The atrocities of Christianity

[Magical Realist]

Can you list quotes from the New Testament that specifically tell Christians to commit these specific attrocities? I agree that these historical facts are indeed facts. But is it possible that this kind of violence is the result of human nature and not commandments from Christ Jesus. After all, people don't need religion to do violence to one another. Neither Joseph Stalin nor Sadam Hussein were religious men.

Christian doctrines weren't derived exclusively from the Bible back then. They were often issued in the form of edicts and councils issued by bishops of the church or the holy roman emperor. The teachings of the church fathers carried alot of weight too.These were taken to be direct commands of God since back then the Church was viewed as the representative of God on earth.

 

[arauca]

Christian doctrines weren't derived exclusively from the Bible back then. They were often issued in the form of edicts and councils issued by bishops of the church or the holy roman emperor.

That means man replaced God teaching , as if man know better , so this happen during the Roman Catholicism and ma committed the atrocity that your opening post is all about.

 

[Mazulu]

Christian doctrines weren't derived exclusively from the Bible back then. They were often issued in the form of edicts and councils issued by bishops of the church or the holy roman emperor. The teachings of the church fathers carried alot of weight too.These were taken to be direct commands of God since back then the Church was viewed as the representative of God on earth.

That's interesting. Then the question becomes "how" or "why" did these bishops/emperors issue edicts that resulted in violence and oppression? The more I read, the more alluring and beautiful I find the scripture.

Here is another good verse, 1 Peter,
"2:11 Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;"

Does that mean that God wants laws passed and enforced to tell us when and how often we can have sex? Or could it mean that humans were (are) far too pre-occupied with sexuality and need to pay more attention to Godly things?

 

[joepistole]

I see. So now they're ALLEGATIONS of events and not real events. You really need to commit here. Did these events occur or didn't they? Oh and quibbling over dates won't cut it. We're talking 9 Crusades, like 4 Inquisitions, the witch-burnings, the Jewish persecutions, the wars between Catholics and Protestants, and the massacre of native peoples in the name of Christianity. These aren't allegations. They are historical facts.

No you obviously don’t see. You have been repeatedly challenged to provide proof, empirical proof, that your allegations that Christianity is somehow more violent than other religions. To date, you have not provided any proofs whatsoever. A listing of allegations, filled with errors, is not a proof. I just listed a few of the many errors in your list of allegations (e.g. dates are wrong; the allegations of violence are wrong, etc.). That said and as previously conceded, Christians have committed numerous acts of violence over the course of that last 2 millennium. But they are not alone as you seem to think and that does not make them more violent or less tolerant than any other religion.

You have repeatedly made serious and repeated errors in logic and fact. It is painfully obvious you have never taken a class in logic. And I am going to again challenge you to provide empirical proof to support your thesis that Christianity is worse than other religions, more violent and less tolerant. You have done a lot of squirming and dodging, now let’s see some proof.

 

[Neverfly]

"Proof" is an odd word to use. You're looking for reasonable support for his claim?

 

[joepistole]

"Proof" is an odd word to use. You're looking for reasonable support for his claim?

Why is that an odd word?

MR has alleged that Christianity is more violent and less tolerant than other religions and offers a simple, vague, error filled listing of allegations as proof. The simple vague and error filled listing offered by MR is not a proof. What evidence leads one to conclude that one religion, in this case Christianity, is more violent than another? Where is the data? Where are the studies? How can anyone come to that conclusion without data or a discussion and comparison with other religions? There has been no comparative discussion or evidence. So how can one conclude that Christianity is somehow more violent or less tolerant than other religions?

The logic, if one can call it that, in this thread goes like this, it is because I say it is. It’s circular argument, an illogical argument.

 

[Neverfly]

Why is that an odd word?

MR has alleged that Christianity is more violent and less tolerant than other religions and offers a simple, vague, error filled listing of allegations as proof. The simple vague and error filled listing offered by MR is not a proof. What evidence leads one to conclude that one religion, in this case Christianity, is more violent than another? Where is the data? Where are the studies? How can anyone come to that conclusion without data or a discussion and comparison with other religions? There has been no comparative discussion or evidence. So how can one conclude that Christianity is somehow more violent or less tolerant than other religions?

The logic, if one can call it that, in this thread goes like this, it is because I say it is. It’s circular argument, an illogical argument.

Joepistole, I'm butting in on your discussion with him and I'm aware of that. I don't want to speak on Magical Realist's behalf, but I can speak on behalf of the perceptions.
"Proof" only exists in mathematics. By demanding "Proof," you're demanding the impossible. This reads as deliberate: As if to say he can never provide that standard and therefor; you can always reject what he offers as insufficient as 'proof.'
Now, I agree that labeling a religion as "the most violent" is nonsense, as it's the people that are violent whatever religion they may hold. Example: Muslims are usually peaceful, but Islamists - a small minority- violent. Yet, Muslims are often stereotyped as 'violent.'

The scriptures contain a lot of violence.Genocide, infanticide etc and as M.R. pointed out, there is a lot of violence in the history, but I agree that it would be a fools errand to chase the Religion as the motivator.
Rather, it was used as the justification for simple minds.
A great many acts of extreme oppression and violence were justified in non-Christian ways and those that wanted to rule used those other ways just as readily as those who lived in a culture dominated by Christian ideals used Christianity to justify what they desired.

Asking for proof is as absurd as trying to provide it is- do you see what I mean?

 

[joepistole]

Joepistole, I'm butting in on your discussion with him and I'm aware of that. I don't want to speak on Magical Realist's behalf, but I can speak on behalf of the perceptions.
"Proof" only exists in mathematics. By demanding "Proof," you're demanding the impossible. This reads as deliberate: As if to say he can never provide that standard and therefor; you can always reject what he offers as insufficient as 'proof.'
Now, I agree that labeling a religion as "the most violent" is nonsense, as it's the people that are violent whatever religion they may hold. Example: Muslims are usually peaceful, but Islamists - a small minority- violent. Yet, Muslims are often stereotyped as 'violent.'
The scriptures contain a lot of violence.Genocide, infanticide etc and as M.R. pointed out, there is a lot of violence in the history, but I agree that it would be a fools errand to chase the Religion as the motivator.
Rather, it was used as the justification for simple minds.
A great many acts of extreme oppression and violence were justified in non-Christian ways and those that wanted to rule used those other ways just as readily as those who lived in a culture dominated by Christian ideals used Christianity to justify what they desired.
Asking for proof is as absurd as trying to provide it is- do you see what I mean?

If one cannot support one’s allegations with proofs, then one ought not to make those allegations and offer them as immutable fact. One cannot have a reasoned discussion or even postulate as to the strengths or weaknesses of one religion over another without a comparative discussion of those religions. And as of now, there has been no comparative discussion or evidence offered to support MR’s allegations.

The bottom line here is that MR cannot support his contentions that somehow Christianity is more violent or less tolerant than other religions with reason or fact. All he can and all he has done is offer an error filled list of allegations.

 

[Neverfly]

If one cannot support one’s allegations with proofs, then one ought not to make those allegations and offer them as immutable fact.

I would suggest a different wording:
"If one cannot support one’s allegations with strong evidence, then one ought not to make those allegations and offer them as immutable fact."
Again, the problem is the use of the word proof.

The bottom line here is that MR cannot support his contentions that somehow Christianity is more violent or less tolerant than other religions with reason or fact. All he can and all he has done is offer an error filled list of allegations.

He's offered support, but not proof. I won't even say he's offered Strong support. The claim is clearly in error and it's up to Magical Realist to contend with that. I don't disagree that the claim is in error and I don't know if today, you feel like I'm nitpicking your posts...
Again- by demanding proof that can never be provided, you demean your position.

 

[geeser]

Can you list quotes from the New Testament that specifically tell Christians to commit these specific attrocities? I agree that these historical facts are indeed facts. But is it possible that this kind of violence is the result of human nature and not commandments from Christ Jesus. After all, people don't need religion to do violence to one another. Neither Joseph Stalin nor Sadam Hussein were religious men.

Firstly Joseph Stalin started out wanting to become a priest in the catholic faith, until he read the book of Acts and compared it to Marx.

Communism is what Jesus wanted. It However became abused, unfortunately this is what happens when things aren't clarified clearly or correctly.

Act says if people don't share there wealth with all they will die.
Acts 5:1-11 "But a man named Ananias, with the consent of his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property; with his wife’s knowledge, he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. "Ananias," Peter asked, "why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to us but to God!" Now when Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard of it.

The young men came and wrapped up his body, then carried him out and buried him. After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter said to her, "Tell me whether you and your husband sold the land for such and such a price." And she said, "Yes, that was the price." Then Peter said to her, "How is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out." Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. And great fear seized the whole church and all who heard of these things."

Their deaths served as an example to all the others of what would happen if they, too, held back profits for themselves instead of giving everything to the community.

Saddam Hussain was a Shia muslim, his hatred for Sunni, made him the evil despot he was.

Let's start with Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven". and Luke 16:17 It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law. Before we go deeper as these state that all the laws in the bible must be followed until the worlds ends or Jesus returns.

Therefore you answered your own question as you ask where in the NT, whereas Jesus own word state you must follow the laws from the OT, but you knew that didn't you.

Laws like KJV Exodus 22:18"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" or the NIV version "Do not allow a sorceress to live" Which is still happening today in Africa.

And KJV Deuteronomy 13: 6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying , Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known , thou, nor thy fathers; < snip > 9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death , and afterwards the hand of all the people. Or the NIV version "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, < snip > 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people.

Need I go on!

 

[Magical Realist]

No you obviously don’t see. You have been repeatedly challenged to provide proof, empirical proof, that your allegations that Christianity is somehow more violent than other religions. To date, you have not provided any proofs whatsoever. A listing of allegations, filled with errors, is not a proof. I just listed a few of the many errors in your list of allegations (e.g. dates are wrong; the allegations of violence are wrong, etc.). That said and as previously conceded, Christians have committed numerous acts of violence over the course of that last 2 millennium. But they are not alone as you seem to think and that does not make them more violent or less tolerant than any other religion.

You have repeatedly made serious and repeated errors in logic and fact. It is painfully obvious you have never taken a class in logic. And I am going to again challenge you to provide empirical proof to support your thesis that Christianity is worse than other religions, more violent and less tolerant. You have done a lot of squirming and dodging, now let’s see some proof.

I've given you the evidence. 1000 years of persecution, torture, and killing of pagans, muslims, heretics, jews, witches, and sinners all in the name of Christ. There is no history of such cruel intolerance in other religions that even comes close to comparing to this. Buddhism and Jainism for example have been some of the most peaceful religions on earth. This conspicious absence of persecution and intolerance in other religions besides Christianity is my evidence that it is one of the most murderous religions that has ever existed. That was the claim of my OP and I'm sticking to it. So far your complaint about my list of historical events have been proven wrong. These events DID occur and were the direct result of christian belief. The list stands on its own as adequate evidence for my proposition. I'll be happy to post more lists for ya if you have a problem with this particular one.

 

[Magical Realist]

Joepistole, I'm butting in on your discussion with him and I'm aware of that. I don't want to speak on Magical Realist's behalf, but I can speak on behalf of the perceptions.
"Proof" only exists in mathematics. By demanding "Proof," you're demanding the impossible. This reads as deliberate: As if to say he can never provide that standard and therefor; you can always reject what he offers as insufficient as 'proof.'
Now, I agree that labeling a religion as "the most violent" is nonsense, as it's the people that are violent whatever religion they may hold. Example: Muslims are usually peaceful, but Islamists - a small minority- violent. Yet, Muslims are often stereotyped as 'violent.'

The scriptures contain a lot of violence.Genocide, infanticide etc and as M.R. pointed out, there is a lot of violence in the history, but I agree that it would be a fools errand to chase the Religion as the motivator.
Rather, it was used as the justification for simple minds.
A great many acts of extreme oppression and violence were justified in non-Christian ways and those that wanted to rule used those other ways just as readily as those who lived in a culture dominated by Christian ideals used Christianity to justify what they desired.

Asking for proof is as absurd as trying to provide it is- do you see what I mean?

Thanks for trying to point out the futility of proof in a non-mathematical polemical exchange. I was implying it by silently substituting "evidence" for "proof" in my responses but I see he didn't catch that. Regarding using religion as a justification for persecution, isn't that the very thesis I'm arguing here? That religion provides people with a rationale for treating people cruelly that they wouldn't normally have otherwise. Take the old strange woman of the village who doesn't respect the magistrate. The villagers may already have some animosity against her for being such a strange nonconformist. But there really isn't any justification for taking her rights away, banishing her to the country, or even stoning her to death until she can be charged with the religious crime of witchcraft. So it happens that religion gives the people a reason for treating that woman cruelly that they would not normally have. That's my claim. That Christianity is precisely the excuse for persecuting and ostracizing people who are otherwise just annoying and different. It is the moral justification normally good people need to do really bad things.

 

[Magical Realist]

It is painfully obvious you have never taken a class in logic.

I've never NEEDED to take a class in logic...;-)

 

[Neverfly]

Thanks for trying to point out the futility of proof in a non-mathematical polemical exchange. I was implying it by silently substituting "evidence" for "proof" in my responses but I see he didn't catch that. Regarding using religion as a justification for persecution, isn't that the very thesis I'm arguing here? That religion provides people with a rationale for treating people cruelly that they wouldn't normally have otherwise. Take the old strange woman of the village who doesn't respect the magistrate. The villagers may already have some animosity against her for being such a strange nonconformist. But there really isn't any justification for taking her rights away, banishing her to the country, or even stoning her to death until she can be charged with the religious crime of witchcraft. So it happens that religion gives the people a reason for treating that woman cruelly that they would not normally have. That's my claim. That Christianity is precisely the excuse for persecuting and ostracizing people who are otherwise just annoying and different. It is the moral justification normally good people need to do really bad things.

It's not the cause, either. It's just one method of justifying it with ignorance. And yes, that has an effect. But it gives them justification to act upon base animal nature. What they would do, anyway.

Eliminating religion would not solve that because religion is not the cause. Religion is man-made. Invented by "us." Anything in the scripture is not written by God, it's written by "us."
This means we are the cause even if we use other things to justify- so if we take away religion, those that corrupt based on judgment would find some other means to justify it. Or perhaps they would be more honest- But they would still do the same deeds.
For example: Rome.
Rome invaded other nations. Rape pillage etc, "For Rome."
"For the Glory Of Rome." "For the Empire."
You see, they justified it not with religion, but with National Pride. It is simply a couple options covered here as to how they will justify it- but they will do the deeds and they will justify it someway.
We pick and choose what we already believe to be true. To validate what we already perceive to be true.

 

[Magical Realist]

"If you think that it would be impossible to improve upon the Ten
Commandments as a statement of morality, you really owe it to yourself
to read some other scriptures. Once again, we need look no further than
the Jains: Mahavira, the Jain patriarch, surpassed the morality of the
Bible with a single sentence: "Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave,
insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being." Imagine
how different our world might be if the Bible contained this as its
central precept. Christians have abused, oppressed, enslaved, insulted,
tormented, tortured, and killed people in the name of God for centuries,
on the basis of a theologically defensible reading of the Bible."---Sam
Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation

 

[joepistole]

I would suggest a different wording:
"If one cannot support one’s allegations with strong evidence, then one ought not to make those allegations and offer them as immutable fact."
Again, the problem is the use of the word proof.

No the problem is not with the word “proof”. The problem is MR mindlessly repeated some factious fiction he/she found posted on some web site and tried to pass the allegations off as proofs.

He's offered support, but not proof. I won't even say he's offered Strong support. The claim is clearly in error and it's up to Magical Realist to contend with that. I don't disagree that the claim is in error and I don't know if today, you feel like I'm nitpicking your posts...
Again- by demanding proof that can never be provided, you demean your position.

Repeating his error infested allegations is not proof as you have noted, but neither is it support. It is repeating his allegations. MR is free to have his/her opinions. MR is free to believe in the man the moon. But MR should not expect to post such garbage without being challenged.

The bottom line is MR cannot support his allegations with reason or empirical proofs.

 

[joepistole]

I've never NEEDED to take a class in logic...;-)

Your posts say otherwise.

 

[Neverfly]

"If you think that it would be impossible to improve upon the Ten
Commandments as a statement of morality, you really owe it to yourself
to read some other scriptures. Once again, we need look no further than
the Jains: Mahavira, the Jain patriarch, surpassed the morality of the
Bible with a single sentence: "Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave,
insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being." Imagine
how different our world might be if the Bible contained this as its
central precept. Christians have abused, oppressed, enslaved, insulted,
tormented, tortured, and killed people in the name of God for centuries,
on the basis of a theologically defensible reading of the Bible."---Sam
Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation

A bible written by men.

Point of interest, Jains, being imperfect human beings, break that 'commandment' as much as anyone else.

The irony of that commandment is that it is written in a manner that makes it impossible to follow.

 

[Magical Realist]

It's not the cause, either. It's just one method of justifying it with ignorance. And yes, that has an effect. But it gives them justification to act upon base animal nature. What they would do, anyway.

Eliminating religion would not solve that because religion is not the cause. Religion is man-made. Invented by "us." Anything in the scripture is not written by God, it's written by "us."
This means we are the cause even if we use other things to justify- so if we take away religion, those that corrupt based on judgment would find some other means to justify it. Or perhaps they would be more honest- But they would still do the same deeds.
For example: Rome.
Rome invaded other nations. Rape pillage etc, "For Rome."
"For the Glory Of Rome." "For the Empire."
You see, they justified it not with religion, but with National Pride. It is simply a couple options covered here as to how they will justify it- but they will do the deeds and they will justify it someway.
We pick and choose what we already believe to be true. To validate what we already perceive to be true.

I guess I have a hard time distinguishing between a moral justification to act a certain way and the cause of that act. Seems to me if you have a rationale for treating someone cruelly that is the cause of treating them cruelly. Religion supplies precisely that by demonizing others. Do other reasons exist for treating people cruelly? Sure, but that doesn't let religion off the hook. History shows an unmistakeable correlation between believing you speak for God and judging and executing others like you were God.

 

[Neverfly]

I guess I have a hard time distinguishing between a moral justification to act a certain way and the cause of that act. Seems to me if you have a rationale for treating someone cruelly that is the cause of treating them cruelly. Religion supplies precisely that by demonizing others. Do other reasons exist for treating people cruelly? Sure, but that doesn't let religion off the hook. History shows an unmistakeable correlation between believing you speak for God and judging and executing others like you were God.

Religion is not off the hook. But religion is man-made.
The cause would exist without it, is all I am trying to convey, so ridding the world of religion wouldn't alter our natural state.