A Little Perspective On Religion

Islam IS inherently violent by origin, by founder, by sacred text. If a Muslim or a Muslim community is NOT violent, I would say good for them, but they only arrived there by moving away from their origin point, founder and sacred text.

On the other hand true Christianity is inherently peaceful and loving by origin, founder and sacred text. If a Christian or Christian community is violent I would say shame on them, but they only arrived there by moving away from that origin, founder and sacred text.

I would agree wholeheartedly with this.

 

What's a Christian nation that isn't violent?

If the Old Testament is taken at anything close to face value, then Christianity is a violent religion.
"But the New Testament..."

Okay, if the Pope gains authority through the Petrine Doctrine and the Pope encouraged the Crusades, then Christianity is a violent religion.
"But I'm not Catholic..."

Okay, if the Reformation and Counter Reformation were an attempt to establish orthodoxy, then Christianity is a violent religion.
"Jesus never killed anyone..."

I wasn't there, and I don't know whether he did. I do know of claims that he killed, in particular in the Apocrypha. I don't know how you settle issues of what's Canon, but that's not my problem. But violence comes in many forms; isn't sexism a violent and oppressive scheme if it subverts the interests of the woman to that of men?

 

I don't know, to be honest. I'd never get into a debate about what Christianity is because I'm an atheist, I don't think religion is necessary to live a good life, and I'm not bothered by people self-identifying as Christians or anything else. The label really doesn't matter very much.

In the more than 2500 years of Judaic study and in the however long you'll count there being Christian studies, so much of the debate has been shaped by people, by philosophies, by culture. If someone honestly says, "Let's go to the book," I'm all for it. But notice: then those people need to learn Koine as well as at least Attic Greek so they can see the terminology and origin of that terminology, and they also spend lots of time considering the various interpretations - including those they don't like.

Again, I'm an atheist, but I've taught Greek, I've read parts of the New Testament in my classes because my students in Texas wanted to read the Bible in Greek (we read John mostly), and I regularly teach Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas, and I also teach Maimonides on Genesis and Job. I've been doing it for years, I was raised Lutheran, and I'm not utterly ignorant of these things.

 

I agree; I think I mentioned this passage previously as an example of the surely non-loving and possibly violent aspects of Christianity.

 

I'll be back later when I'm not on my phone to respond to the questions about Christianity.

I will say this though. It is interesting to me that you guys want to discuss Christianity when the topic of the thread is Islam. Most everyone in the thread is hesitant or resistant to identify Islam as violent, but quick to want to label Christianity as violent.

 

I think its assumed that when we say is Islam violent, we aren't comparing it to Jainism or Hinduism. So the question inherently involves a comparison to Christianity if for no other reason than that's the norm.

if you want to ask, is Islam violent compared to Jainism, I would say resoundingly yes.

 

My position's pretty clear: I'm looking for differences - and then differences that matter.
If someone's going to attack view X (here Islam), I'll cast that light back on their views. It's only fair that we evaluate all this evidence with equal zeal.

 

Does the Bible disagree with it? How does one determine what in the Old Testament counts and what in the New Testament counts? Why aren't such passages part of the Biblical culture that has to be read in a new way (as TIME was suggesting previously about another issue)? I'm not saying there aren't answers, but I'd like to know them. And I'd like them from anyone who a) Identifies at Christian and b) Sees homosexuality as immoral because of Biblical reasons.

 

Two religion enters, one religion leaves... JK JK - I guess this thread has gotten a bit off topic, and I might be at least partially to blame.

 

Done!

 

School us guys. My body is ready!!

 

Busy day tomorrow, so I probably won't be able to comment until around 7 PM Eastern time.

 

You don't want any part of this.

Seriously though, I'm fine with broadening the discussion to make it more about Christianity. I would have hoped that we could have at least agreed on the violent core of Islam, but that's not likely as long as we weight our evaluations differently. I'm 1000% convinced that the current statistical approach for evaluating any religion is flawed. What if 10 years from now 50.1% of world Muslims, or Buddhists, or Christians or Atheists begin practicing violence? Will you suddenly identify that religion as violent? And then if that .1% swings the other way will you change your evaluation again?

I will attempt to respond to some of the issue / questions raised, but please understand I can't speak for any other Christian here. I'm also going to share some things that will likely provoke responses but I am NOT posting for the sake of arguing to win, but just in the hope of providing some clarity to some very commonly misunderstood issues regarding Christianity.

I'll say to start that there are really two kinds of Christianity in my worldview. True Christianity which at the very least is a close approximation and a serious effort to believe and live according to New Testament principles. The second variety is what I will call cultural Christianity of which there are innumerable twisted expressions in which you will find under close examination more tradition than Biblical content.

 

There is no such thing as a "Christian nation" from a New Testament perspective. At least in terms of specific geo-political nations with physical boundaries. The Church itself (not any denomination, but the total number of true followers of Christ) is described as a single spiritual holy "nation" in the midst of the nations. That holy nation is not and has never been a violent nation. Ever.

No offense intended for any Catholics reading this, but I do not consider Catholicism a true representation of Christianity.

I do consider the Reformation a valiant attempt by well intentioned leaders to reclaim Biblical Christianity, but an attempt that fell far short of the standard including horrendous failures of a violent nature.

He didn't. Any claims to the contrary are simply spurious.

You will need to define sexism as you are using it before I attempt to defend the New Testament text from that accusation. Whatever your definition I can at least say that there is NO New Testament teaching that fosters or encourages violence toward women. A fair reading of the last 2000 years of world history in regard to those cultures that were most influenced by Biblical teaching would reveal that the cultures that most honor women are the same ones that most closely applied Biblical principles.