Christianity = Violent Religion?

[brennan]

I didn't miss the point. It wasn't there to be missed.

Same old Skadistic.

is it really that Islam is violent or are you happy to read into Muslim history exactly what you object to whenever someone mentions the Crusades?

I thought that was a pretty straight question, how about you answer it? How come you can say this about Christians:

The religion is not violent the people are.

...but Musilims are all inherently violent (just because of a few lines in the Koran)?

Oh, and you're obviously sweeping the entire OT under the carpet (and who can blame you).

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The following can now be expected to occur:
(Not necessarily in this exact order.)

• Outraged demands that I back up my claim.
• Snide remark requesting ten ideologies to find examples of violence in.
• Snipped quotes from the Bible espousing violence.
• Snipped quotes from the Bible condemning violence.
• Snipped quotes from various ideologies espousing violence.
• Furious flame that the most recent quotes are quote mined and not representative.
• Snipped quotes from the Koran espousing violence.
• Sarcastic comment that the first set of Bible quotes were also out of context.
• Snipped quotes from the Koran condemning violence.
• Moderator action requesting less of the trolling and flaming.
• Indignant arguments over who has the right to interpret the Bible.
• Posts with .
• Witty remark on atheism, baldness and hair color.
• Reply that atheism should have no place in this debate if it's not an ideology and thus the non-violence of atheism is irrelevant to the fact that all ideologies are violent (non-violence may be prefaced with "supposed" or "presumed".)
• Richard Dawkins quotes.
• Knee-jerk repetition of points made earlier in the thread.
• Equally repetitive statement that said points were demolished previously in the thread.
• Annoyed opinion that on the contrary, they were ignored.
• Ad hominem attacks.
• Useless post claiming to return to the original topic but actually trolling Christianity.
• Useless post trolling the above troll.
• Futile attempt to return to the topic.
• Moderator action for spam, trolling and flaming; thread locked!

This would be true for 90% of the threads in here.

My glorious thread about Earthday is in the other 10% and stays there!

edit: Oh heck, I just read the latest additions

 

[skadistic]

Same old Skadistic.Yup same old me showing you up again and again.

I thought that was a pretty straight question, how about you answer it? How come you can say this about Christians:I'll answer it once you tell me what it is exactly I object to whenever someone mentions the Crusades. I need you to tell me what I think since you obviously know. I wouldn't want to answer and scholl you again only to "miss the point" when you postumously change it and the goal posts.
...but Musilims are all inherently violent (just because of a few lines in the Koran)?Wow you couldn't buy a clue with a loan. Show me where I said Muslims are inherently violent. If you go through the thread and read what I wrote I didn't say that at all. What I said was Islam is inherently violent. But don't the truth get in the way.

Oh, and you're obviously sweeping the entire OT under the carpet (and who can blame you).

What? What exactly am I sweeping? Whats your point? Go ahead and make one up now. A different one then you originally intended if you need to to make it look like you have a modicum of wit.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

So, in a misguided strike at recovering some of the original intent of this discussion, I'll bring to bear my amateur theology .
I feel like playing the devil's advocate here (perhaps literally ), but remember that "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose" (The Merchant of Venice 1.3).

So, may I present you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Exhibit A:

Matthew 10
33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. ()
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

So, I have always wondered about this part of the Bible. Are there any more accomplished theologians out there who can explain it to me in context of Jesus' more peaceful teachings? Or is it, perhaps, evidence of Christianity's violent origins... ?

My first reaction is to go and look up the commentary.

Spoiler lotsa text :

The demands of the kingdom are so offensive to a world already convinced of its rightness that they provoke that world's hostility.

Opposition from Unconverted Family Members (10:34-37)

Although Jesus values families (5:27-32; 15:4-6; 19:4-9), the division his mission brings is particularly evident in families (compare 10:21; 1 Cor 7:16; of course more people prefer to quote Acts 16:31). Jesus' example demonstrates how this division is accomplished: although we are "harmless" (Mt 10:16; 12:19-20), God's agents proclaim the kingdom uncompromisingly and thus face hostility from others (13:57). Jesus' mission separates us from the values of our society, and society responds with persecution. Jesus selects these specific examples of in-laws (mother-in-law and daughter-in-law) because young couples generally lived with the man's family

Jesus matters more than the approval or even the civility of our family (10:37). Many viewed honoring one's parents as the highest social obligation (Ep. Arist. 228; Jos. Apion 2.206; Ps-Phocyl. 8); for many, God alone was worthy of greater honor (Deut 13:6; 33:9; 2 Macc 7:22-23).

Since I'm sure there will be a TL;DR response shortly, here's my take on it:

Jesus' message is of paramount importance. Christians should be willing to preach it no matter the opposition they face, whether from the law or from their own family. The value of the Kingdom of Heaven is immeasurably greater than the negative value of whatever scorn or even death one may receive for preaching it. (This isn't an instruction to be stupid or reckless in preaching the gospel, though.) Jesus knows that His message will face heavy opposition, and so he warns his disciples about this.

Does that make sense?

 

[Evie]

Personally, one of my favorite exhibits is Deuteronomy 13. 17 has a few choice moments too. 20 (Which is essentialy the Hebrew Art of War) isn't bad, either, what with a policy of "they get ONE chance to surrender and be your slaves. Else, don't leave a single survivor."

(The rest of Deuteronomy has some nice passages as well).

No, it's not what JESUS said. It's still part of the Christian bible and religion.

 

[Alpha Killer II]

I am back for the time being only to reply to these posts..(wow 5 pages, Im sorry if I dont reply to all the ones I need to reply too)

I'll echo Shane's post in saying that I don't know what you're talking about. How do you know about these things? I'm willing to bet you learned about them in school.

Bah, The American Education System is total crap, if you have ever looked at my life, you would find out I was largely self taught

while Jesus advocates nonviolence, the Bible is simply bursting at the seams with violence, sexism, racism, and all sorts of other bad things - not to mention an opressive, backwards social system that's literally thousands of years out of date.

Finally, someone that says that

The KKK was partially a resistance group aimed at restoring a (flawed) economic system, and partially a mob running through town lynching people who were "different".

Fascism wasn't designed with racial superiority in mind, which brings us to Nazism. To blame Christianity for a disaster deesigned by a non-Christian is ridiculous. Hitler had a sick eugenics program in mind, not a theocracy.

The KKK is also a White Christian hate group, ever notice them burning signs of Nazi Insignias with Crosses?
Fascism is based on Nationalism (Also the race of the majority of the people), but it was transformed into a well opened country for foreigners to a Xenophobic Country (Examples are "Nazi Germany" and current day Sudan in a little place called "Darfur")

the real reason is society's instinct to make people conform.... or else.

...or else they would kill em, but wouldnt this also prove my point a little bit?

^ Agreed. This is what determines a religion's violence. The laws and doctrine, not the followers who pervert them.

Maybe the bible could be non-directly inferring violence rather than directly, but explain, would someone find "Witchcraft" in the Bible and think witches were real and started killing people who they assumed were witches?

HAHA How many christan nations invaded muslim nations and the other way round??? !
***
So christinaity was justified in killing the "witches"?

Kudos to you George
(And FYI: its CHRISTIANITY)

Site time place and numbers of dead and number of bombs.

I have heard about a incident when two British Agents were dressed up as Iraqis and started killing people randomly in the streets and when they was arrested by the Bazra Police the British Government demanded them free but when Bazra resisted, British tanks blasted their way through the prison and literally freed the Agents (But I dont think this has anything to do with this thread really)

Both of the "nations" didn't do that but they did allegedly crash a few airlines. And saddam allegedly had ties to 9/11 hijackers and he allegedly was trying to buy "yellow cake"

Ok, The Airliners crashed into the Twin Towers and was so hot to cut through steel and tear down the buildings, the biggest piece found in the rubble is half of a phone pad, but yet someone finds a passport in perfect condition in the ground and wait, here is the funny part, The guy that was on plane that crashed stood up from the ground and was ALIVE, wait, how the hell could this happen when 2 planes hit 2 Skyscrapers and caused it to collapse? And to this day most of the 19 Alleged Hijackers are still alive
About Saddam, tell me this, Why would he need "Yellow Cake Uranium" if he already has Chemical Weapons he got from Ronald Reagan during the Cold War? And another, WHERE IS THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION SADDAM HAD (If he even owned em)
EDIT: After 9/11 there were spots reported to have been over 2000°, this is 500° than Jet fuel even burns

Religeon is violent, including Christianity. Just look at the people who died defendingg their nations from the Crusade.

Ever heard the quote "Religion is Opiate of the masses" by Karl Marx?
(Im not arguing with you, I am simply helping prove your point)

People are violent. I think you would find such things still would happen if no such thing as religion existed.

Its been said that humans are addicted to violence, its their nature

And that is all I can reply to for today (For it is 1:01 AM and I am very tired)
PS: Sorry for incorrect grammar *Cough cough Periods* but hey, Im tired

 

[The Yankee]

Can i ask you what church you go to?

NONE!

I have my faith, but I've been pretty lousy as far as the attending services thing goes.

BTW doctrine by itself means jack if their are no followers of it (Well some peace church are that way but since you are on the computer i doubt you are in a peace church!)

You could apply that to everything then, couldn't you? The Constitution is inherently violent because it says Congress can declare war. Oh and the people living under the Constitution have gone to war many times since 1787. Every peace treaty in the world is inherently violent because at least one of the signatories used violence (and likely continued to use violence). On and on and on....

You see, there's a difference between what a person should strive to be and what a person is. What a person is cannot speak for those that strive to be something greater.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Bah, The American Education System is total crap, if you have ever looked at my life, you would find out I was largely self taught

<snip>

Ok, The Airliners crashed into the Twin Towers and was so hot to cut through steel and tear down the buildings, the biggest piece found in the rubble is half of a phone pad, but yet someone finds a passport in perfect condition in the ground and wait, here is the funny part, The guy that was on plane that crashed stood up from the ground and was ALIVE, wait, how the hell could this happen when 2 planes hit 2 Skyscrapers and caused it to collapse? And to this day most of the 19 Alleged Hijackers are still alive

EDIT: After 9/11 there were spots reported to have been over 2000°, this is 500° than Jet fuel even burns

I call conspiracy theory. You just lost your credibility in my eyes on anything you say until you cite a lot more sources.

Ever heard the quote "Religion is Opiate of the masses" by Karl Marx?

Yeah, I heard that it was made up. Ever heard the original?

" Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. "

 

[classical_hero]

This would be true for 90% of the threads in here.

My glorious thread about Earthday is in the other 10% and stays there!

edit: Oh heck, I just read the latest additions

Welcome to Off Topic.

 

[brennan]

What? What exactly am I sweeping? Whats your point? Go ahead and make one up now. A different one then you originally intended if you need to to make it look like you have a modicum of wit.

Ok, don't answer the question. It's not like this is a forum for debate or anything is it?

It's a simple point old bean: To claim Christianity as a religion is non-violent you have to forget about the OT, which constitutes the majority of the Bible. Then you have to point out that it was medieval culture that was violent rather than the religion itself. If you do this, what basis is there for claiming that Islam is violent just because of a few lines in the Koram you object to? Can you not say that Islam is just as violent as Christianity in that yes there are a few passages in both holy books that are, uh.. morally objectionable, but that really it is the people that are the problem not the religion.

Is that not equally true of both?

 

[skadistic]

Ok, don't answer the question.What doI think of the crusades? I need to know what I think before I can answer it and since you know what I think tell me so I can answer. Why is it so easy for you assume what I think and ask questions loaded to what you think I think but when confronted to quantify your assumption you can't or won't to because you don't have a clue. It's not like this is a forum for debate or anything is it?

It's a simple point old bean: To claim Christianity as a religion is non-violent you have to forget about the OT, which constitutes the majority of the Bible. Then you have to point out that it was medieval culture that was violent rather than the religion itself. If you do this, what basis is there for claiming that Islam is violent just because of a few lines in the Koram you object to?Tell me what does that line say I find objectionable say. Then find one in the bible that says the same thing. Can you not say that Islam is just as violent as Christianity in that yes there are a few passages in both holy books that are, uh.. morally objectionable, but that really it is the people that are the problem not the religion.So put those parts in context and perspective. In the bible where Jews went to war was that a one time calling or a message to kill that still is in effect today like the lines in the quran are still relevant today.

Is that not equally true of both?

Show me in the OT where the bible said to go kill the unbeliever. Show me where in the medieval culture the bible told them to go kill the non-christians. You have no understanding of either the bible and christianity or islam and the quran. If you had you wouldn't be making such stupid claims. That islam doesn't preach hate and killing making it in fact violent. By all means please show me in the bible where the christian prophet tells christians to wage war aginst the heathens. Show me in the bible or the gospels where christians are directed to to kill those who aren't christians and how christians should make the world christian by conversion or sword point. And yes the people are the problem. But islam in its teachings teach people that violence against non-muslems is gods will and killing is what allah wants. You have to be some kind of fool to thing the teachings of Jesus which is what the christians follow are as violent as the teachings of muhamed who's teachings muslims follow. Jesus was the original do gooder, muhamad was a child molesting, wife beating murderous war monger who spread his violent religion by the sword. Are you really that uneducated on the tenants of these religions? If so maybe you shouldn't try and look smart when you fail at your weak effort to compare the two. Next time you want to jump the gun and troll me do you self a favour and at least have a bsic understanding of the subject or you'll get schooled again.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Allrighty:

These are not about killing the unbeliever, but I still had them from another thread.

Rape:
If a man [meets] a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her ... He must marry the girl ... He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
-- Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV)

Kids:
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son ... Then shall his father and his mother ... bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.
-- Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (AV)

Now I know little about the Bible, am no scholar, and I do believe neither of those two verses are representative of Christianity. But to say that the bible is all honkey dorey is just flowering up the issue a little too much in my opinion.

edit: Added to that, Classical Hero and me were having a talk yesterday about leveticus. You should read the things the OT God promises to do to you when you don't obey him.

edit 2: And lest we not forget the Fig tree

 

[El_Machinae]

The New Testament also talks about people "deserving" death, though the apologists (and, I believe, the original authors) interpret those parts as referring to spiritual/permanent death.

But nutbars can interpret those passages differently.

 

[skadistic]

Neither of those two verser are representative of chrstians. Why? Because those aren't the teachings of Christ. Chistian = follower of Christ. OT = Ancient jewish books. OT != teachings of Christ. Those are also cultural aspects of the time and not the message of god.

'Kill the unbelievers where you find them' are the teachings of muhamid and said to be the transcribed word of allah. They are as far as islam is concerned the word of god and a tenant of their religion.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Me:"I do believe neither of those two verses are representative of Christianity."

I didn't bring up the OT

And some/many/most (depents on your alignment) parts of the OT are still used, so you can't simply dismiss it as unimportant.

edit: maybe he meant te unbelievers who came to conquer them? Different times, different historical background. I seem to remember a part in the Koran that states violence is only to be used in defence.

 

[Evie]

How predictable.

Sorry, but the OT is part of your core holy book. As I have already said - you want the OT to not count toward whether or not christianty is a violent religion? You tear it out of the bible. As long as it IS part of the bible, Christianity has no ground to stand on to point at others and say "THEIR HOLY BOOK HAS BITS THAT SAY TO KILL PEOPLE!"

And kill the unbeliever/apostate/etc = Deuteronomy 13.

 

[skadistic]

Me:"I do believe neither of those two verses are representative of Christianity."

I didn't bring up the OT

And some/many/most (depents on your alignment) parts of the OT are still used, so you can't simply dismiss it as unimportant.

edit: maybe he meant te unbelievers who came to conquer them? Different times, different historical background. I seem to remember a part in the Koran that states violence is only to be used in defence.

The quran isn't set up to be chronological one passage is timeless in meaning. And you will find many things in quran that will contrict each other. Earlier writen texts of not as militent and violent but when muhamid was laughed at by both the Jews and christians for his bogus prophet claims the message turned violent. And muhamud went on the war path. His hate for the Jews was deeper then that of the christians and he saw Jesus as a prophet but not a god.

And the OT is still used by those who need to cherry pick parts of the bible to prove their brand of intolerant hate legit. But again you won't find in the bible the call to kill that you will in the quran. I'm not saying it unimportant I'm saying its not what defines christians or christianity.

 

[skadistic]

How predictable.

Sorry, but the OT is part of your core holy book. As I have already said - you want the OT to not count toward whether or not christianty is a violent religion? You tear it out of the bible. As long as it IS part of the bible, Christianity has no ground to stand on to point at others and say "THEIR HOLY BOOK HAS BITS THAT SAY TO KILL PEOPLE!"

And kill the unbeliever/apostate/etc = Deuteronomy 13.

Quote the exact text that says that.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

As long as [the OT] IS part of the bible, Christianity has no ground to stand on to point at others and say "THEIR HOLY BOOK HAS BITS THAT SAY TO KILL PEOPLE!"

That's preposterous. All the ground needed to point at anyone and make the above statement is that their holy book must, in fact, contain such an imperative.

Edit: Also, I think you missed the context starting in Deuteronomy 12.
"These are the rules and regulations that you must diligently observe for as long as you live in this country that God, the God-of-Your-Fathers, has given you to possess."

 

[classical_hero]

Allrighty:

These are not about killing the unbeliever, but I still had them from another thread.

Rape:
If a man [meets] a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her ... He must marry the girl ... He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
-- Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV)

Kids:
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son ... Then shall his father and his mother ... bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.
-- Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (AV)

Now I know little about the Bible, am no scholar, and I do believe neither of those two verses are representative of Christianity. But to say that the bible is all honkey dorey is just flowering up the issue a little too much in my opinion.

edit: Added to that, Classical Hero and me were having a talk yesterday about leveticus. You should read the things the OT God promises to do to you when you don't obey him.

edit 2: And lest we not forget the Fig tree

Lets put each of these in context.
1. There are more verses in that passage pertaining to rape than just those, but that is also punishment for the guy because there is no way that he could ever theave that relationship. I wonder what would happen to the rape rate if every guy that commits rape to a virgin had this happen to him. I know that I would not want to rape someone if I had to spend the rest of my life with that person. In every other situation the Rapist was commanded to be put to death. These are harsh penalties for Rape.

2. The Bible does say that "For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry." 1 Samuel 15:23a. The Bible does makes no bones about how it treats various sins and many of them carry the punishment of death. That is the whole point of the law is to condemn. If I could I would basically quote you the whole first 10 Chapters of Romans since it perfectly describes the purpose of the law. But since this is a much briefer quote I will quote from Galatians 3:5-11.
5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

The Law is either still in effect because you allow it to be in effect, or you are not under the effect of the Law because Christ took upon himself the penalty of the Law so that we can be made righteous. He has redeemed me from the Curse of the Law, which is this, "that whosoever shall eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, shall surely die". This curse has been passed down upon us since we are al from Adam. (Romans 5:12-21) This applies to Leviticus since all these laws carry a punishment for not doing them and if you are still trying to either fulfil them or break them, then you are under the workings of the law.

3. The fig tree is a reminder to show that those who do not fulfil their purpose in life, then they are useless and are best to be done away with. What is the point of a fig tree that does not give figs? Absolutely none.