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

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I realize that is the standard thought. I don't necessarily agree, but even if it were true... the behavior is not Christian or in accordance with the scriptures.

Isn’t it?

Matt 5:29-30:

29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away! It is better to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into hell. 30 If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away! It is better to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into hell.

The mob in Alexandria saw Hypatia and the library as leading people to sin, so they tore her and it out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL

As long as you laugh at your own ignorance you doom yourself to remain so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, I'd agree that what you see portrayed as the religion of Christianity is what it is today. But real Christianity, the truth and reality of relationship with Jesus and the impact of His love on others, is and always has existed beyond the organizational or religious misrepresentations.

From my perspective, “Christianity” and “the religion of Christianity” mean exactly the same thing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now you are getting off on another tangent. Jesus is not about violence and if you want to talk about God as Judge, the afterlife, or whatever that's a different subject.

The subject is about violence. You said that Jesus doesn’t condone violence... but the Bible depicts him committing violence himself, commanding his followers to arm themselves, and reveling in predictions and threats of future violence.

 

[Audie]

That depends. I would have to see each case to determine whether it was a misuse or difference of perspective concerning the evidence. Of course any actual misuse or deception is wrong.

Eugenics, Nazi stuff, racism, the usual that the evolution-
deniers bring up.

 

[InChrist]

As long as you laugh at your own ignorance you doom yourself to remain so.

I am laughing because it is ironic that that an atheist thinks he knows what a Christian is better than a Christian. I was not always a Christian. I was a non-Christian for over half my life. I know what it is to be transformed by Jesus Christ. I know the difference. I can truly describe it, you can't know and never will know unless you are changed by Jesus and born again.

 

[InChrist]

From my perspective, “Christianity” and “the religion of Christianity” mean exactly the same thing.

Do you know why that is? Because you are looking from the outside and can only see superficially. Unless you are born again you will never know the reality of life in the love of Jesus Christ.

 

[InChrist]

Eugenics, Nazi stuff, racism, the usual that the evolution-
deniers bring up.

Yeah, well I don't know. From my research there has clearly been racism from both sides. Probably better not to get off topic here, though.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I can truly describe it, you can't know and never will know unless you are changed by Jesus and born again.

Do you know why that is? Because you are looking from the outside and can only see superficially. Unless you are born again you will never know the reality of life in the love of Jesus Christ.

So truly describe it already.

 

[Cooky]

Does anyone know why Christianity was spread by violent means?

...If you legitimately know the reason, please state why.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you know why that is? Because you are looking from the outside and can only see superficially. Unless you are born again you will never know the reality of life in the love of Jesus Christ.

No, it isn't. It's because a religion is defined by the beliefs and actions of its adherents. The question of whether a religion is correct is a separate matter from what the religion is.

"Christianity" is the name of a religion (or maybe family of religions - I talk about that in @syo 's "christianity" thread). It's still the name of the religion even if its modern form is something that Jesus - if he actually existed as a real person - would have completely disapproved of.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Does anyone know why Christianity was spread by violent means?

...If you legitimately know the reason, please state why.

The Great Commission, plus the attitude expressed in Matthew 5:29-30 (quoted a few posts ago).

 

[InChrist]

So truly describe it already.

I meant to say...can't.

 

[InChrist]

The Great Commission, plus the attitude expressed in Matthew 5:29-30 (quoted a few posts ago).

Matthew 5:29-30 is clearly metaphorical and is meant to show the importance of removing sin from one's life, not actual physical body parts. Also, it is speaking to believers to remove sin from their OWN lives. This is not instruction for anyone to do so to others.

 

[InChrist]

No, it isn't. It's because a religion is defined by the beliefs and actions of its adherents. The question of whether a religion is correct is a separate matter from what the religion is.

"Christianity" is the name of a religion (or maybe family of religions - I talk about that in @syo 's "christianity" thread). It's still the name of the religion even if its modern form is something that Jesus - if he actually existed as a real person - would have completely disapproved of.

Okay and I've been saying that or at least trying to say biblical faith in Christ is not meant to be a religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am laughing because it is ironic that that an atheist thinks he knows what a Christian is better than a Christian. I was not always a Christian. I was a non-Christian for over half my life. I know what it is to be transformed by Jesus Christ. I know the difference. I can truly describe it, you can't know and never will know unless you are changed by Jesus and born again.

Why do you think that is unlikely? Most U.S. atheists used to be Christians and became atheists through a superior understanding of the religion. You appear to be rather ignorant of the history of your faith and keep relying on a No True Scotsman Fallacy to defend your case which is based on a very biased interpretation of the Bible. Like most Christians you ignore that parts of the Bible that go against your faith.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Matthew 5:29-30 is clearly metaphorical and is meant to show the importance of removing sin from one's life, not actual physical body parts. Also, it is speaking to believers to remove sin from their OWN lives. This is not instruction for anyone to do so to others.

I agree that this is one interpretation. The text supports a range of interpretations.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay and I've been saying that or at least trying to say biblical faith in Christ is not meant to be a religion.

Sure it isn't.

If you want something that's unbiblical, it's this "it's not a religion; it's a relationship with God" nonsense that's emerged in the last 20 years or so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure it isn't.

If you want something that's unbiblical, it's this "it's not a religion; it's a relationship with God" nonsense that's emerged in the last 20 years or so.

Wasn't Bush Sr. an early advocate of that?

 

[InChrist]

Why do you think that is unlikely? Most U.S. atheists used to be Christians and became atheists through a superior understanding of the religion. You appear to be rather ignorant of the history of your faith and keep relying on a No True Scotsman Fallacy to defend your case which is based on a very biased interpretation of the Bible. Like most Christians you ignore that parts of the Bible that go against your faith.

If a person is born again they don't become unborn and become an atheist or whatever. Someone who has spiritually died and risen to new life in Christ never leaves Christ. It is impossible. One may sin or fall away for a time, but a truly born again individual is a new creation.

Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. John 6:68