Is Christianity actually peaceful?

cavalier · 09-23-2006, 06:24 AM

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.

Terrence · 09-23-2006, 08:33 AM

I feel the law of noncontradiction may apply here. You seem to believe that just because someone adheres to certian beliefs and/or profess the faith, they are Christians. Thats far from true! In the Qura'n there are explicit text that state that war and violence is a must if a practioner of the faith wants to become closer or more intimate to their God. In the Bible, if one wants to be closer to God and be a follow of Jesus, He must first deny himself, pick up his cross daily and follow after Jesus. One faith (Islam) is based off of the works the founder being adored, while the other faith (Christanity) is based off of the works of its founder being hated and humilited.

This of course, produces two different results in the true practioners of each faith. One will fight to honor their religion, beliefs, and good name of its founder, and the other will suffer shame, precussion, and death, to follow after the teachings of its founder. Is Chrisanity a peacful religon? The answer to that may surprise you. Since the problem with man is himself and Christanity is oppossed to man's will, but humbly submits to God's will out of shear gratitude for God and His Love and Grace shown forth in the cross of Christ, Christanity will always be viewed by the masses as violent, intolerant, evil, etc. ect. etc. Until man wakes up from his lostnessness, he will always be at odds with peace and the religon that represents the price of peace, Jesus.

cyberpi · 09-23-2006, 10:07 AM

All depends on the individual or power base. How about an alledged Christian leader calling for the assasination of a foreign democratically elected president?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrence

I feel the law of noncontradiction may apply here. You seem to believe that just because someone adheres to certian beliefs and/or profess the faith, they are Christians. Thats far from true! In the Qura'n there are explicit text that state that war and violence is a must if a practioner of the faith wants to become closer or more intimate to their God. In the Bible, if one wants to be closer to God and be a follow of Jesus, He must first deny himself, pick up his cross daily and follow after Jesus. One faith (Islam) is based off of the works the founder being adored, while the other faith (Christanity) is based off of the works of its founder being hated and humilited.

This of course, produces two different results in the true practioners of each faith. One will fight to honor their religion, beliefs, and good name of its founder, and the other will suffer shame, precussion, and death, to follow after the teachings of its founder. Is Chrisanity a peacful religon? The answer to that may surprise you. Since the problem with man is himself and Christanity is oppossed to man's will, but humbly submits to God's will out of shear gratitude for God and His Love and Grace shown forth in the cross of Christ, Christanity will always be viewed by the masses as violent, intolerant, evil, etc. ect. etc. Until man wakes up from his lostnessness, he will always be at odds with peace and the religon that represents the price of peace, Jesus.

I disagree. I think you are taking a couple of Qur'an verses out of context. For self defense from persecution yes, the Qur'an says to fight and defend... but you can't ignore a bunch of Qur'an verses to support a few that are extracted out of context. There are also a few verses that speak against picking and choosing from the verses.

For those individuals who fight for a non-Islamic government, such as a former minority dictatorial regime that ran for 30+ years... I have not found the Qur'an verses that even says that is what Jihad is for.

Sorry to twist the thread back to Islam...

cavalier · 09-23-2006, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I disagree. I think you are taking a couple of Qur'an verses out of context. For self defense from persecution yes, the Qur'an says to fight and defend... but you can't ignore a bunch of Qur'an verses to support a few that are extracted out of context. There are also a few verses that speak against picking and choosing from the verses.

I guess that should answer Terrence's points about Islam. I also think Terrence, that you are not in a postion to set out what true practitioners of Islam must and must not do

cavalier · 09-23-2006, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrence

You seem to believe that just because someone adheres to certian beliefs and/or profess the faith, they are Christians.

No.

My point, that Christianity has a long history of violence, still stands.

Postmaster · 09-23-2006, 12:30 PM

Is it true that one of the great fires in Rome was started by the up and coming Christian cult? To fulfil a prophecy in the bible? Against Emperor Nero?

juantoo3 · 09-23-2006, 02:06 PM

Kindest Regards, Postmaster!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Postmaster

Is it true that one of the great fires in Rome was started by the up and coming Christian cult? To fulfil a prophecy in the bible? Against Emperor Nero?

Not quite. In that instance, Nero himself ordered the city burned and found a way to pass blame onto the Christians, who then suffered the worst persecution they had to that point, being fed to lions, dunked in barrels of oil and set on fire as torches (for the Emperor's garden party, no less), unarmed were slaughtered in the arena for sport by gladiators, etc. This was a period of time before Christianity gained legal recognition.

Postmaster · 09-23-2006, 02:08 PM

how can we be so sure which version is correct?

juantoo3 · 09-23-2006, 04:04 PM

Kindest Regards, Postmaster!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Postmaster

how can we be so sure which version is correct?

I guess one simply has to read the history books, and take on faith that what they say is correct.

Of course, that opens the door to any book, be it Bible, Quran, Veda, or what have you. Either you take on faith that what they have to say is true, or you doubt. The choice is yours.

So, I guess *both* sides in *every* war are guilty.

juantoo3 · 09-23-2006, 04:39 PM

Kindest Regards, Cavalier!

Quote:

Originally Posted by cavalier

My point, that Christianity has a long history of violence, still stands.

I suppose it is inevitable that a counter-thread should be composed to balance the other thread.

While it is true, that violence and war have been promulgated in the name of Christianity, and the spread of the political power that incorporated that particular institutional religion...

could it not be said as well, that every major faith walk in existence today has at one time or another used violence and warfare to promote itself? That would include every religion that officially promotes itself as peaceful.

So, I suppose a great deal hinges on perspective. If one is of a mind to promote their own particular brand of religion, they may be inclined to see the violence in others while ignoring that tendency in their own. (Which is really the point behind the other thread; ignoring reality while promoting promises that may or may not be true, depending on situation and circumstances).

Every major faith promotes peace. And every political power that stands behind a religious institution is capable (and willing) to use violence and warfare. Many otherwise peaceful persons are capable of being violent if and when the need arises. Sometimes that "need" is contrived, or exploded out of proportion. That's just the way it is. That is the nature of the many-headed beast.

Postmaster · 09-23-2006, 04:42 PM

Why would Nero set fire to his own capital and lose money from tax and rebuilding? Historians would actually sway towards the Christians starting it. As you say they were suppressed! Maybe they got alittle annoyed and thought they would fulfil a prophecy so there belief system could be justified?

juantoo3 · 09-23-2006, 04:51 PM

Kindest Regards, Postmaster!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Postmaster

Why would Nero set fire to his own capital? Historians would actually sway towards the Christians starting it.

It has been a while since I looked into this. As I recall, and the details are a little fuzzy, Nero had a grand achitectural dream of rebuilding the city. It was a huge remodelling scheme (glorifying him, of course), and he couldn't get the Roman Senate to go along. The story goes that he fiddled while Rome burned. He supposedly reasoned that if the city were destroyed, it would have to be rebuilt. And of course he would be standing there with plans in hand for the new reconstruction projects. As so Rome was rebuilt largely to Nero's specifications.

It was only later that the motivation behind the deceit was uncovered. By then, it was too late.

But of course, I would adjure one to look into the story for themselves, and not to simply take me at my word.

Terrence · 09-23-2006, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cavalier

No.

My point, that Christianity has a long history of violence, still stands.

That simply isnt true. We must call a spade a spade and have the law of noncontradiction apply here. How can I say that? Well, there is no teaching taught by Jesus that Christians ought to fight or kill or do anything oppossing to Jesus' teaching. If a believer does not what his religion teaches or what Jesus taught, then that person isnt a believer of the relgion and thus what he does or what they do as a whole, cannot rightly be considered Christanity. Its a simple as that. If I, as a person who claims to love trees and belong to the "Woodeees" tree savers religon, cut down trees for whatever cause, then the reality is that I do not love trees and cannot be named among that religon, especially if it is against cutting down trees.

cavalier · 09-23-2006, 08:43 PM

Alright then, what is Christianity? What does it take to be a Christian? Who decides?

juantoo3 · 09-23-2006, 11:23 PM

Kindest Regards, Cavalier!

Quote:

Originally Posted by cavalier

Alright then, what is Christianity? What does it take to be a Christian? Who decides?

Well, if we must take this tack (considering the existing thread on the LC board), then I would ask "personal" or "institutional?" Are we speaking of what defines the individual Christian (which would take forever as it seems new definitions keep cropping up)? Or are we speaking of the institutions behind which the mechinations of government stand and direct traffic, which can be counted loosely by the number of nations that have existed?