How come atheists/SJWs always persist with the lie that Christianity was spread through violence?

[GoodbyeDave]

Any "Christianity" that has been spread by violence … was … not Christianity at all.

Have you ever heard of the No True Scotsman fallacy?

 

[InChrist]

Whether Jesus did it or not isn't relevant, the fact is that Christianity was spread by violent and/or coercive methods, and it still is.

Like I said, what is spread by violence or coercive methods...is not Christianity. Real Christianity is Jesus, so what He did is all that matters and all that defines Christianity.

 

[Sunstone]

Not all religions have been spread as peacefully as Buddhism and Taoism have tended to be.

 

[InChrist]

Have you ever heard of the No True Scotsman fallacy?

Yes, but it does not apply because it is Christ who defines Christianity, not the wrong actions of sinful humans.

 

[Sunstone]

Like I said, what is spread by violence or coercive methods...is not Christianity. Real Christianity is Jesus, so what He did is all that matters and all that defines Christianity.

You're free to hold that opinion, but for tens of millions of Christians, Christianity is not strictly limited to the teachings of Jesus.

 

[InChrist]

Not all religions have been spread as peacefully as Buddhism and Taoism have tended to be.

All "religions" have their share of violence, including Buddhism. Haven't researched Taoism as much.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32929855

Buddhism and violence - Wikipedia

Opinion | Why Are We Surprised When Buddhists Are Violent?

 

[InChrist]

You're free to hold that opinion, but for tens of millions of Christians, Christianity is not strictly limited to the teachings of Jesus.

Therein lies the problem.

 

[Sunstone]

All "religions" have their share of violence, including Buddhism. Haven't researched Taoism as much.

The darker side of Buddhism

Buddhism and violence - Wikipedia

Opinion | Why Are We Surprised When Buddhists Are Violent?

Of course they do. That's not news. But to suggest that Buddhism was spread with as much violence as Christianity was -- that's just bizarre.

 

[exchemist]

Yes, but it does not apply because it is Christ who defines Christianity, not the wrong actions of sinful humans.

No. I'm afraid Christianity is a term invented by Man, to describe the systems of belief and organisation of those people who claim to be followers of Christ's teaching.

If you now try to redefine it to be what Christ says, (a) it is clearly you, not Christ, that is offering a rival definition and ( b ) you will struggle to demonstrate the validity of your definition, since Christ never used the term.

 

[Sunstone]

All "religions" have their share of violence, including Buddhism. Haven't researched Taoism as much.

The darker side of Buddhism

Buddhism and violence - Wikipedia

Opinion | Why Are We Surprised When Buddhists Are Violent?

Yet, were you to look at Buddhism in the same way you look at Christianity, you would be compelled to state that Buddhism has never killed anyone -- only corrupt humans have -- because the Buddha taught against such things.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Any "Christianity" that has been spread by violence, such as the crusades, colonialism, inquisitions, etc. was the spread of religious/political power and control, but not Christianity at all. If Christianity is about Jesus Christ then these examples of atrocities and violence are solely the work of humans misusing, even blaspheming the name of Christ, as Jesus or even His apostles never spread the gospel in forceful, violent ways.

This is the No True Christian fallacy (I've renamed it since this is the context in which we virtually always see it - sorry Revoltingest). Once again, the non-Christian can give you a more impartial assessment than the ensconsed believer. The unbeliever will define Christianity according to what he sees rather than an idealized conception that manifests in too few believers.

To me, Christianity is defined by the kinds of people it generates and how they behave. In fact the divide between this idealized form of Christianity and what we actually see merely emphasizes the relative ineffectiveness of the religion to generate better people than it does. Simply calling them not real Christians doesn't make the religion better, nor its message and means of inculcating it into people any more effective.

Consider the rampant homophobia in certain factions of the American church. You can tell me that that is not Christianity, but of course it is. Such people would be much less likely to be homophobic if they were secular humanists or Baha'i, for example, rather than Christians.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well, it was. Particularly in the colonies. The Spanish were especially vicious and mind-blowingly cruel to the Central and South American peoples. The North American indigenous peoples and Oceanic and Pacific Islander peoples were also treated horribly by Europeans. Native Tasmanians, for example, were totally wiped out.

 

[Draka]

Any "Christianity" that has been spread by violence, such as the crusades, colonialism, inquisitions, etc. was the spread of religious/political power and control, but not Christianity at all. If Christianity is about Jesus Christ then these examples of atrocities and violence are solely the work of humans misusing, even blaspheming the name of Christ, as Jesus or even His apostles never spread the gospel in forceful, violent ways.

If the Christianity that was spread by violence wasn't actually Christianity then what the heck are Christians actually following? Because that's how it spread. Christianity in the Americas, in Africa, in Northern Europe and beyond...spread through violence.

 

[Woberts]

Like I said, what is spread by violence or coercive methods...is not Christianity. Real Christianity is Jesus, so what He did is all that matters and all that defines Christianity.

Who are you to say what version of Christianity is the correct one? And yes, it is certainly Christianity. Lying to yourself might make you feel better, but it's still a lie.

 

[InChrist]

If the Christianity that was spread by violence wasn't actually Christianity then what the heck are Christians actually following? Because that's how it spread. Christianity in the Americas, in Africa, in Northern Europe and beyond...spread through violence.

They are following their sinful nature and may be religious persons, but not actually regenerate Christians. I think while a lot of so-called Christianity has been spread with violence any honest person should be willing to admit that there are sincere Christians who have spread Christianity with real sacrificial love throughout history. Have you heard of Amy Carmichael?

 

[InChrist]

Who are you to say what version of Christianity is the correct one? And yes, it is certainly Christianity. Lying to yourself might make you feel better, but it's still a lie.

I am no one to say what real Christianity is...but Jesus Christ is Someone who is.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yes, but it does not apply because it is Christ who defines Christianity, not the wrong actions of sinful humans.

What is Christ's "definition of Christianity"? Chapter and verse, please?

 

[InChrist]

What is Christ's "definition of Christianity"? Chapter and verse, please?

I'm not going to tell you what the definition of Christianity is. I just believe it is relational, one on one, instead of a religious/political/organizational movement. Get with Christ and ask Him that question.

 

[Viviane LaFrance]

History and facts.

 

[Viviane LaFrance]

I mean we literally know that Christians were violent right from the beginning of their movement. Just read about what they did to Hypatia of Alexandria