Christianity: Violent or Peaceful?

[Squiggle]

I agree with Boofhead. Christianity is a religion based on a hell of a lot more tolerance and humane respect than say, Islam. Likewise I'd think an ideology like Fascism and Communism are naturally predisposed to a lot more violence and suppression than your typical western style Democracy. Obviously anything can be twisted in the right hands, but the right moral foundation should make it just that much harder to twist anything for more sinister means. I think modern Christianity is definitely a moral and sane foundation for a society. Can't say the same for all religions however...

Split off from the other 'Christian Militia' thread. This debate would be done more justice here. There as some good posts, and a good discussion.

[Thanatos]

I agree with Boofhead. Christianity is a religion based on a hell of a lot more tolerance and humane respect than say, Islam.

Where on earth did Jesus say in the Bible to tolerate non-believers or those who don't share your beliefs? He said to pity and to forgive them, but that doesn't necessarily equate to tolerating them.

[Squiggle]

Where on earth did Jesus say in the Bible to tolerate non-believers or those who don't share your beliefs? He said to pity and to forgive them, but that doesn't necessarily equate to tolerating them.

Does it have to be expressively said? The entirety of Jesus' message was to respect and love your fellow man, if he didn't say "and this doesn't apply to non believers, who you must hate and scorn!" then im pretty sure they fall under the category as the rest of humanity does.

Not neccesarily. Under early Islam, Jews and Christians could expect to have an extra tax, but compared to the alternative; living as a Jew in a Christian kingdom or living as a Muslim in a Christian kingdom, being taxed isn't that bad compared to the threats of lynching/random seizure of property/expulsion.

EDIT: Too slow.

You pick early Islam and yet not early Christianity to compare, I find that highly odd. Regardless, what Christianity has been or Islam has been is irrelevant. I never said they are both incapable of virtue or vice, simply that one is more predisposed towards a more moral living and a saner society than the other.

[PoleCat]

You pick early Islam and yet not early Christianity to compare, I find that highly odd....

Squiggle, the Spanish Inquisition just called. They asked that you please leave out Early Christianity - no need to give the haters any more fuel for the fire....

[Squiggle]

Squiggle, the Spanish Inquisition just called. They asked that you please leave out Early Christianity - no need to give the haters any more fuel for the fire....

I'm not entirely sure of what you mean in this post, but regardless I'll respond.

I never said they are both incapable of virtue or vice, simply that one is more predisposed towards a more moral living and a saner society than the other.

I said that right here. Either way, the Spanish inquisition isn't even close to the early period of Christianity. Sooo?

[Dargaron]

You pick early Islam and yet not early Christianity to compare, I find that highly odd. Regardless, what Christianity has been or Islam has been is irrelevant. I never said they are both incapable of virtue or vise, simply that one is more predisposed towards a more moral living and a saner society than the other.

You'll notice a distinct lack of Pagans in Europe. I wonder where they all went?
What did happen is often a good indicator of what was likely to happen, so comparing the earlier (and therefore closer to original intent) versions of Christianity and Islam would make some sense in determining which of these religions has a greater or lesser disposition towards a "more moral" style of living/government.

Darn it! Too slow again!

[Squiggle]

You'll notice a distinct lack of Pagans in Europe. I wonder where they all went?
What did happen is often a good indicator of what was likely to happen, so comparing the earlier (and therefore closer to original intent) versions of Christianity and Islam would make some sense in determining which of these religions has a greater or lesser disposition towards a "more moral" style of living/government.

Darn it! Too slow again!

Ok, lets compare the real early periods of Islam and Christianity. Early Islam- Led by their warrior prophet Mohammad [and others taught by him], they raped and conquered through North Africa, the Middle east, Persia etc.

Early Christianity- Persecuted by the Roman empire but spread like wildfire due to it preaching equality and peace, while its martyr's inspired hundreds of thousands of pagans.

Yeah, pretty sure I know which Religion- when closest to its founding- is more sane. Again people, because apparently you've forgotten basic history, the periods of Christianity persecuting Pagans, burning witches and all that lot happened hundreds of years after its founding. Not really early Christianity by any stretch...

[Dargaron]

Ok, lets compare the real early periods of Islam and Christianity. Early Islam- Led by their warrior prophet Mohammad [and others taught by him], they raped and conquered through North Africa, the Middle east, Persia etc.

Early Christianity- Persecuted by the Roman empire but spread like wildfire due to it preaching equality and peace, while its martyr's inspired hundreds of thousands of pagans.

Yeah, pretty sure I know which Religion- when closest to its founding- is more sane. Again people, because apparently you've forgotten basic history, the periods of Christianity persecuting Pagans, burning witches and all that lot happened hundreds of years after its founding. Not really early Christianity by any stretch...

Except for the fact that Christianity didn't have anywhere near the power early Islam had. That is like saying ants are less violent than cats, because they never kill cute, furry mammals. I was comparing the early stages of each religions political dominence, once each faith had a state behind it.

How did the Muslims act when they ruled over vast numbers of non-Muslims? It got to such a point that the Monophysites, if they didn't prefer the Islamic invaders to the Patriarch in Constantinople, they at least didn't particularly care which of these two governments had dominence. Source. If you compare that easy conquest to the religious back-and-forth after the conversion of Constantine, it seems that the Muslims at least had pretty good propoganda.

Gah! I must be slowing down with age. 12 posts in the same number of minutes?

@Squiggle: Early Christianity inspired because it was founded smack-dab in the middle of the Roman Empire. If they had tried using millitary strength in their really early days, they would have suffered the same fate as the Jewish rebels of the First Century AD.

[jankren]

Ok, lets compare the real early periods of Islam and Christianity. Early Islam- Led by their warrior prophet Mohammad [and others taught by him], they raped and conquered through North Africa, the Middle east, Persia etc.

You dont even know what you are talking about dude.

Muhammad started out following the same wussy way as Jesus except when his followers and belief threatened he didnt just gave up and chose to fight back.

Well, to be fair actually Jesus tried the same but unfortunately his followers of poor Jewish villagers stood no chance against the Roman Army.

[Phier]

Where on earth did Jesus say in the Bible to tolerate non-believers or those who don't share your beliefs? He said to pity and to forgive them, but that doesn't necessarily equate to tolerating them.

I'm not a bible scholar to quote passages, but it said to convince the non-believers with your deeds. Being Christianity was a complete minority religion in the Roman empire, it would have been rather self defeating to promote non-tolerance or violence, it would not have lasted a decade.

[basics]

" Where on earth did Jesus say in the Bible to tolerate non-believers or those who don't share your beliefs? He said to pity and to forgive them, but that doesn't necessarily equate to tolerating them."

Thanatos,

Perhaps by garnering all the Law into one saying of loving your neighbour as you love yourself is the place where Jesus laid it out. There is only one Biblical precedent for a Christian to be violent, this coming from the command of Paul that a soldier if he is Christian to remain a soldier and be the best as an example.

Of course we are not required to accept what others believe yet by example we are expressly required to show the love of Christ to them in how we treat them, hoping that this may rub off onto them. This is called heaping coals that will be evident in their response to a Christian.

The violence associated with Christianity came about by bishops usurping their authority whilst furthering their own personal ambitions thus plunging where Christianity was into bloodbaths, the controversy being Arians versus Orthodox. Constantine himself being baptised by an Arian bishop on his deathbed therefore leaves wide open how he could ever have been Christian.

So history tells of Christianity having a violent nature. What it cannot tell is whether those that indulged were actually born again, the only way a man can be Christian. Nonetheless we read of mobs rampaging through the enemies quarters butchering anything that looked like opposition, this done by both sides on behalf of bishops, many of whom didn't know who Jesus actually was.

[The Fishman]

Jesus was a great force for peace. Christianity is not. If Jesus didn't exist, the Church wouldn't have invented a man like him.

Christianity and Islam are both expansionist and exclusive. It's just that Islam began that way (to an extent) whilst the Church deliberately twisted their faith to make it so.

[Dargaron]

I agree with Boofhead. Christianity is a religion based on a hell of a lot more tolerance and humane respect than say, Islam.

Not neccesarily. Under early Islam, Jews and Christians could expect to have an extra tax, but compared to the alternative; living as a Jew in a Christian kingdom or living as a Muslim in a Christian kingdom, being taxed isn't that bad compared to the threats of lynching/random seizure of property/expulsion.

EDIT: Too slow.

[Thanatos]

Loving them doesn't mean tolerating what they do.

For example, Christians are meant to love their fellow man, who let's say is Gay. Does that mean Christians are to tolerate homosexuality? According to the Bible, no.

Like I said pity != tolerance.

[Squiggle]

Loving them doesn't mean tolerating what they do.

For example, Christians are meant to love their fellow man, who let's say is Gay. Does that mean Christians are to tolerate homosexuality? According to the Bible, no.

Like I said pity != tolerance.

Ah, well yes that is true. Obviously as a Christian your not meant to tolerate evil and sin, though I still contend there is no valid biblical legitimacy behind say, Christians force converting others, etc.

I'm not a bible scholar to quote passages, but it said to convince the non-believers with your deeds. Being Christianity was a complete minority religion in the Roman empire, it would have been rather self defeating to promote non-tolerance or violence, it would not have lasted a decade.

Exactly.

[motiv-8]

Predisposition doesn't mean much when faced with groups like these or, say, the Lord's Resistance Army. "It's more moral, honest!" is a thin veneer, a desperate attempt at distraction.

Islam also promotes moral living, justice, mercy, and a swarm of other ideas and deeds the modern man can recognize as 'good,' but that doesn't stop such things from being lost on both criticizers and terrorists. Strangely like Christianity in this particular situation.

[boofhead]

The entirety of Jesus' message was to respect and love your fellow man, if he didn't say "and this doesn't apply to non believers, who you must hate and scorn!" then im pretty sure they fall under the category as the rest of humanity does.

Jesus said love all men, because they are children of God just like you. Do unto them as you would want them to do unto you. He also said love the Father, be humble in this awareness, and use your short time wisely to store up spiritual treasures and not worldly ones. See the spiritual as more important than the corporeal, because everything corporeal or mundane passes and will end.

There's more to it, but that's pretty much the essence of Christianity. And yet people with no understanding like to proclaim ''Look, in the Old testament some dude killed another dude'', so ''Christians are ed!''

That's why it's the ''old'' testament, because old things were washed away! It stands as an example of the past, not something to live or recreate!

And yet other creeds will condone the persecution or the hatred of people. Christianity doesn't do that. Christianity says ''hate the sin, not the sinner'', so there is no basis under Christian dogma whatsoever to persecute or be a prick.

That's why some creeds are more prone to dysfunction than others.

[motiv-8]

Ok, lets compare the real early periods of Islam and Christianity. Early Islam- Led by their warrior prophet Mohhomod [and others taught by him], they raped and conquered through North Africa, the Middle east, Persia etc.

Ah, religious bigory promoted by mythologized history. Never seen that one before.

That's why it's the ''old'' testament, because old things were washed away! It stands as an example of the past, not something to live or recreate!

Jesus didn't magically wash away the old laws. He said so himself.

And yet other creeds will condone the persecution or the hatred of people. Christianity doesn't do that. Christianity says ''hate the sin, not the sinner'', so there is no basis under Christian dogma whatsoever to persecute or be a prick.

And yet, nearly the entirety of Christianity finds adherents persecuting and being pricks.

While you have your head somewhere dark talking about vacuous "ought to be" items, the rational-minded will observe what is, and what has been.

[Squiggle]

Ah, religious bigory promoted by mythologized history. Never seen that one before.

What? Not a damn thing I said was factually incorrect. Early Islam conquered, early Christianity inspired. This is a matter of historical record, and is in fact taught in Canadian "World Religions" class for public High school. Canada. It's just that non contentious.

[Justinian]

What? Not a damn thing I said was factually incorrect. Early Islam conquered, early Christianity inspired. This is a matter of historical record, and is in fact taught in Canadian "World Religions" class for public High school. Canada. It's just that non contentious.

Christians were persecuted by the Romans, then as soon as Christianity became acceptable, and then the state religion, they started persecuting everybody else vigorously and tenaciously like it was the only way to get rid of a Viagra-induced six hour erection. In fact, for some reason, Christianity's entire history is as marked with bloodshed and ignorance as any other religion.

But, you know, Jesus <3ed teh peace!!1 and all that.