Is Christianity actually peaceful?

[juantoo3]

edit: sorry Juan, I had to add the other elements into the equation...

No problem Q, like I said, it has been a long time and the details are fuzzy. Of course, one could argue that Nero's personal preferences had little or nothing to do with the burning of the city, but the point that he was nuts sure does figure in.

 

[BlaznFattyz]

Christianity has a history of violence, look hard enough in today's newspaper and you see that that history is continuing.

the truth is man has a history of violence in the name of religion. christianity itself is rooted in gods love and gods desire that we love to all of his creatures. just because some adopt, borrow, or claim christianity, does not make it so.

You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorn bushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards!

While I can appreciate the distinction being made regarding "who is a Christian?" on a personal level, I would ask if it is proper to lay the actions of an institution at the feet of random individuals? It seems to me this is what Muslims in general ask of Christians in general, yet is not the same respect to be asked in return?

Indeed, can this distinction not apply across the board between all institutional religions (particularly those with political power), and those random individuals that compose those religious bodies? It is like implying that any specific individual represents the whole of a religious body. It is no different than accusing G. W. Bush as representing Christianity, equally the same with accusing any particular Imam, or Sheik, or President with representing the whole of Islam.

Is Christianity peaceful? Yes, just as Islam is. Just as Buddhism is. Just as Judaism is. Just as Hinduism is. Just as Paganism is. All of these have peaceful teachings.

Are the political institutions that stand behind the various faith walks peaceful? I suspect that is where we may find our problems with perception.

Are random individuals to be held accountable for the actions of political institutions that stand behind the various religious faiths? This is where things get tricky, are we to conclude that one is not faithful if one is not peaceful? In every circumstance? Even extenuating circumstance, such as defensive war?

 

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

Cavalier,

I dont know if this is appropriate for this thread, but I think this article shows that christianity can be just as "un-peaceful" as any other religion.

It's not the religion that is "un-peaceful" but the people who are in it. Like the old saying goes "guns don't kill people, People kill people."

I guess your question can be best answered by the people who suffered (and still do suffer) the most under christian authority.

Was Slavery God's Will?

Some Christian writers have said slavery in America was divinely sanctioned because it helped bring Africans to Christ. Is this true?

—Casey Mercer, Columbus, Ohio
By Ronald C. Potter | posted 6/7/00

At the 1996 Promise Keepers pastors conference in Atlanta, a Native American brother stood up and chronicled the many gross sins committed by white Americans against Native Americans over the centuries. He reminded the audience of the violation of hundreds of treaties, the slaughter of millions of buffalo, and the near genocide of numerous tribes.

His conclusion, however, disturbed me. In spite of the horror, he told the gathered pastors, most of whom were white, if the white man had not come to the Americas, we wouldn't know Jesus. The crowd of 40,000 shouted "Amen!" in stirring unison.

I returned home in a quandary. I appreciated the fellowship I experienced with my Christian brothers, but I could not shake the deep reservations I had concerning that Native American pastor's remarks. I realized that this same perspective sometimes is applied to the African-American experience: You suffered horribly under chattel slavery, you were brutalized and dehumanized, but if the slave ships had not arrived and brought you to the New World, you wouldn't have found Jesus.

African-American pastor Earl Carter articulated that view a year later in his book No Apology Necessary. Carter argues that white people need not apologize to people of African descent because: (1) God instituted slavery due to Africans' pagan idolatry and (2) importation to the New World eventually resulted in the Christianization of African slaves.


Carter's book leaves a lot to be desired exegetically and morally. To suggest that Euro-Americans are not morally culpable for their involvement in the Atlantic slave trade is ludicrous.


What's more, to suggest that slavery was necessary for African people to be introduced to Jesus trivializes the horrors of the Middle Passage, the utter dehumanization of plantation life, and the forced breakup of black families.

African cultures were no more or less idolatrous than those of pre-Christian pagan European peoples. Was worship of the Yoruba deity Orisa-nla more idolatrous than worship of the Norse god Thor?


It is always problematic for us to rank one culture's sin above another's. Apart from God's grace, we all stand under divine wrath. Still, what are we to make of Scripture's ambiguity on the subject of slavery?


Neither the Old nor New Testament directly condemns slavery or calls for its abolition. In fact, both Paul and Peter admonished slaves to obey their masters.

First, we need to understand the historical and cultural context of Scripture. Slavery was pervasive throughout the ancient Near East of the Old Testament and the Greco-Roman world of the New Testament era.

The practice of slavery was so integral to Roman society that some historians estimate slaves made up almost half of the population. Of course, to acknowledge the pervasiveness of something is not to condone its practice. Polytheism and sexual immorality were pervasive throughout biblical times, yet Scripture explicitly condemns those practices.


Why not slavery? Some Christian thinkers argue that passages such as Galatians 3:28 have hermeneutical priority over other passages which appear to justify slavery. Without presuming to rank Scripture over and against itself, it's safe to say any institution that exploits and abuses people made in God's image is not in his perfect will.

In fact, throughout Scripture one finds motifs of justice and liberation for the oppressed. In the Old Testament, the saga of Israel's Exodus and, later, the prophetic discourses of the eighth-century prophets, speak of the importance of both spiritual and physical liberation and foreshadow the emancipating power of the gospel (e.g., Amos 5:21–24).

Indeed, Jesus described his messianic mission in terms of proclaiming freedom for the prisoners and release for the oppressed (Luke 4:18–19). This declaration—a fulfillment of Isaiah 61—underscores his role as a holistic liberator. And though Paul doesn't speak out directly against slavery, his egalitarian assessment of community in Christ, in effect, undermines the institution and lays a groundwork for a Christian perspective on all issues of justice and equality.

Which brings me back to the statement made by my Native American brother. The ugly side of our nation's history cannot be wiped away by collectively disowning it or engaging in dubious quid pro quos. Such endeavors will neither eliminate injustice in church and society nor impress the nonbelieving world.
Yes, we must move beyond the sins of the past. But we also must look for a more thoughtful and biblical understanding of the history of America's oppressed peoples. God redeems even our sinful history, but he does not excuse it. And neither should we.

Seems old crimes come back to haunt you in many forms.

 

[Quahom1]

Cavalier,


Seems old crimes come back to haunt you in many forms.

Yes, the bitter pill that is the sins of our fathers, his hard to swallow...

It causes a strong resolve in me to see to it that our sons do not have to swallow the same pill...

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Yo eleven!

What say you of a person of poor white European lineage, who ancestors wwere so poor they couldn't afford a slave if they wanted to? Are they guilty by association? Or, in my particular case, do I get a "get-out-of-indemnity-free" card because of my Native American heritage? If only life truly were black and white...and red and yellow and brown.

 

[juantoo3]

I guess if I must be held guilty for the sins of the fathers, at least let it be the sins of *my* fathers for which I am held liable. Not the presumed sins based upon the color of my skin, the neighborhood I grew up in, and the language I speak.

BTW, Yo, good post, and it is a good contribution to this discussion.

 

[cavalier]

YO-ELEVEN-11][/B]
Cavalier,


Seems old crimes come back to haunt you in many forms.

Yes, the bitter pill that is the sins of our fathers, his hard to swallow...

It causes a strong resolve in me to see to it that our sons do not have to swallow the same pill...

Q, that's an interesting way that you've chosen to quote YO. Do you mean something by it, or is it simply accidental?

 

[cavalier]

Is Christianity peaceful? Yes, just as Islam is. Just as Buddhism is. Just as Judaism is. Just as Hinduism is. Just as Paganism is. All of these have peaceful teachings.

It's not the religion that is "un-peaceful" but the people who are in it. Like the old saying goes "guns don't kill people, People kill people."

Precisely.

 

[jiii]

Originally Posted by YO-ELEVEN-11
It's not the religion that is "un-peaceful" but the people who are in it. Like the old saying goes "guns don't kill people, People kill people."

This is a most important addition to the discussion. And, I think it opens the door to a further idea:

Christianity is not a person. As such, it is not capable of emotion or action. Thus, Christianity cannot really be peaceful, or war-like, or have any human quality. 'Religion' may be an important thing. It may even be amongst the most important of things. But as it is not a human being, it has mostly the qualities of an inanimate object. Religion cannot hold a gun, be hateful, be paranoid, or be selfish. Religion cannot be compassionate, kind, understanding, or selfless. Religion is not a human.

To ask, "Is Christianity peaceful?" is certainly an interesting question. Many interesting ideas and discoveries may derive from asking such a question. But, ultimately, to ask if Christianity, as a religion, is peaceful, is not much different than saying "Is a rock peaceful?", "Is a cloud peaceful?", or "Is a prime rib peaceful?" None of these things are capable of being peaceful, as they aren't human.

Of course, one might note that religion is, after all, uniquely a human invention. And, indeed, this is true. Religion is a tool. Now, take any given human tool. Is a bow and arrow peaceful? Well, all by itself, sitting on a shelf, its not anything in particular. Just a stick with string and some straight pieces of wood. However, it could be used as a bow to start a campfire, it could be used as an exhibit at a museum, it could be used as sporting equipment, it could be used as a walking cane (maybe? ), it could be used to hunt for food, and it can be used to kill people...whatever someone can use it for, that is what it is in that instance. But none of these are qualities the bow necessarily possesses without a human user.

Religion, I would offer, is similar to this. It all depends on how you use it. In the hands of one man it may be a tool for assisting in attaining transcendental wisdom. In the hands of another, it may be a tool for justifying the most appalling carnage. None of these possibilities, though, are inherent in the religion itself. And whether or not a bow and arrow is used to kill a man, or to teach a spiritual insight (in the case of Zen and archery, for instance), is up to the users. It all depends in which direction you point it.

 

[inhumility]

I'm not talking here talking about the teachings of Christ, I'm talking about Christianity.
Christianity has a long history of using violence to support its cause, now I open my newspaper to see a story on Christian mobs in Indonesia.
"Christian mobs freed hundreds of prisoners, torched cars and looted Muslim-owned shops across eastern Indonesia after three Roman Catholics were executed early yesterday for a 2000 attack that killed 70 Muslims.....machete wielding youths terrorized residents.....protesters set buildings on fire"
Ok, there are questions hanging over the Indonesian judicial system, independant reports suggest that these men were not the masterminds of the 2000 attack and so the death sentence was harsh. Christians reported that judges might have been intimidated by Muslims gathering outside the court.
This though does not change the fact Christian mobs, armed with machetes "rampaged" through the streets, "terrorizing" civilians.

Leaving the present strife in the world aside, which is between the war-monger rulers to occupy and control the economic resources and lands; otherwise these rulers are neither Christians nor Muslims though they are entitled to use these labels but they have no attributes of any Revealed World Religion. No Revealed Religion teaches to kill human beings; all are peaceful in origin. In fact these people have blind-faith which is too dangerous and results into radicalism and narrow mindedness; if they follow religion truly they would have a enlightened-Faith based on reason, rationality and solid arguments they would become open minded and accommodating. These people are far from acting according to the Revealed Word of God from God’s mouth which gives insight and makes man farsighted and teaches forbearance ; they are working for fulfillment of their own ambitions.
It is wrong to kill, yet they keep on killing without mercy and call it collateral damage; killing innocent civilian people children, ladies and old people without any consideration. This is evil play, both sides being transgressors, are playing in the hands of the devil and not listening to what God says.
Surely we can live in peace understanding one another’s belief with respect. Peaceful people are in majority in the world, ultimately these people would also understand.
This is Ahmadia view-a faith in Islam.
Thanks

 

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

Kindest Regards, Yo eleven!

What say you of a person of poor white European lineage, who ancestors wwere so poor they couldn't afford a slave if they wanted to? Are they guilty by association? Or, in my particular case, do I get a "get-out-of-indemnity-free" card because of my Native American heritage? If only life truly were black and white...and red and yellow and brown.

Is Christianity actually peaceful?

 

[wil]

Even if you're not a believer, you could be able to see what Christanity is and what it is not. Islam kill for their faith, Christians become martyrs for theirs. No real Christian will steal God's glory by taking vengence, that belongs to God.

Wheee... can we say 9/11 where a Christian leader lead a largely Christian Nation into two largely Muslim countries to avenge a couple dozen terrorists from yet another Muslim country. Tens of thousands of Muslims have died, many of them inncocent civilians. More American Soldiers have died than were killled in the original attack....and now both countries are in turmoil...and the leader of the terrorists...at large.

Regarding the Nero discussion...victors write history...and their will always be contention...

Christians do have a history of violence. But I agree their is a difference in what their leaders lead them into. But they are largely not known to stand up and stick to the principles that are espoused.

 

[Terrence]

This is simply guys, honestly. Take a look at Jesus' teachings and juxtapose it with that of the Muhamad's. Now, if the Qura'n teaches that Muslims should fight and even kill for their faith, then we must believe that the Muslims that fight and kill for their faith are only doing what their religious text say and being true to their religon. If, on the other hand, Jesus tells His followers to do the same, i.e., fight and kill for Him or in His name, then we must rightly affairm that those Christians who have fought and kill for Jesus or in the name of Jesus, are in fact, Christians. But, if on the other hand, Jesus never said to fight for or in His name, but instead die, if need be, then we must rightly call a spade a spade, and say with complete assurance that all the "Christians" who fought and killed others werent Christians at all.

...Its as simple as that guys...Really, it is!

 

[wil]

Jesus told us if we don't own a sword sell our stuff and get one...

Remember the KKK used the bible the way the terrorists use the Koran.

Lumping people into groups with generalizations creates wars. Terrence, I don't see your comments as creating peace, can you please explain how they do?

The question here is not how Christianity's version of peace is compared to other religions. Actually no need of discussing the Koran, the Sutras, the Veda's or other texts here...simply Christian History and Christian texts.

I am sure inhumility could go quote for quote with you in another thread.

 

[Terrence]

We must remember to take things from the Bible in context and not build a theology on one scritpture. Thats how some cults come about; you mentioned one (KKK). Simply put, Jesus never ever taught His followers to fight for Him. He taught that vengence is of the Lord and to take His glory in vengence will bring about your own destruction. God doesnt need us to fight for Him. He's God, remember?

As for creating wars. Words dont, but people do. And, I suppose in that case, Christanity will always be considered a religion of war, since it tells people things that they do not want to hear - namely, the truth. All that said though, you can rest assured that if any Christian kills or forces Christ on anyone, that person is NOT a Christian, at least in the Biblical sense.

 

[Terrence]

We must remember to take things from the Bible in context and not build a theology on one scritpture. Thats how some cults come about; you mentioned one (KKK). Simply put, Jesus never ever taught His followers to fight for Him. He taught that vengence is of the Lord and to take His glory in vengence will bring about your own destruction. God doesnt need us to fight for Him. He's God, remember?

As for creating wars. Words dont, but people do. And, I suppose in that case, Christanity will always be considered a religion of war, since it tells people things that they do not want to hear - namely, the truth. All that said though, you can rest assured that if any Christian kills or forces Christ on anyone, that person is NOT a Christian, at least in the Biblical sense.

 

[Quahom1]

Q, that's an interesting way that you've chosen to quote YO. Do you mean something by it, or is it simply accidental?

Uh, that is a bit embarrassing... purely accidental I assure you...

 

[cavalier]

Uh, that is a bit embarrassing... purely accidental I assure you...

Fair enough, no worries big guy.

 

[Postmaster]

I agree with Will, I know people will be people at the end of the day.... But do you think it's possible that you can reach a state of passiveness in Christianity that Islam simply can't offer? Christian mystics have used the bible as a tool for accomplishing mystical things for the benefit of others for hundreds of years. You could say Jesus opened up some mystical bridge for us, which so called Christians don't want to walk down and preach Christianity as the other two Abrahamic religions, typically calling everyone else infidels. Don't forget Christianity has its roots in Judaism but Jesus was also a unique mystic who had a strong relationship with God... You can pick to follow Christianity as God intended as basic Abrahamic religion or you can further follow the path of Christ, which is very difficult, but so rewarding and I think this is what Judaism and Islam don't have to offer.