Christian Violence

[McCulloch]

Is that why Christians since St. Augustine have not ever really agreed with each other about Jesus' teachings about violence?

... t is probably because of frustration for evil and violence within so many. But if you use the words of Jesus, there seems to be little fighting one can do in his name. Actually I can't see any. In that I think that the Quakers got it right. You seem to be saying that some Muslims and some atheists are quite as good as other Muslims and atheists. Seems like every human has the same weakness to me. I hope the good ones keep pointing out how to be nice to the bad ones. We Christians do it as a matter of fact, day in and day out. Look at Bush's loudest enemies in the US. Most claim they want their Christianity back. Wierd but true. But there is no jihad in the New Testament anywhere and c'mon jihad does mean war on infidels. That is a fact. [Are] there any wars attributed to Christians fighting to spread Christianity in the last hundred or so years? Islam is still at it.

Which is the correct Christian position? Jesus taught very plainly about violence and the correct reaction to it. Some Christian sects reject violence as a solution to interpersonal or international problems.
On the other hand the practice of many calling themselves Christian involve the practice of war. Augustine and many Christian theologians since have justified violence under certain circumstances. His restrictions are largely ignored by modern Christian soldiers. The same God that the Christians worship appears to have ordered genocide in order that his chosen people could have a homeland.

Question for debate, "Which is the authentic Christian teaching? Just war or Turn the other cheek?"

[Tilia]

Tilia wrote:

He is also portrayed as a convinced, very stubbornly religious Jew. I think very few scholars would give that hypothesis much attention.

The contradictory portrait of Peter would just be another of the incongruities of the narrative.

I don't know who told you it is contradictory. And of course the 'incongruities' bit is another invention. Don't believe everything you're told! There are some naughty people about!

Note also that , even though the traitor has been clearly identified prior to the arrest (at the Last supper), none of the disciples takes any action, none of them asks Judas where he is going, or tries to stop him.

That's easy. That's because they didn't know what Judas, the purser, was going to do.

Then what is the point in you posting at all?

My point is simply to highlight the fact that many interpretations are possible,

With respect, I don't think you can have any point at all, because if one can select at will what one will believe, then one becomes totally beyond credibility, and indeed, respect.

and that the arrest/Passion narratives contain elements which clearly mark them as later elaborations or reconstructions rather than history.

Do make a start on that. When I see the word 'clearly' on the internet, I have to suppress a smile.

You use my standards when they suit your argument, and when yours contradict your argument. That is really remarkable, even on the internet.

I think I have explained this before.

That is untrue. You used for support an argument that you do not even believe! That is ridiculous.

From an emic perspective Christianity is not violent, but from an etic one it is (the Crusades, for example).

I can't find those mentioned in John's Gospel. Can you give me the reference, please?

That's odd. You wrote that the presence of soldiers was what made the whole thing unlikely:

Now you have decided that soldiers may not have been present; by that logic, the scene looks more likely, not less.

Not all four Passion narratives are equally unlikely.

Whichever option you choose- it's no use!

I do believe that Jesus was arrested and executed.

I really don't care what you believe- or what you say you believe. I'm interested in fact and logic, not biased guesswork and absurdity, and as there seems to be no fact or logic here except what I have supplied, I am losing interest.

[scorpia]

The KKK started under no influence of religion. The original founders did not incorperate Christianity into their plight, the movement was solely on the grounds of white supremacy. It was years before religion came into play, when they made an attempt to be more inclusive.

For those people who do think religion causes things like white supremacy, I meant for black people being a white supremacist wouldn't be a problem, so they don't have to worry about that from religion, if anything at all.

[trencacloscas]

I know what we can do to hault manipulation. Get rid of religion, all beliefs, all wants, and all emotion. Make every citizen a robot at control of the government. Would that be preferrable to a society under religious influence?

Not in the most subtle way I even suggested such thing. On the contrary, robots of religion are the same as other robots, and normally go together. The robots of Mr. Bush, for instance, both controlled by the lies of the government, the lies of nationalism and the lies of religion.

The Inquisition= intolerance and power. The Jim Crow Laws? Slave Trade? German concentration camps?

Wars amoung sects= power, intolerance, greed. Wars between countries? Racial rivalries in society? Gang rivalries? The Civil War?

Religious Intolerance= intolerance, of course. Intolerance against blacks. Intolerance against non-aryans. Intolerance against people of different social classes.

Excuses.

Any negative trait of religion can (and has) existed in a secular counterpart.

So? Does that diminish the guilt of religion?

Suicide rate, which is CONSIDERATELY higher for athiests. Also, polls- people will tell you how they feel. Every study concieves similar results; that is, that the religious are typically happier. You can often visibly see the difference. Take your standard devout Christian and compare it to a typical athiest. Who do you imagine usually being happier?

Wow! Christians have suicide forbidden, of course their suicide rate is lower!
On the other hand, drunken or doped people are happier than sober, so? How does that has something to do with truth?

The strive for meaning and knowledge is what seperates us from other animals. Religion is not some random manic concoction of the feeble-minded, it is the soul and essence of human existance.

That's your opinion, exclusively. Religion is pure ignorance and superstition, exactly the contrary of knowledge.

The influence of religion expanded in direct correspondence to the expansion of our intelligent capacity. As soon as we could think, we wondered. With no other explanation, our attention turned to the supernatural.

No, expansion of our intelligent capacity has to do with overcoming problems of survival and conscience. Religion probably represents a factor in the preservation of certain capacities, but since it is a lie and every day that fact gets more and more evident, one day we could get rid of the empty shell and finally live a real life without cheating ourselves with an afterlife.

You, perhaps out of some genetic deviation, apparently do not need hope and meaning. However, the average human being does.

Genetic deviation? Sounds like a subtle insult. But probably we are the next step in genetic evolution, people happy with our lives as they are, not having to trust in ridiculous fantasies to live healthy and free.

Get rid of God? Great, then we can just focus more attention on exclusion, discrimination, and greed (the root causes of even religious conflicts).

I don't think so. God is the motive of many frictions in the human race, since there is not only one, and this one is not even the same for people of the same religion. Getting rid of God is getting rid for one of the main causes of superstition and conflict. Anyway, this change won't come (and it is not desirable to come) overnight.

You would not do anyone a favor by convincing them to negate their instincts.

This is curious coming from a Christian, which are dedicated to negate instincts.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Sorry, but Judas or the pharisees (depending of the Gospel you choose, because they are contradictory in this too) look like the righteous ones here.

Absolutely. This passage was a nightmare for me even when I was a convinced Christian. I denied the contradiction to myself for a long time. Not anymore.

There are a couple verses I struggle with, but honestly, I never thought twice about this one. It just makes sense. Jesus was not asking to be honored or pampered, but he was not going to reject this woman who did it in good intention, albeit naively.

Look at the verse more in depth. Jesus made the statement in question after she had poured the perfume and was being heckled by the others. He did not necissarily agree with the use of the perfume, but knew the woman had honest intent, therefore was certainly not going to criticize her like the rest.

You act as if this one line defines Jesus' very position. This is a fallicious way to go about interpreting the Bible in the first place, as an accurate view may only be attained by considering the whole picture. This verse in reality has nothing to do with charity at all, but represents one idea, which if considered along with the rest, gives one an accurate assessment of Biblical doctrine.

All pro-charity statements aside, just look at how Jesus dealt with the poor. He would heal their every ailment, and would even make one long trip just for the sake of a single individual. More considerable is that he did NOT do it for sake of evangelization; Christ made every effort to make kind acts in complete secrecy, and would often tell his patient not to tell anyone what he had done.

But again this is the proof that there is nothing sacred about the NT, no clear teachings, just mediocre literature. And once again, Christian always say what would Jesus have done in this case , which is completely bollocks, for Jesus (the character portrayed in the NT) is pretty contradictory in almost everything: peace, charity, family, authority...

You keep stressing this point, contrary to its irrelevance to the debate subject.

Bottom line is: was Jesus FOR, or AGAINST violence? What was his stance on charity?

I think we would both agree that Jesus is against violence in most all situations, aside from perhaps dire self-defense (in light of the 'sword' passage). He was also strictly pro-poor, anti-rich.

A few possible contradictions may slightly hamper this position, but remember, we are going for the entire picture.

Thing is, I may be starting to AGREE with you about the contradictions, believe it or not. My faith has fluctuated up and down for the past year or two, but recently has been hitting some unprecedented lows, much due to some verses I found on my own.

I am much younger than 99% of this site, so my true beliefs have plenty of time to further develop. However, no matter where I end up, my feelings on Jesus are not likely to change. This man, any contradictions aside, provides a wonderful example by which to conduct one's life. Most major benefactors throughout the course of humanity would agree.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Excuses.

What kind of retort is that? I gave you multiple perfectly viable examples demonstrating that the negative attributes of religion are just as prevalent in secular society. If you disagree, you need to present evidence to the contrary, or rebuke my examples.

Religion does not add to the woes of humanity. It is merely offers a convoluted host through which to convey them.

So? Does that diminish the guilt of religion?

What it does is direct us to the root of the real problem: humans in general. Don't waste your time attacking religion. Attack the greed and intolerance that spawns such atrocities (both religious and secular).

Wow! Christians have suicide forbidden, of course their suicide rate is lower!

Really? Where does the Bible decree that?

Most atheists decry suicide as a solution to life's problems. I am afraid I don't see your point. Any phycologist will tell you that under typical circumstances, religious people are generally happier. And frankly, most of the time you don't even need proven statistics to see that.

On the other hand, drunken or doped people are happier than sober, so? How does that has something to do with truth?

Why does everything have to have something to do with truth? As if we would know it if we saw it. Our hopeless state of subjectiveness is one of the reasons I turned to religion in the first place.

That's your opinion, exclusively. Religion is pure ignorance and superstition, exactly the contrary of knowledge.

Likewise, this is also your opinion. Exclusively.

No, expansion of our intelligent capacity has to do with overcoming problems of survival and conscience. Religion probably represents a factor in the preservation of certain capacities, but since it is a lie and every day that fact gets more and more evident, one day we could get rid of the empty shell and finally live a real life without cheating ourselves with an afterlife.

I don't think so. God is the motive of many frictions in the human race, since there is not only one, and this one is not even the same for people of the same religion. Getting rid of God is getting rid for one of the main causes of superstition and conflict. Anyway, this change won't come (and it is not desirable to come) overnight.

Science has failed society. Not in it's ability to uncover knowledge, but in its inadequacy at appealing to human emotion. Try as you will, you will never convince some people that eternal black death awaits them after their demise.

Religion cannot be destroyed. Hope is the fuel that drives progress. Religion is the manifestation of hope. Progress in the absence of religion is virtually unattainable.

Genetic deviation? Sounds like a subtle insult.

Actually, it was an allusion to recent scientific studies indicating spirituality as (partially) congenital. Not intended as an attack.

[Dilettante]

Tilia wrote:

I don't know who told you it is contradictory. And of course the 'incongruities' bit is another invention. Don't believe everything you're told! There are some naughty people about!

I could point out a few. For example, the Pilate described by the Gospels is totally different from the one described by historians.

That's easy. That's because they didn't know what Judas, the purser, was going to do.

That's absolutely ridiculous! You mean they weren't listening when Jesus said "one of you is going to betray me" and then identified Judas as the traitor, telling him "what you are about to do, do quickly"? How could they not have known? You seem to think the twelve were not very intelligent.

With respect, I don't think you can have any point at all, because if one can select at will what one will believe, then one becomes totally beyond credibility, and indeed, respect.

I have two points: the general one being that Christianity is not always irenistic, and the particular one, that Peter himself reacted aggressively to Jesus' arrest in contradiction with the teaching which commanded him not to protect himself from evil. However, I totally agree with you about will and belief. I don't think one can will oneself to believe something one currently disbelieves. I can't imagine what gave you the impression that I was selecting my beliefs at will.

Code: Select all

Do make a start on that. When I see the word 'clearly' on the internet, I have to suppress a smile.

A start on what? Smile all you want, the incongruities will not go away.

You use my standards when they suit your argument, and when yours contradict your argument. That is really remarkable, even on the internet.

Not at all. Thesis+antithesis,=synthesis. It's simply dialectics.

That is untrue. You used for support an argument that you do not even believe! That is ridiculous.

Don't falsely accuse me of lying: I explained the use of the emic/etic perspectives on another thread several months ago. I'll give you a idrect link if necessary to refresh your memory.
Besides, there is nothing unusual in using an argument one doesn't believe in, and there are many other ways in which this can be done: for example, it can serve to highlight the contradictions in your opponent's position.

From an emic perspective Christianity is not violent, but from an etic one it is (the Crusades, for example).

I can't find those mentioned in John's Gospel. Can you give me the reference, please?

I see now that you don't understand the emic/etic distinction. Even if from some emic perspectives the Crusades "are not Christian", form most etic perspectives they are.

Whichever option you choose- it's no use!

On the contrary, contrasting the different versions is the only thing which can bring us closer to the truth.

I really don't care what you believe- or what you say you believe. I'm interested in fact and logic, not biased guesswork and absurdity, and as there seems to be no fact or logic here except what I have supplied, I am losing interest.

Unfortunately I do care what other people believe or say they believe. You don't seem to understand that no one's guesswork is unbiased (no, not even yours), and that in order to arrive at the facts or reality one thing we can't do is presume we already have them/it at hand. As for logic, you wrote elsewhere that you found it boring. What made you change your mind?

[Tilia]

Tilia wrote:

I don't know who told you it is contradictory. And of course the 'incongruities' bit is another invention. Don't believe everything you're told! There are some naughty people about!

I could point out a few.

By getting off topic? That seems to be your regular get-out.

For example, the Pilate described by the Gospels is totally different from the one described by historians.

See what I mean? Kindly take that nonsense elsewhere.

That's easy. That's because they didn't know what Judas, the purser, was going to do.

That's absolutely ridiculous! You mean they weren't listening when Jesus said "one of you is going to betray me" and then identified Judas as the traitor, telling him "what you are about to do, do quickly"? How could they not have known?

Because they did not know that Jesus referred to betrayal.

You seem to think the twelve were not very intelligent.

Who is unintelligent? Why don't you actually read your own favoured gospel? Or have you sliced out this bit?

'"What you are about to do, do quickly," Jesus told him, but no-one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him. Since Judas had charge of the money, some thought Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the Feast, or to give something to the poor.' (John 13:27-29 NIV)

With respect, I don't think you can have any point at all, because if one can select at will what one will believe, then one becomes totally beyond credibility, and indeed, respect.

I have two points

You have nothing to declare but your prejudice; again. Under pressure, you pick and choose what suits you, and discount what doesn't. You misrepresent, and your posts rapidly become of not the least value or interest; and sometimes they start that way.

Some people find the demands of the Christian gospel highly discomforting. They can find nothing legitimate against Christianity, so they attempt to associate it with violence committed by others who also found the demands of the gospel too much.

[trencacloscas]

There are a couple verses I struggle with, but honestly, I never thought twice about this one. It just makes sense. Jesus was not asking to be honored or pampered, but he was not going to reject this woman who did it in good intention, albeit naively.

That is your vision. Mine is pretty different. You will even find a previous analysis of the verses here:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... =fetishist

You act as if this one line defines Jesus' very position. This is a fallicious way to go about interpreting the Bible in the first place, as an accurate view may only be attained by considering the whole picture. This verse in reality has nothing to do with charity at all, but represents one idea, which if considered along with the rest, gives one an accurate assessment of Biblical doctrine.

So a character like him just speaks in vain, not concerned about the statements either for the moment or the posterity... Sorry, but that is exactly what I mean by "excuses". Christians always try to throw the inconvenient passages under the carpet, not to see it with naked eyes. Once again, you gotta decide, do the words mean anything or is it all pure metaphore... Because, if everything is metaphore, then it can be interpreted in one way or another.

This verse in reality has nothing to do with charity at all

Then, it is pointless? Just a beautiful denigrating women scene of the patriarchal sort to make the writ more literarily palatable for Jews? So, it is only literature in the end... 'Cause that's OK, why taking such extravagant scene as something sacred, after all?

I think we would both agree that Jesus is against violence in most all situations, aside from perhaps dire self-defense (in light of the 'sword' passage). He was also strictly pro-poor, anti-rich.

A few possible contradictions may slightly hamper this position, but remember, we are going for the entire picture.

No, sorry. You think you go for the entire picture. The entire picture is incoherence in every aspect of the supposed "teachings". Since perfection of a God is claimed, incoherence cannot be part of sacred writings. It is totally different if you agree that it is only a literary text with no sacred relevance.

I am much younger than 99% of this site, so my true beliefs have plenty of time to further develop. However, no matter where I end up, my feelings on Jesus are not likely to change. This man, any contradictions aside, provides a wonderful example by which to conduct one's life. Most major benefactors throughout the course of humanity would agree.

Curious. Because you don't seem to care about the acts. There are plenty of figures in history and myth that are far bigger than Jesus in terms of character and gave examples more precious and words more inspired. Why choose Jesus if your judgement is not biased from influence and education. There was a time I was exactly in your same place. The power of influence was so big, that I used to defend this Jesus with fangs and claws even when deep inside I hated such pompous and ridiculous character.

What kind of retort is that? I gave you multiple perfectly viable examples demonstrating that the negative attributes of religion are just as prevalent in secular society. If you disagree, you need to present evidence to the contrary, or rebuke my examples.

When you pretend that Inquisition or war between Catholics and Protestants have nothing to do with religion and point in another direction, sorry, but "excuses" is the only word that comes to mind.

Attack the greed and intolerance that spawns such atrocities (both religious and secular).

When somebody kills in the name of God, and believes it in his heart, you can blame bad influence or gullibility. But still religion is deeply involved.

Any phycologist will tell you that under typical circumstances, religious people are generally happier.

How does it changes a lie into truth? If a lie makes you happy, it is still a lie.

Why does everything have to have something to do with truth?

It is called "ethics". Some people just can't live a lie. Since Christians don't have any other moral than obeying the commands of a mysterious God, probably it is hard to them to understand it.

That's your opinion, exclusively. Religion is pure ignorance and superstition, exactly the contrary of knowledge.

Likewise, this is also your opinion. Exclusively.

Not really, unless you define knowledge in some queer unusual way.

Science has failed society. Not in it's ability to uncover knowledge, but in its inadequacy at appealing to human emotion.

Science is not a religion, it cannot fail society. Science is the method we use to find knowledge. The social use of science is something that has nothing to do with science itself.

And sorry, but I consider human emotions more elevated than the manipulation that religion makes of them. There is more wonder in the revelations of sciences than in any cumbersome fantasy of the religious. That is easy to show. Check the dinosaurs.

Actually, it was an allusion to recent scientific studies indicating spirituality as (partially) congenital. Not intended as an attack.

I know. My answer was a sort of counter-joke. And... oops, it still makes sense.

[scorpia]

When you pretend that Inquisition or war between Catholics and Protestants have nothing to do with religion and point in another direction, sorry, but "excuses" is the only word that comes to mind.

Excuses, eh? Funny, in a previous thread, when I pointed out that there were some persecution of Christians, you responded with;

Your link confirms my statement that Christianity is not persecuted in the West (where the "retaliation" issue would be pertinent). Almost all incidents are reported in Eastern countries, and the aggresive nature of Christian evangelization provokes most situations.

Sounds like an excuse to me

That is your vision. Mine is pretty different.

With all due respect, Trenc, your POV all too often seems clouded with hate. Or how are you going to reply? By saying "no it's not clouded people should hate"?

Not really, unless you define knowledge in some queer unusual way

Translated as; "It's a fact because I'm right and your wrong"

[Dilettante]

Tilia wrote:

Because they did not know that Jesus referred to betrayal.

Why don't you actually read your own favoured gospel? Or have you sliced out this bit?

'"What you are about to do, do quickly," Jesus told him, but no-one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him. Since Judas had charge of the money, some thought Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the Feast, or to give something to the poor.' (John 13:27-29 NIV)

That's a good example of the incongruities in the narrative. They've just asked Jesus to identify the traitor, he does, and then they forget all about it and don't understand he was referring to betrayal.

I tried to overlook the arrogant parts of your post, as well as your ad hominem attacks. But the following was particularly absurd:

Some people find the demands of the Christian gospel highly discomforting.

Is this some sort of innuendo?

They can find nothing legitimate against Christianity, so they attempt to associate it with violence committed by others who also found the demands of the gospel too much.

You can't be seriously referring to me, then, since I wrote that the Christian message is mostly pacifistic. But Christians have taken part in violent acts (some more justified than others). Can you name any historian who asserts that the crusaders, Luther, Calvin Cromwell and others were not Christians? Forget for one second your own reductionistic definition and try to look at the issue from the outside.