy said. Its a slam against Christianity and you know it. I don't like bigots who broadbrush any group, whether they be Christians, Jews or Muslims. It fu*cking wrong.

[beam me up scottie]

65. You are inventing reasons to flame posters.

I suggest you start reading posts before you attack, because the record shows the inference was yours.

How many more times are you going to try to disrupt: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=53729&mesg_id=53901

[DeaconNoGood]

68. Scottie....

thanks for your note. As with any discussion board, some take what is said as a personal attack against a poster. That is not the case with me. I support a persons right to say anything they want to say regarding the subject matter. I only ask that you respect might right to disagree. DU is a really great site and the discussion is lively. Peace. I'll catch you tomorrow night. I've got to get some sleep. With all due respect - DeaconNoGood.

[beam me up scottie]

71. Deacon,

try to remember that most of us criticize the religion and not the believers.

You may not be able to separate yourself from your faith, and nobody expects you to do that, but we aren't being critical of faith, just religion, organized religion, usually.

If someone does attack believers, many atheists will call them out, and the mods do an excellent job deleting the insulting posts.

Check out the threads in GD today, if you doubt it.

There were several atheists who defended liberal christians.



This is a touchy subject, and one many of us aren't comfortable discussing, I grew up in New England, we NEVER discussed religion, it was impolite.

But this administration, and the zealots who installed it, have made it necessary to discuss it, and to defend ourselves.

I think most liberal believers agree with me.

I really don't concern myself with your faith, except to say I'm glad if it comforts and inspires you, what I AM concerned about is what the Talibornagains are doing to my country.

We need to discuss and debate religion, and kill the ignorance and bigotry that some of its followers use to control others, because keeping silent got us where we are today.

[beam me up scottie]

64. Knock it off. Your accusations are against DU rules.

Try reading them.

[manic expression]

37. It already got back

there were many revivalist movements which were downright scary. They were in reaction to the Enlightenment and other influences. For example, a religious movement managed to get alcohol illegalized in the US in the 20th Century. Missionaries were raping non-Christian religions and cultures long after the "Enlightenment".

To say anything was dragged anywhere is inaccurate, IMO. However, the Enlightenment at least stopped witch hunts (the last witch was burned in the late 1700's, I believe).

[Dr. Jones]

12. Generally speaking

No, Christianity is not inherently violent. In fact Jesus said "Do not kill," etc. The way to salvation in the Christian faith is through accepting Jesus as per the famous John 3:16 and John 14:6 verses. It is only those, like in the Crusades and more currently Bush and his wars, who have held up the banner of Christ and corrupted His name.

[trotsky]

31. When did Jesus say "Do not kill"?

Luke 19:27 - But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them — bring them here and kill them in front of me.

[On the Road]

33. That's Right -- I Had Forgotten That

because it was in a parable. I do think that Jesus drew on the Old Testament idea of a king, and he depicted himself as a king, at least indirectly (the triumphal entry).

Now what is really odd is that in the Gospel of Thomas (v 103), Jesus is quoted as saying: "Blessed is he who know where the rebels are going to attack. He collect his imperial resources and be prepared before the rebels arrive." (Some translations say "robber" instead of "rebel" which would put it in a different light.)

[formerrepuke]

13. Christianity was great for about the first 33 years.. after the founder

and namesake left the scene (physically), not so much.

[Beelzebud]

15. The second Jesus died, and the power-hungry took over, it was all downhill

It's all about power and control now.

Everything from the Crusades to the raping of South America to adorn their temples with Aztec/Inca gold.

[On the Road]

22. The Second Jesus?

[Igel]

25. "The second Jesus died", as opposed to "The minute Jesus

died" or "The hour Jesus died."

Please don't try to parse them as "second Jesus", "minute Jesus", and "hour Jesus".

[On the Road]

27. Sorry, I Was Being Dense

I only knew about the first Jesus. :dunce:

[Richard D]

16. Christianity isn't a violent religion . . .

. . . but many christians are no practitioners of Christianity.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Absolutely

you can make this claim abuot almost all religiions and if you look carefully you will find periods in Chiristian history where that violence has been VERY REAL... oh the most obvious example are the Crusades... my personal favorite are the 100 years war.

Is Christianity a violent religion perse? No, it becomes such only when it is mixed with the powers of the state... see Catholicism in the Middle Ages (which used the state)... Calvinism, 100 years war, et al. If the fundies succeed in taking down the wall between church and state (whose originator was NOT Jefferson but in England adn the War of the Roses.

For the record anytime you take any religion and mix it with the state you will have such a result.

Have Christians always had people such as these who preach violence? Yes... have other faiths, absolutely...

[Balbus]

18. Many many deaths have occurred in the name of Christianity.

[DeaconNoGood]

58. What are you referring to?

What are you trying to say?

Are you insinuating that Christianity is some kind of death cult or some bullsh*t like that?

Are you broadbrushing all present day Christians with some bullsh*t from 500 years ago?

You're not being a bigot are you?

[beam me up scottie]

62. "Many many deaths have occurred in the name of Christianity"

It's pretty simple, actually.

I'd watch those accusations, Deacon.

Especially when it is YOU who are at fault.

Stop putting words in other's mouths.

If you want clarification, ask for it.

Attempting to attribute motive is against the rules.

[NAO]

93. Many deaths have occurred in the name of Nazism

do you buy that? Does that make you think that Nazism is OK, it was just that bad things were done in the name of the movement?

I think it was John Lennon who said, "You will know them by their fruits".

Christianity has been a 2,000 year nightmare of violence, cruelty, and ignorance. It contributed to the destruction of Western Civilization, the inauguration and perpetuation of the Dark ages, and the re-election of George W. Bush. It is, and always has been, a horrific scourge on the human race.

[Burning Water]

19. It was Muslims who

first attacked Christians. They conquered half the Eastern Roman Empire, eventually extinguishing that empire in the Sack of Constantinople. The Crusades were a defensive effort by the Christian West to regain control of their holy sites.

[Solon]

35. The Crusades started in 1096 CE, Constantinople wasn't sacked till 1200s..

the first time, at least. While, during the First Crusade, Constantinople was under seige, that was because it had 4 crusading armies within its walls. A peace between the Turks and the Byzantines was hatched when the Crusaders were expelled from the city. Also, when Jerusalem was finally taken by Christian Crusaders in 1099, they killed damn near every man, woman, and child who lived within the city, some estimates say that was nearly 100,000 people. Please read up on you history before spouting ignorance.

[ButterflyBlood]

90. You are generally correct but...

Let's not forget the Moorish conquest of Iberia. They intended to go further too, but were stopped by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours. And the Ottomans seized Vienna more than once, and eventually did wipe out the Byzantimes. To claim the Crusades were defensive is a rather ridiculous, but it's just as ridiculous as to act as if the Muslims never launched unprovoked attacks on Europe.

[Solon]

94. Ehh, it was percipitated by an increasing repressive regime...

The King of the Visigoths in Hispana died, Roderic then apparently ascended to the throne and started Persecuting Jews and Muslims, both of which fled to northern Africa to escape. At the same time, partisans and the REAL heirs to the throne declared a civil war. They then asked the Moors for help, knowing the current king was too powerful for they to defeat alone. Musa bin Nusair, Viceroy of North Africa was skeptical, so only sent an expeditionary force, when they were able to secure a beachhead, then sent a larger force, who was able to, eventually, defeat the last Visigoth king. After he was defeated, all the surviving Visigoths who were worth anything fled north, taking the Viceroy completely by surprise and leaving the land leaderless, so the Moors took over administration until the land was reconquered.

As far as motives, the Muslims didn't, initially, go in to just conquer the land, most likely they simply wanted a friendly ally to the north, though after the success in Hispana they were preparing to invade southern France, but Musa was recalled to Damascus and the invasion cancelled.

[seabeyond]

20. ignore jesus's words and focus on old testament. how they justify

murdering in iraq. and the old testament is certainly violence ridden. and when jesus is brought into it, there is a part that says jesus did not come here to take away old testament.

[On the Road]

26. Jesus was a Very Angry Person

With good cause, but still. He said many violent and threatening things (eg, Mark 13), even though he may not have instructed his followers to act on them. At the center of it was his anger against the quislings who ruled Judea and the people who rejected him as the Messiah. He prophecied the destruction of Jerusalem and depicted himself sitting at the right hand of God while the city was destroyed and the inhabitants died. That's not exactly pacifist.

Jesus opposed the current government but as far as we know did not teach violent overthrow. (Paul went further and taught active submission to the government, but he probably did not reflect Jesus' thinking.) Unlike Islam, Christianity did not deal with the Christian use of political power. The reason fundamentalists hark back to the Old Testament is because it deals with political law and government. How much it applies is debatable, but you can't get much of the New Testament.

Many of Jesus' disciples, and perhaps even Jesus himself, may have anticipated that Jesus might rule an earthly Kingdom. It's interesting to imagine what would have happened if he had. Personally, I expect he would have fought defensive wars but not offensive ones, and showed tolerance within limits for religious differences, somewhat like the more enlightened Muslim kingdoms. Whether he would have started a bar-Kochba-like rebelion is an open question.

[Hoping4Change]

39. Where are you getting your information?

The crux of his teachings can be summed up in the following:


Love Your Enemies
43 "You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
44But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

Go the Second Mile
38 "You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.

The Beatitudes

1And seeing the multitudes, He went up on a mountain, and when He was seated His disciples came to Him. 2Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying:


3"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4Blessed are those who mourn,
For they shall be comforted.
5Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the earth.

6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they shall be filled.
7Blessed are the merciful,
For they shall obtain mercy.
8Blessed are the pure in heart,
For they shall see God.
9Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.
10Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11"Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

[On the Road]

46. Some of It Comes from the Gospels

The same person credited with the Sermon on the Mount is also credited as saying he would personally participate (in a heavenly form) in destroying Jerusalem and killing its inhabitants. You have to take that into account as well.

You refer to the Sermon on the Mount as the crux of Jesus' teachings. It may be part of his teaching, but calling it the crux is just as selective as what fundamentalists do. There is often a lot of ambiguity and con tradition in historical figures, and what appears in the Gospels is basically what Paul and his followers wanted the church to hear.

One of the major tests on whether Jesus was really pacifist is how the Jerusalem church, which was led by his family, behaved in the revolt after his brother was killed in the early 60s. There is a strong tradition that they left Jerusalem for the Decapolis, which gives weight to the tradition that they were anti-war.

As far as where the information comes from, the material is all from various historical Jesus sources. The suggestions are mine -- I'm not following any particular individual. There are scholars like Marvin Harris (a sociologist) who feel that Jesus was a revolutionary, and the Gospels were written to conceal that. I don't necessarily accept that conclusion, but just like in politics it's important to see the whole spectrum and how different interpretations can be reached.

The bit about what would happen if Jesus really were a king I made up on the spot after seeing a History Channel program on the beginnings of Islam. I think it's an interesting thought experiment. The question is unanswerable, but its worthwhile thinking through what the options would be if Jesus were not powerless and oppressed.

[DeaconNoGood]

49. what fundalmentalist do..........

destroying jerusalem and killing its inhabitants

lot of ambiguity

con tradition

whether Jesus was really pacifist

Gospels were written to conceal that

what would happen if Jesus were a king

if Jesus were not powerless and oppressed.

ribofunk - Could you please be more clear about your opinion regarding the veracity of Scripture.

[Hoping4Change]

75. What do you mean the Jerusalem Church was led by his family???

As for the Sermon on the Mount it is a direct address to his followers as are his exhortations to turn the other cheek, to love your enemies, and to forgive those who persecute you.

References to destroying Jerusalem are parables and open to interpretations in a way that exhortations are not. And furthermore those parables are not directed at people. No where does he say to clobber those who disagree or who don't follow me. There is nothing qualified in his statement "blessed are the peacemakers". THere is absolutely nothing in the Gospels that exhort his followers to be warriors of any sort. He refers to himself as a good shepard and to his apostles as fishers of men.

[DeaconNoGood]

41. I don't think you can

claim with a straight face that Jesus was a violent person. Jesus did not teach violence - not once. Mark 13 does not refer to violence by the followers of Christ. It is a discussion of future events. Conversely, comparing Christianity vs. Islam is like comparing a chess match to a WWF wrestling event. History clearly shows the spread of Islam was accomplished by the use of the sword - encouraged by its "founder", Mohammed.

[On the Road]

44. As Far as We Know,

Jesus never taught his followers to engage in violent revolt against the Romans. On the other hand, doing so was a death sentence and if he had we probably wouldn't know about it. At least two of his followers (Simon and Judas) appear to be labeled as revolutionaries.

Being outwardly pacifist but retaining violence as an option was not unknown. The authors of the Dead Sea scrolls, often thought of as pacifists, also included the War Scroll in their library as well as documents like the Nahum Pesher, which praises an Israelite king (possibly Alexander Janneus) for crucifying his opponents. When the revolt against Rome broke out, at least some of the famously pacifist Essenes participated.

Jesus claimed belief in the law and the prophets, including presumably all the warlike kings of Israel praised in the historical books. In his apocalyptic statements, Jesus depicted himself not only as a King, but as participating at God's right hand in mass destruction.

There's a lot we don't know, but the line between war and pacifism is not drawn as cleanly as you might expect.

[DeaconNoGood]

50. Jesus was not a ............

pacifist and did not come to bring peace.

Matthew 10:34-39 gives us Jesus' words - "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

The bottom line - Jesus came to preach about the "Kingdom of God" and redeem mankind.

You said that "Jesus claimed belief in the law and the prophets". Ribofunk, Jesus is the very one who the prophets were talking about.

[greyl]

73. How do you mean "redeem"? And why? nt

[beam me up scottie]

74. Sorry, greyl

Deacon went buh-bye!

Me so sad...

[Solon]

34. Yes, just like every other major world religion...

Whether the old crusades, to the Inquisition, to Nazism, to the Modern Crusade of George W. Bush, I see it everywhere.

[DeaconNoGood]

42. dude, you are right......

we live in a "fallen" world. It is not the peaceful world that God created. It has been screwed up by rebellion and pride and will be more much violent in the future.

[beam me up scottie]

51. Bullshit.

If your god created the world, he's responsible for the bad stuff too.

We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.

~Gene Roddenberry

[DeaconNoGood]

54. Bullshit 2

Pal, its not God who f*cked up this world. Mankind has f*cked it up.

Think and open your eyes.

[beam me up scottie]

56. You look, Fred,

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is impotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Whence then is evil?”

~Epicurus

[NMMNG]

40. Yes

The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, bombing abortion clinics, bombing gay night clubs, attacking and killing gays, bombing/burning/otherwise destroying Mosques, genocide of Bosnians by Serbs etc, etc.


http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2002-03/27/article22.shtml
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_alaqsa_fire_1969.php
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0995/9509028d.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96286,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Rudolph
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/Kosovo/Kosovo-Massacres.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yelwa_massacre

[rug]

45. Anabaptists, the most pacific of religions, had an early violent history.

Christianity is, at its core, a religion of people who fall.

[DeaconNoGood]

52. It might be better said.....

Christ came to redeem a race that fell and became rotten to the core.

[rug]

66. I don't think it's rotten.

Humans can and do treat each other beautifully. It's just a lot easier not to.

[DeaconNoGood]

69. Your observation is truth

Yes, humans can and do treat each other beautifully, but the opposite is more prevalent.

[okasha]

47. The problem is not Christianity itself.

As many posters have stated, Jesus himself was a pacifist.

The problem arises when any monotheism--not just Christianity--becomes officially allied with the power of a state. The violence begins with wiping out rival religions and their followers and progresses to political aggression if the state or its leader has the means to do so. The "first monotheist," Akhenaten, instituted persecutions of the worshippers of Egypt's traditional gods; much of the Old Testament is one long chronicle of smiting the heathen; and Christianity and Islam, when their leaders attained political power, followed the same pattern.

[DeaconNoGood]

60. Agreed. Saudi Arabi and Iran are perfect examples.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabi and Islamic Republic of Iran are religious states. Both are totally intolerant of any religion other than Islam. They are ruled by Islamic law. The penalty for many infractions can, and often does include, the death sentence.

[okasha]

67. True as far as it goes.

But you can add to them Tudor and Cromwellian England (and the portions of Ireland where they held sway), the Massachussetts Bay and Plymouth colonies, late medieval Spain, sixteenth-century France with its wars between Catholics and Huguenots, calvinist Scotland and Geneva, and the at least partially religion-driven extermination of indigenous populations throughout the Americas. Islam has no patent on violence.

[DeaconNoGood]

70. Nice additions

Islam happens to be the flavor of the day, or should I say our times.

[ButterflyBlood]

91. yeah, but how old are those examples?

Fact is, violence done in the name of Christianity today is pretty damn rare, and much rarer than violence done in the name of Islam. All there is now basically is a handful of abortion clinic bombers and a bunch of loons in Northern Ireland (who aren't even really fighting over religion anyway)

[Proud_Democratt]

87. The U.S. is different? We'll travel thousands of miles to kill...

other people.

[supernova]

48. I don't think it's Christianity that's inherently violent

nor any religion in particular. Those who seek the spiritual, other than fundamentailists, are more interested in providing some kind of meaning and grounding in their lives, often in community with those of like minds. Seeking violence precludes that. Those who engage in violence inevitably come to the conclusion that it is senseless. And yes, it is horribly, horrifyingly sad that they have to commit murder, sometimes, millions of times over, to find that out.

On the other hand, we do breed completely immoral people who never express remorse for their crimes against humanity. Pol Pot, far as I know, never apologized for The Killing Fields and pogroms against his own people. I don't think Hitler's inner circle ever apologized either. Neither do serial killers: Ted Bundy, Charles Manson. I have a theory that these people who come to power are really serial killers with motivational speaking ability. Doesn't make their actions any less evil; they're just more efficient at it than others.

I think we can say that there is a part of human nature that is violent, sadly. Think about it this way. Christianity has been the dominant philosophy/religion for the last 1700 years in the west, since Constatine decided to glue his empire together with it.

What if some other philosophy had come to power? What if the muslims had won the Crusades for example and invaded Europe? So history would look a lot different. And the two Islams, Sunni and Shi'ia (sp?), might look very different. I'm not picking on Islam, but I am making a point:

Do you honestly think we wouldn't have had no more wars without Christianity? That we wouldn't have had civil strife? I don't think so.

In short, I think it's just a little too convenient and easy to blame xtainity in particular with a problem that plagues us because we are human, rather than religiously bent.

[bills]

77. Praise Jesus.

Personal Testimony.
Dearly beloved in Christ,
Loving greetings in the sweet name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
I take pleasure to meet you all thro my testimony. I was born and brought up
in a thoroughly an orthodox Hindu Brahmin background, I came to know the love of Christ
Thro Gideon's International ministries while I was studying in one of the Christian High School there they distributed the word of God, which is called New Testament.
I read the New Testament thoroughly God spoke me thro the word of God it changed my life thoroughly.
I thank and Praise the Lord for the wonderful word of God.
Now I am full time servant of God. Serving Him 25 years by faith.
My cup runneth over.
I suffered in my life nearly 14 years by the witchcraft powers,
By various ailments and various kinds of persecution and struggles.
God graciously delivered and healed me, Almighty God gave me a vision also in that vision I saw Lord Jesus Crucifixion scene it made me to serve Him.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Heb 4:12.For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Psalms 107:20 He sent his word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions.

1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Psalms 46:10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.
11 The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah.

I was baptised, thro me more than 200 non-Christian families
came to Christ and am working among them for the glory of God.
God gave me the calling and vision to do His work full time.
Now I am an evangelist teaching, preaching, praying,witnessing,
delivering the possessed people by the grace God., helping,
visiting sick people also doing internet evangelism.
I am also running a regd Charitable Trust to help many.
Kindly pray for us and support us if God speak to you.


Psalms 23:1 <<A Psalm of David.>> The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.
4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

Kindly pray for our ministries and us.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

85. Welcome to DU

that is a very interesting story. I have to say you are a rather unique newbie.

[bills]

109. Pride.

1. Pride of birth and rank.
2. Pride of wealth.
3.Pride of respectability.
4.Pride of personal appearance.
5.Pride of refutation.
6.Pride of independence.
7.Pride of learning.
8.Pride of superiority.
9.Pride of success.
10.Pride of self-reliance.
11.Pride of ability.
12.Pride of self-will.
13.Pride of intellect.
14.Pride of party.
15.Pride of resentment.
16.Pride of reserve,
17.Pride of sanctity.

[LouisianaLiberal]

113. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquis...never mind.

NT

[bills]

110. Welcome to DU

Why I am not able to start New posts can you help me?

Thank you for your support.

[beam me up scottie]

111. I'm not T.Grannie,

but I can tell you that DU rules require new members to have a few more posts under their belt before they can start threads.

I'm not sure how many posts you need, but if you want to increase your count, try browsing the threads in General Discussion or Late Breaking News for a discussion you can join.

Or, if the main forums are too intimidating (long time posters find them that way too), try one of the topic forums listed here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=204

You'll need to be a donor in order to post in the groups, but just to show you there's something for everyone and then some, here's a link to the personal interest ones: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=351

People are much more relaxed in the groups and many of the topic forums.

My friend and fellow atheist, IMModerate calls this forum the Arena.

And so it is.


Welcome to DU. :)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

78. I believe that religion in general

is a pretty excuse for violence. It is much "nicer" to kill, murder and steal for Jesus than for personal benefit. And you have the extra benefit of going to heaven or paradise if you do it for God. I think humans are by nature violent, territorial, greedy and self-centered and enjoy taking what is not theirs. Religion is a convenient excuse. When you take religion out of the picture, you still ahve the smae violence but it is for the "cause" of the "movement" or the "party" or even the "boys in the hood." Men can be goaded into action by many things...they are passionate and their passion can be exploited by savvy leaders. Religion is but one of their passions.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

79. Well geez

it looks like I have ended a thread ONCE AGAIN. I am the kiss of death for threads. Seriously. I just searched my threads and on about 50% of them I am the last poster.

I need to work on my style.

[beam me up scottie]

80. I think it's the

portrait of yourself in your sig line.

Even with the walker, you're a little...uh...intimidating.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

81. LOL

You watch. I've posted about 20 times today. It's like fishing with bread for sunnies. Not much luck!

I'm too moderate. I make peace and close off discussion. It's a curse unless you are teaching middle school.

[rd_kent]

82. I dont think any religion is violent

But the things people do in the name of that religion is. Whats even more amazing is how they cherry pick things from their scriptures in order to try and justify their reasons for committing violent acts.
I guess its really just another example of the complete hypocrisy of religion.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

84. Well think about it

if you want your neighbor's goodies, and you kill him because he is an infidel, you get his goodies AND your god's favors. So religion is the perfect foil for evil.

However, I have no answers for suicide bombers. That must be pure religious fervor.

[cynatnite]

83. All religions are violent...

if violent people are involved.

[Proud_Democratt]

86. Just ask....

the Native-Americans, Jews, Muslims, Gypsies, Gays, Blacks, alledged witches in Salem, etc.
Almost ALL war and "ethnic-cleansing" atrosities in the western world have been founded by, some form or sect, relating to, Christianity.

How soon they forget.....

[NAO]

92. "I came NOT to bring peace, BUT A SWORD" - Jesus

And Jesus can say, truthfully, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED".

from Robert Ingersoll's Heretics and Heresies

Give any orthodox church the power, and to-day they would punish heresy with whip, and chain, and fire. As long as a church deems a certain belief essential to salvation, just so long it will kill and burn if it has the power. Why should the church pity a man whom her God hates? Why should she show mercy to a kind and noble heretic whom her God will burn in eternal fire? Why should a Christian be better than his God? It is impossible for the imagination to conceive of a greater atrocity than has been perpetrated by the church. Every nerve in the human body capable of pain has been sought out and touched.

Let it be remembered that all churches have persecuted heretics to the fullest extent of their power. Toleration has increased only when and where the power of the church has diminished. From Augustine until now the spirit of the Christians has remained the same. There has been the same intolerance, the same undying hatred of all who think for themselves, and the same determination to crush out of the human brain all knowledge inconsistent with an ignorant creed.

In those days the cross and rack were inseparable companions. Across the open Bible lay the sword and fagot. Not content with burning such heretics as were alive, they even tried the dead, in order that the church might rob their wives and children. The property of all heretics was confiscated, and on this account they charged the dead with being heretical -- indicted, as it were, their dust -- to the end that the church might clutch the bread of orphans. Learned divines discussed the propriety of tearing out the tongues of heretics before they were burned, and the general opinion was, that this ought to be done so that the heretics should not be able, by uttering blasphemies, to shock the Christians who were burning them. With a mixture of ferocity and Christianity, the priests insisted that heretics ought to be burned at a slow fire, giving as a reason that more time was given them for repentance.

No wonder that Jesus Christ said, "I came not to bring peace, but a sword."

In 1208 the Inquisition was established. Seven years afterward, the fourth council of the Lateran enjoined all kings and rulers to swear an oath that they would exterminate heretics from their dominions. The sword of the church was unsheathed, and the world was at the mercy of ignorant and infuriated priests, whose eyes feasted upon the agonies they inflicted. Acting, as they believed, or pretended to believe, under the command of God; stimulated by the hope of infinite reward in another world -- hating heretics with every drop of their bestial blood; savage beyond description; merciless beyond conception, -- these infamous priests, in a kind of frenzied joy, leaped upon the helpless victims of their rage. They crushed their bones in iron boots; tore their quivering flesh with iron hooks and pincers; cut off their lips and eyelids; pulled out their nails, and into the bleeding quick thrust needles; tore out their tongues; extinguished their eyes; stretched them upon racks; flayed them alive; crucified them with their heads downward; exposed them to wild beasts; burned them at the stake; mocked their cries and groans; robbed their children, and then prayed God to finish the holy work in hell.

According to the theologians, God, the Father of us all, wrote a letter to his children. The children have always differed somewhat as to the meaning of this letter. In consequence of these honest differences, these brothers began to cut out each other's hearts. In every land, where this letter from God has been read, the children to whom and for whom it was written have been filled with hatred and malice. They have imprisoned and murdered each other, and the wives and children of each other. In the name of God every possible crime has been committed, every conceivable outrage has been perpetrated. Brave men, tender and loving women, beautiful girls, and prattling babes have been exterminated in the name of Jesus Christ. For more than fifty generations the church has carried the black flag. Her vengeance has been measured only by her power. During all these years of infamy no heretic has ever been forgiven. With the heart of a fiend she has hated; with the clutch of avarice she has grasped; with the jaws of a dragon she has devoured; pitiless as famine, merciless as fire, with the conscience of a serpent: such is the history of the Church of God.

Read the whole piece here for a historical overview of the violent, cruel, destructive superstition known as "Christianity"
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/heretics_and_hericies.html

[ButterflyBlood]

95. *sigh*

"A sword" is a metaphor for "the truth" or probably more specifically, his message.

[trotsky]

97. Alright, then what is "peace" a metaphor for? n/t

Especially in light of the first part of Matthew 10:34 - "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth."

And then what follows in 35-36: "For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law — a man's enemies will be the members of his own household." Metaphors again?

[Orrex]

98. And the flames that burned witches were a metaphor for a loving caress

Unless someone can present a definitive and unambiguous "Answer Key" about what is and what is not meant to be taken literally, then there it's up to the apologist to demonstrate clearly that a given passage is meant as a metaphor. Otherwise, there is no reason not to take the text as it is is written.

[Inland]

105. Ummm......

Could the fact that Jesus is never remarked to actually bringing any swords be proof it's a metaphor?

So it's obviously a metaphor. It's simply a metaphor for what.

But there's only two types of people who take the bible at its simply and concrete literal level. Fundamentalists and people looking to score points against religion.

Oh, and burning witches isn't a metaphor for burning witches. It would be as if Jesus were handing out swords while giving the line.

[Proud_Democratt]

101. Another Biblical contradiction.

This is just another fine example of doctrine contrary to "Blessed are the Peacemakers".

[saltpoint]

96. "Christianity" has generic application. Just over 2000 years old,

it is not the same "Christianity" now as when the early bishops perceived it, and is a history of local pagan re-interpretation, institutionalization, likely interpolations of canonized texts, censorship and heresy, noble rescues and pointless slaughter, individual salvation and the burning of witches.

"Public Education" is violent if you zoom-lens the corporal punishment practiced in some schools by some people at certain times in history. But not all schools use corporal punishment. That it is used by some must not preclude belief that value is present for all others. Schooling as an institution, when distilled to its essence, is often worthy of our best hopes for it.

The Crusades were fueled by plenty of hype and hubbub in the name of "Christianity," but somewhere in a wood and stone dwelling in the west of Ireland, while some Europeans marched in a violent juggernaut toward the Holy Land, a quiet monk read the Gospel of Mark, a small fire in his fireplace, while snow silently filled the glen outside. "Christians" all.

One trick would be to prefer the contemplative to the conqueror, whether in "Christianity" or anything else.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JerseygirlCT]

102. Christians have often been violent, including leaders of

churches.

The religion teaches anything but, however.

I think it's unfortunately something in the human condition. And people are often quite happy to use religion to mask their violence. I don't think that indicts the religion.

[beam me up scottie]

106. "The religion teaches anything but, however."

http://thebricktestament.com/the_wilderness/instructions_for_genocide/dt20_16-17.html

[undergroundpanther]

104. I'll go further

I will say any god that created this world is by default flawed,blind,stupid,limited or sadistic and violent. The Christian god is no exception,he is violent he allowed and endorsed genocide,rape,murder,all sorts of horrors.He is very jealous,he likes sacrfices in massive numbers(read about how many animals were killed in the jewish temple) God killed his followeers,jesus killed himself,God is an egomaniac and he is in my opinion pure evil,just like"nature" and evolution.The Christian Bible says jesus will come back according to revalations to do a big genocide.For Jesus's return it requires 2/3 of all jews to die too.

The bible is a perverse document.
Just like pagan documents,
just like nature is,
Just as insensibly cruel as evolution,
It's all blood and death misery and pain .. this world..
Like all the other"holy texts" out there it's the world.

[Evoman]

107. Yeah...God is cruel, nature is cruel...to world is too harsh

Sometimes I feel like I don't belong in this place, this universe. If I believed in god, I would hate him with every fibre of my being.

[Random_Australian]

108. Here's the deal: It has a mesage. A set of information that

we interact with. This has led, in time, to a modification of the information in some minds such that people are violently oppressive. Therefore in those cases the bible is pretty close to a book espousing violence. However it cannot, and I will not stand for it to, be considered categorically a book espousing violence, as it in the minds of some makes them peaceful. liberal, the usual.

Clear now?

[trisha]

114. Who invented religion?

What do you think ?

[NMMNG]

115. Human beings

[beam me up scottie]

116. Nuh unh.

It was the aliens who brought us here.

They did it so we wouldn't find out about them.

[NMMNG]

117. Xenu?

:shrug:

[beam me up scottie]

118. Star Trek episode.

TNG. :P

[NMMNG]

119. I don't recall that one off hand

I either missed it or have forgotten it. :shrug:

[beam me up scottie]

120. This one

http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TNG/episode/68324.html

[NMMNG]

121. Oh, I remember that one

At least the part about Wesley and the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" issue. I didn't recall the "God" aspect though.

[beam me up scottie]

122. Yeah, the dude they think is "God"

is really the alien life form.

He considered them his children and didn't want them to find out about him.

I love Trek.

[NMMNG]

123. Trek had lots of good lessons

And it poked fun at humans' foolishness as well, sometimes.