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

[paarsurrey]

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

Kalinga War - Wikipedia

Comes to my mind.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

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

And Jesus Christ was not a Christian, please.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

"followers of Christ's teaching."

I believe Jesus' truthful teachings are mentioned in Quran, and truthful Muslims follow them.
I belong the Ahmadiyya peaceful Islam.
Regards

 

[Gulo]

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.

Yup. Non-christians are discriminated against in many Western countries.

 

[Baladas]

Respectfully, without Christianity's very bloody history, most of us would likely never have never even heard of Jesus.

 

[InChrist]

Why do so many Christians try and pretend as if people calling themselves Christians didn't use force and violence to spread what they called the Christian religion? Attempting to claim that any 'Christian' who used such methods wasn't a 'real' Christian is just plain silly. Christianity became a dominant world religion because of these so called 'unChristain' methods.

I didn't say that force or violence wasn't used to spread what is called the "Christian religion", but I don't think this "dominant religion" equates with biblical Christianity according to Jesus...

Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. Matthew 7:13-14

 

[InChrist]

The good ole "No True Scotsman" defense

I don't think so, because it is Christ who defines Christianity, not the wrong actions of sinful humans misusing His name.

 

[InChrist]

Respectfully, without Christianity's very bloody history, most of us would likely never have never even heard of Jesus.

I respectfully disagree. Jesus, the apostles and very early church spread the gospel about Jesus all over without violence or bloodshed. I don't think God is pleased that power hungry, greedy men misuse His words or message about Jesus to control, force or harm others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I respectfully disagree. Jesus, the apostles and very early church spread the gospel about Jesus all over without violence or bloodshed. I don't think God is pleased that power hungry, greedy men misuse His words or message about Jesus to control, force or harm others.

If you look at the spread of Christianity the growth was not rapid until there was some force behind it:

 

[InChrist]

If you look at the spread of Christianity the growth was not rapid until there was some force behind it:

Would you say this spread by force is the spread of Roman Catholicism or Christianity? Do you think Jesus advocated using force to spread the gospel? Did the apostles?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Would you say this spread by force is the spread of Roman Catholicism or Christianity? Do you think Jesus advocated using force to spread the gospel? Did the apostles?

It does not matter. During early Christianity "Roman Catholicism" was Christianity.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

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.

Translation: "I made a nonsense claim, and now I'm backpedalling like heck while trying to maintain some appearance of dignity"

Understood.

 

[Altfish]

While I believe only God knows whether someone is a Christian or not, Jesus stated that they will be known by their fruits, meaning actions or behavior. Those who display the fruit of violence are showing bad unChrist-like fruit (behavior).

Disciples of Jesus Are Known by Their Fruit

Is someone who voted for Trump a Christian?

 

[ChristineM]

Thanks. I understand you have a different perspective and don't think there is evidence. I don't know how much you've personally looked into it or actually sought God to give you evidence or whether you are just echoing the repeated claim of skeptics that there is no evidence. I didn't just believe or become a Christian because I was raised Christian, or forced, or even taught Christianity. I searched and asked God over and over for answers and reasons to know. God has given me sufficient reasons and evidence to know the scriptures are reliable and Jesus is who the scriptures state Him to be.

Yes ive looked, seriously looked until age 14 when i was driven from my church by good christians. Then i looked for the reason god christians should hate someone like me. I found that answer in the Bible.

I also understand evidence, some people have a low threshold of evidence, some dont. Ultimately its about what you want to believe. If you believe the sun rising each morning, or the birth of a newborn or the weather cycle is evidence of god, thats entirely up to you

If you believe a selected collection of bronze age texts written by desert tribes is the word of god, so be it.

If you believe a small, latter portion of that book, selectively compiled by committee some 350 years after events then repeatedly edited, re-written and changed is a reliable account of a handful of years of Jesus life, then if that brings you comfort then that is just fine.

To me, these are not evidence of a god or the accuracy of scriptures but the stories of an ancient people who knew no better.

 

[exchemist]

"followers of Christ's teaching."

I believe Jesus' truthful teachings are mentioned in Quran, and truthful Muslims follow them.
I belong the Ahmadiyya peaceful Islam.
Regards

No doubt, no doubt.

 

[Augustus]

Hey, if it's got the boffins in a tizzy, then I'm all for it. Rebel till the end. Besides I could tell the bias, and I could very much get the sense that an alternative view was possible.
Upset the system, I like the book more now heh.

Books which shake up a stale, complacent discipline, even if full of errors, can be great.

With this one, it's not really "upset the boffins with a bold new thesis that shocks them out of their slumber", but "uncritically regurgitates the same old myths that ruled from the Enlightenment until 50-100 years ago when greater access to evidence made such views untenable". It is regressive, rather than progressive.

what exactly is a good book for understanding the era? I'm developing something of an obsession with Classical Rome and Greece (I've decided next year with be the "Year of Homer." And read various translations throughout the year, which spurned my curiosity.)

Depends what you like really, general or more niche, and if you like entertaining books and/or scholarly ones.

Persian Fire (Greece) and Rubicon (Rome) by Tom Holland are fun and good general books (although classical antiquity rather than late antiquity). SPQR by Mary Beard another wide ranging book on Rome.

Pagans and Christians by Robin Lane Fox is more closely related to Nixey's book subject matter, although is not a similar book.

The Silk Roads by Peter Frankopan covers the time period, although isn't really focused on it specifically and extends until much later. It moves the longer term narrative out of it's traditional Eurocentric framing though and is another good read.

These are all pretty general texts, niche ones would depend more on your preferences.

And Who's Pliny? I keep seeing the name crop up.

There were a couple of them, younger and elder. 1st C Roman statesmen who wrote fair bit of stuff that was preserved.

Young Pliny famous for mentioning Christians in a letter when he was governor somewhere in Anatolia.

 

[SomeRandom]

Books which shake up a stale, complacent discipline, even if full of errors, can be great.

With this one, it's not really "upset the boffins with a bold new thesis that shocks them out of their slumber", but "uncritically regurgitates the same old myths that ruled from the Enlightenment until 50-100 years ago when greater access to evidence made such views untenable". It is regressive, rather than progressive.



Depends what you like really, general or more niche, and if you like entertaining books and/or scholarly ones.

Persian Fire (Greece) and Rubicon (Rome) by Tom Holland are fun and good general books (although classical antiquity rather than late antiquity). SPQR by Mary Beard another wide ranging book on Rome.

Pagans and Christians by Robin Lane Fox is more closely related to Nixey's book subject matter, although is not a similar book.

The Silk Roads by Peter Frankopan covers the time period, although isn't really focused on it specifically and extends until much later. It moves the longer term narrative out of it's traditional Eurocentric framing though and is another good read.

These are all pretty general texts, niche ones would depend more on your preferences.



There were a couple of them, younger and elder. 1st C Roman statesmen who wrote fair bit of stuff that was preserved.

Young Pliny famous for mentioning Christians in a letter when he was governor somewhere in Anatolia.

Hmm depends on my mood. Might start general fun and find my niche later.
Ooh I have SPQR. It's cool.

Wasn't silk roads a BBC series? I swear I watched it randomly when I was younger.
Anyway thanks for increasing my already huge TBR.
But how does an idiot layman figure out the right sources for the more scholarly reads?

Really? Famous for mentioning Christians in a letter? Man, peeps in history get infamous for some weird things.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, we literally know that a certain group of fanatical monks were involved with the murder of Hypatia of Alexandria, during the time of Cyril of Alexandria and that her death was due to politics and power, not the example or teachings of Jesus.


Parabalani - Wikipedia

Fanatical Christian monks.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They may have claimed to be "Christians", but while I believe only God knows whether someone is a Christian or not, Jesus stated that they will be known by their fruits, meaning actions or behavior. Those who display the fruit of violence are showing bad unChrist-like fruit (behavior).

There are "Christians", even "Christian pastors" who abuse their wives or children behind closed doors. They misuse the Bible and Christianity for power and control. Everyone says and thinks of them as the nicest, godly "Christians", but the scriptures call such individuals wicked, evil hypocritical liars, deceivers, wolves in sheep's clothing.

Disciples of Jesus Are Known by Their Fruit

Why would violence be "unchristlike?" There are several stories in the Gospel of Jesus having violent outbursts - attacking the moneychangers with a whip, for instance - and many of his sermons revel in promises of future violence and suffering.

Edit: there's also the whole "if you have no sword, you should sell your cloak and buy one" instruction from Jesus.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I didn't say that force or violence wasn't used to spread what is called the "Christian religion", but I don't think this "dominant religion" equates with biblical Christianity according to Jesus...

Then it would be fair for you to say that what Christianity is today is not what you think Christianity ought to be.


... but what Christianity is today is still what Christianity is today.