Is Christianity a Violent Religion?

[Richard the Lionheart]

That must mean that Christianity encourages violence!

Ummm....yeah, the Old Testament does definitely encourage violence. And the New Testament has it's own share of violence and encouraging of violence as well.

[Shaun]

A man created the religion, the religion is what ever man created it to be. So if man created it to be violent, then it will be violent, but the religion itself is an inanimate object, its the followers who give it its meaning, and ofcourse violence. So, overall, the religion is not violent, it cannot be, it has no power and cannot do anything. Its the followers that make it violent.

[Visna]

When discussing religions, I think it's more or less futile to focus on the actions of the followers, past and present. Anything, well almost anything, can be twisted and perverted. But by focussing on the scriptures, which said religions deem sacred and above criticism, we can actually hope to achieve something. And doing that, I think the answer to your question is yes. Christianity is a violent religion.

There is an incredible amount of violence in the Bible. Some of it not only sanctioned by God, but actually carried out by God. For instance:
"And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."
Genesis 6:7

Ok, God messed up first time around, and He is disappointed by the actions of his creations, and so decides to wipe out all of them. Sort of like a fresh start. We all need one of those from time to time. But what about the poor animals? What could animals possibly have done to incur God's wrath?

Or this one:
"For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD."
Exodus 12:12

And the violence goes on and on. All the way through the Old Testament. Leviticus and Deuteronomy are particularly amusing and quite gory. :tooth:

Then one would think that God found a different approach. Instead of "genociding"" folks into submission, he sends Jesus. Jesus, who had a wonderful opportunity to set things straight. Tell everyone on God's behalf, that the ways of the Old testament were wrong, and that God has "wised up". Yet, he doesn't.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
Matthew 5:17

In fact, he behaves quite childish on occasions. Condemning cities to eternal damnation because they didn't care for his preaching.
"Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.
And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee."
Matthew 11:21-24

Not to mention what's supposed to happen when Jesus returns, as detailed in Revelations.
After a mellow beginning, God shows he means business this time.
And one of the four beasts gave unto the seven angels seven golden vials full of the wrath of God, who liveth for ever and ever.
Revelations 15:7

After this all hell (no pun intended ) breaks loose.

[Erik]

A man created the religion, the religion is what ever man created it to be. So if man created it to be violent, then it will be violent, but the religion itself is an inanimate object, its the followers who give it its meaning, and ofcourse violence. So, overall, the religion is not violent, it cannot be, it has no power and cannot do anything. Its the followers that make it violent.

Exactly.

[Ummon]

The problem as usual is that this violence is mostly in the Old Testament, and furthermore, this has to do with the Jahvic transformation. I won't enter details as this is a ponderous thing to explain. But the God of the New Testament has different characteristics from that of the Old. Why? Is it because it isn't the same God?

No, it is because of a change in the human beings who perceive Him. As God is not understandable fully, what we have of Him is always an imperfect description, which may change through history, becoming better (or worse) as human beings get better (or worse). A long story short, the New Testament is the key to interpretation of Christianism.

Notice, fulfilling is changing as well. An adult is not a child anymore.

[hekk]

A man created the religion, the religion is what ever man created it to be. So if man created it to be violent, then it will be violent, but the religion itself is an inanimate object, its the followers who give it its meaning, and ofcourse violence. So, overall, the religion is not violent, it cannot be, it has no power and cannot do anything. Its the followers that make it violent.

*takes up a sign which says "ALL UNBELIEVERS MUST DIE" and shouts stuff in Latin*

[Sétanta]

Ummm....yeah, the Old Testament does definitely encourage violence. And the New Testament has it's own share of violence and encouraging of violence as well.

Christianity is based around the teachings of Jesus. You know that...I hope. The most violent thing Jesus ever did, the most violent things his apostles and followers ever did was attack people who were oppressing the poor, and that was without bloodshed. Violence in the New Testament is pretty much limited to the Romans and Jews under Herod the Great.

[Shaun]

*takes up a sign which says "ALL UNBELIEVERS MUST DIE" and shouts stuff in Latin*

Again, who made religion say that? Man did, and this part is largely ignored by its followers, so does that still make it a violent religion?

[Justinian]

No, it is because of a change in the human beings who perceive Him.

But the Bible is supposed to be humans writing down God's words, no? No amount of 'perceivement' is supposed to be involved or the Bible is quite obviously tainted.

As God is not understandable fully, what we have of Him is always an imperfect description, which may change through history, becoming better (or worse) as human beings get better (or worse).

But God's descriptions supposedly come from God. Is God incorrectly describing himself?

A long story short, the New Testament is the key to interpretation of Chrsitianism.

You can't describe or evaluate something by looking at half of it. Either one part of the Bible is completely false, both are true and God is simply an inconstant (even though the Bible says he never changes), or more possibly, neither one is true.

A man created the religion, the religion is what ever man created it to be. So if man created it to be violent, then it will be violent, but the religion itself is an inanimate object, its the followers who give it its meaning, and ofcourse violence. So, overall, the religion is not violent, it cannot be, it has no power and cannot do anything. Its the followers that make it violent.

Please, use fewer commas . . . but are you saying that an idea (for religions are ideas) only means anything if people believe it and follow it? Would the idea that the Earth is spherical still be true if we didn't believe it? That seems to be what you're saying, you're saying that religions (ideas) are wholly shaped by the people who follow them (believe them), with no regard as to what the actual idea says?

[Ummon]

But the Bible is supposed to be humans writing down God's words, no? No amount of 'perceivement' is supposed to be involved or the Bible is quite obviously tainted.

Actually, differently from Islam, Christianism doesn't claim that its holy book is perfect. Only inspired. God is perfect, not the Bible.

But God's descriptions supposedly come from God. Is God incorrectly describing himself?

Can you hold twenty liters in a one liter bottle?

You can't describe or evaluate something by looking at half of it. Either one part of the Bible is completely false, both are true and God is simply an inconstant (even though the Bible says he never changes), or more possibly, neither one is true.

Have you ever heard that there are partial degrees of truthfulness?

[hekk]

Again, who made religion say that? Man did, and this part is largely ignored by its followers, so does that still make it a violent religion?

Typical disrespective athiest philosophy stinks.

[Ummon]

Typical disrespective athiest philosophy stinks.

*whispering* I secretly encourage you to burn him on a stake. :wink:

[Richard the Lionheart]

Actually, differently from Islam, Christianism doesn't claim that its holy book is perfect. Only inspired. God is perfect, not the Bible.

Nah. Most Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God/Jesus whatever and that it's perfect and true.

Because hey, if they accept that it's not perfect or that it has been changed, then they'll be agreeing with the Muslims. :tooth:

[Ummon]

Nah. Most Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God/Jesus whatever and that it's perfect and true.

Because hey, if they accept that it's not perfect or that it has been changed, then they'll be agreeing with the Muslims. :tooth:

Sorry, completely wrong. The Bible is not the word of God, the Bible is the word of human beings inspired by God, for Christians.

The Quran on the other hand, is a collection of mistakes which nobody can change because a lot of fanatics say it is perfect.

[Shaun]

Please, use fewer commas . . . but are you saying that an idea (for religions are ideas) only means anything if people believe it and follow it?

A rellgious idea ony has meaning if people follow it, thats exactly what I am saying.

Would the idea that the Earth is spherical still be true if we didn't believe it? That seems to be what you're saying, you're saying that religions (ideas) are wholly shaped by the people who follow them (believe them), with no regard as to what the actual idea says?

No, because the earht is spherical, there is no denying this its proven, unlike many religous ideas, and the fact that many religous ideas cannot or dont need to be proven either. But yer, your getting the jist of it, religious ideas are shaped by the people that follow them, thats why Christianity is no longer a very violent religion, because the people have abandoned thier old medieval mindsets and got new ones, modern, peaceful ones. With regards to what the idea actually says, many religious ideas dont have a definte meaning, they are open to interpritation, you can take them almost how you want to take them, when people take them to mean violence, then thats what makes a religion violent, not the actual religion, but the people.

[Ummon]

A rellgious idea ony has meaning if people follow it, thats exactly what I am saying.

No, because the earht is spherical, there is no denying this its proven, unlike many religous ideas, and the fact that many religous ideas cannot or dont need to be proven either. But yer, your getting the jist of it, religious ideas are shaped by the people that follow them, thats why Christianity is no longer a very violent religion, because the people have abandoned thier old medieval mindsets and got new ones, modern, peaceful ones. With regards to what the idea actually says, many religious ideas dont have a definte meaning, they are open to interpritation, you can take them almost how you want to take them, when people take them to mean violence, then thats what makes a religion violent, not the actual religion, but the people.

Little question.

If one book is stated as the word of God, and it is defined as perfect, and nobody can change a single word (which is also said in the aforementioned book, which is perfect, then it must be true), and the book says "kill", which result exactly we should expect if someone believes in that book's perfection?

[Justinian]

Can you hold twenty liters in a one liter bottle?

No, but is it the bottle's fault or the idiot trying to pour twenty liters into it?

Have you ever heard that there are partial degrees of truthfulness?

Of God? That's ridiculous. Either a perfect supernatural being is just that, perfect, or he isn't. You can't be "kind of perfect" any more than you can be "kind of dead".

[Ummon]

No, but is it the bottle's fault or the idiot trying to pour twenty liters into it?

If you want to understand God, there's no other way than make your bottle bigger and bigger. And yet as he is infinite, you will never succeed.

Of God? That's ridiculous. Either a perfect supernatural being is just that, perfect, or he isn't. You can't be "kind of perfect" any more than you can be "kind of dead".

I will try to explain myself better. God is perfect. It is us who the ones who are not. An infinite doesn't fit in a finite container. Point. All description of God is partial. Like the story of a group of blind men that tried to state to what and Elephant can be compared. One touches the leg, and he says: it's like a tree. One touches the ear and says: it's like the sail of a ship. Etc. Etc.

[Richard the Lionheart]

Hmmm, from the way I see it, Christians accept the Bible as the word of God/Jesus. Jesus preacehd to people and they wrote it down.

I haven't seen any serious Christians saying there are mistakes in the Bible because they believe that the Bible is divine.

[Ummon]

Jesus spoke and people wrote it down, but the memory of people is not perfect, and each man listens to what he can listen to, and understands what he can understand. See?

Then you haven't seen serious Christians.