From History
Using history as the indicator, there is little doubt that Christianity has been an extremely violent religion. The expansion by the sword through pagan Europe, the Crusades, the Christian on Christian violence of the Dark Ages and Reformation periods, the genocide of the American Natives, and the forced imperialist rule of most of the world during the “Colonial” Age all testify to this.
Christians often forced compliance to their religion on others. Augustine, one of the must influential people in the development of Christianity, fully supported this practice quoting the Bible passage, “Go out to the roads and country lanes and make them come in, so that my house will be full.” This violent fundamentalism has been far too common in Christian history.
Even today, Western armies lead by fundamentalist Christians occupy Muslim countries and support unpopular regimes on the citizens of other Muslim countries.
The Question of Inherency
The question goes further than simply whether Christians have been excessively violent. Obviously, they have. We have to realize though, that every religion has violent followers. The inventors of modern suicide bombing and by far the most prolific practitioner of it, the Tamil Tigers, are a fundamentalist Hindu group. Islam does not have a perfect record either.
But the question is this: Is Christianity inherently violent? That is, is it by its very nature and true practice a violent faith? I am afraid the answer is yes.
A prominent preacher justified the recent unprovoked invasion of Iraq by appealing to the Bible passage, “let him who has no sword, sell his cloak and buy one.” One of the chief political figures in fundamentalist Christianity went on international television to promote violence against Muslims. She said, “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.” Not only was she allowed to do so without legal repercussions (showing support for her ideas reach to the very top leadership), she received virtually no criticism from the wider Christian community at all and remains a key figure and best selling author.
If we merely dismiss these facts as the ravings of a few fanatics, we do so at our great peril. About 10 percent of the 2 billion Christians in the world are fundamentalists. That’s 200 million Christian fanatics worldwide, and they control the most power military in the world – the U.S. armed forces. And all of them are bent upon the exploitation of non-Christian lands.
Liberal Christians
The other 90 percent of Christians are not fundamentalists, but their beliefs are not based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Unfortunately, this majority rarely speaks out against their fundamentalist brothers. By failing to do so, they enable the fundamentalists and will be lumped together with them in the minds of the non-Christian world. This is understandable though given the nature of the Bible. The Bible’s vagueness and frequent contradictions make literal interpretation both difficult and unpleasant.
In any case, to be a non-fundamentalist and non-violent Christian they have to ignore many plain passages of the Bible. Christianity, unlike Islam, has a basic teaching that mandates hatred and abuse of people who follow other religions. Violence is mainstream; it is not just a misguided few. When you read verses from the Bible, you see how it instructs the killing of the infidel, and violence on outsiders.
Such passages from the bible as these:
And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
The LORD is a man of war.
He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.
(Note: this means Christians have to kill four billion people alive today).
O thou enemy, destructions are come to a perpetual end: and thou hast destroyed cities; their memorial is perished with them
(Note: Allah as inaccurately pictured in the Bible is particularly bloodthirsty, killing over 32 million people, whereas Allah in the Qur’an killed only 10 people).
For I set all men every one against his neighbor.
David smote them there, and said, The LORD hath broken forth upon mine enemies before me.
Many other examples are possible, but these should suffice.
New Testament
Some Christians like to say that their New Testament overrules all this violence. However, as you can see, this is not the case:
The New Testament upholds the old:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
It does not contradict the crimes of the old; it reaffirms them.
It does this not just in general, but explicitly:
Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
It must be admitted that the New Testament does not have any specific commands to commit massacres, but that is simply because Christians at that time had no political or military power. As soon as they achieved some, 1700 years of conquest and prosecution resulted.
Proof of the Peaceful Islamic Faith
In contrast, we know Islam is a religion of peace. To quote the Qur’an, English translation:
Oh mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other (Not that you may despise each other). 49:13
Seest thou not that we have set the evil ones on against the unbelievers to incite them with fury? So make no haste against them, for we but count out to them a (limited) number (of days). 19:83,84
(God has knowledge) of the (Prophet’s) cry, ‘O my Lord! Truly these are a people who will not believe!’ But turn away from them, and say, ‘Peace!’ 43:88,89
“Repel evil with that which is best.” 23:96
You can clearly see that Islam teaches that we should be at peace with those who do not accept Allah’s teachings.
Conclusion
When Christian fundamentalists launch unprovoked attacks that kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians, there will surely be a release of anger aimed at Christians. It will be difficult to be overly concerned about what type of Christian a person is if they have not made it absolutely clear beforehand.
At this very moment, fundamentalist Christian forces occupy several Muslim countries and prop up several other unpopular regimes in other Muslim countries. They have plans to do more. Already the rhetoric against Iran is being turned up, a country they have had a long history of interfering with. We must wake up to this fact and realize that our struggle is not against other countries; it is against fundamentalist Christians, and indeed Christianity and its inherent violence.
You may also be interested in:
I made the 400 million number up, just like whoever he got the 250 million number did. The 100 million number is correct (as an estimate), but a majority of that was due to disease which the Europeans can’t be held responsible for (they weren’t aware of it until late in the process).
The warfare in India between Muslims and Hindus was national and tribal warfare much more than religious so a comparison with the Europeans in America is valid.
That comment was just for fun because he made it so easy.
Gotcha. Yeah, he did make it easy.
“Christianity is responsible for every person who’s died since Jesus.” There, now THAT’S hyperbole.
“Many Christians were coming as missionaries to the Indians, not as conquerors.”
The fact that many Christians held to the Western concept of “manifest destiny” makes it impossible to know to what extent the ideals of missionary efforts were corrupted by a mentality that draws a line between the conquerors and the conquered. Many of the early Bureau of Indian Affairs officials placed on the reservations were also ordained ministers, and this was not seen as a conflict of interest.
Christianity was, in many cases, introduced as a means of “killing the Indian to save the man.” It was used as part of a strategy to conquer without military force. That is not to say that most missionaries had ulterior motives, it’s just that the influence of the dominant mindset cannot be underestimated. One of the main “solutions” to the “Indian problem” was coercing parents into giving up their children to be educated at boarding schools. In some cases the children were kidnapped outright to be “civilized” and “Christianized” in these schools. Christianity was just a part of a curriculum designed to forcefully assimilate the indigenous population. The idea was that the remnant of the “dying race” would evolve culturally into darker-skinned white people.
Chris, your ideas are supported in a broader sense by the entire motives behind the creation of the public school system – which was an open attempt to “christianize” Catholics, Indians and other groups.
“Chris, your ideas are supported in a broader sense by the entire motives behind the creation of the public school system – which was an open attempt to “christianize” Catholics, Indians and other groups.”
Yeah, I started to read “Underground History of American Education” by John Taylor Gatto. It chronicles so much about the history of American public education that I had never heard of.
I have not heard of this book. I will investigate it further.
the passages used here to justify the peace of islam (lol) are
abrigated by latter passages and thus become null and void.
True Christianity was violent during the dark ages but developed and grew with the times,unlike islam that’s so great it demands death for leaving.why are they worried about anyone leaving such a great religion of peace?
Follow the money. The overwhelming number of religious conflicts throughout history were more about money and power than religion. 99 times out of 100 religion is just a smokescreen if you read deeply enough. Look around the world today to see this is still as true as ever.
Bob, could not agree more. Yet I got a C in Latin American history for arguing this point about the conquest of the new world.
The Bible also commands death for leaving the faith. It also has second degree killings – that is if you are not willing to kill those who leave the faith than you get killed also.
Jasen, would you provide some chapter/verse references? I’m interested in knowing from what context those passages come.
Note that citing the Koran verses and not the Bible verses is part of the satire (as Christians often follow that practice the other way around). And yes some of the verses are badly ripped from context – the same defensive argument mainline Muslims would make against many accusations by Christians. The whole point is that Christians allow themselves a measure a freedom to interpret their scripture that they often deny to Muslims.
My last comment comes from Deut 13 (though I don’t remember exactly where the 2nd degree thing is).
From my article
OT quotes:
1: EX 32:17
2: NUM 31:17
3: EX 15:3
4: EX 22:20
5: Psalm 9:6
6: Zech 8:10
7: 2 Sam 5:20
NT quotes:
1: Mt 5:17
2: Mt 10:34
3: LK 14:26
colin, several years ago i read the american history textbook used by the university of texas (someone left it and i took it on a business trip out of curiosity). Summary: minorities of any type and unions are without reservation good guys, whites and businesses are universally bad guys. Two thousand pages of textbook with 400 covering the 20th century managed to avoid any mention of the rail, auto, computer, or aviation industries (other than the oppression of noble selfless unions). All of the fighting of ww2 was covered in 5 pages. No mention of any scientific achievements, or of any nobel prize winner. There was however, at least 10 pages devoted to the formation of the united farm workers union in california. Obviously that is at least twice as important as the fighting of ww2.
If this pc revisionist garbage is what is being passed off for history at the university level these days i’m surprised you did as well as a c.
I like how the author
1) pretends there are no violent verses in the Qur’aan
2) quotes Christians quoting violent Bible verses to justify violence, but doesn’t acknowledge that Muslims quote violent Qur’aan verses to justify violence also
3) talks a lot about the violent actions Christians have done, but doesn’t mention at all the violent things Muslims have done. He only quotes from the Qur’aan, very very selectively, but quotes very selectively from the Bible AND talks about Christians’ actions
4) doesn’t discuss the Golden Age idea that a religion was purest in its beginning. Christianity was absolutely peaceful in its first 300 years; on the other hand, in Islam’s first 20 years Muslims violently conquered and began hegemonizing lands from Spain to Afghanistan.
Here’s eye-for-an-eye in the Qur’aan:
Qur’aan Sura 2 “The Cow” verse 194: “The Sacred month for the sacred month and all sacred things are (under the law of) retaliation; whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you and be careful (of your duty) to Allah and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).”
Qur’aan Sura 4 “The Women” verse 104: “And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain, and you hope from Allah what they do not hope; and Allah is Knowing, Wise.”
Here’s early Muslims led by Companions of the Prophet who personally knew Muhammad committing horrific violence, something that early Christians DIDN’T do:
Recommended as authoritative by a Muslim, Yaser Shamsi:
Arnold, T. W. The Preaching of Islam: A History of the Propagation of the Muslim Faith. Kessinger Publishing: 2006. Retrieved http://scholar.google.com
“…moreover the people of this country [Central Asia] seem often to have pretended to embrace Islam for a time and then to have thrown off the mask and renounced their allegiance to the caliph as soon as the conquering armies were withdrawn. In Bukhaaraa and Samarqand the opposition to the new faith was so violent and obstinate that none but those who had embraced Islam were allowed to carry arms, and for many years the Muslims dared not appear unarmed in the mosques or other public places while spies had to be set to keep a watch on the new converts. The conquerors made various efforts to gain proselytes, and even tried to encourage attendance at the Friday prayers in the mosques by rewards of money, and allowed the Qur’an to be recited in Persian instead of in Arabic, in order that it might be intelligible to all” (183).
The USA sends $2.6 billion dollars in foreign aid to Israel each year.
I want to know who on earth came up with the idea that killing someone/martyrdom will lead you to paradise with 72 virgins? Is that going to be handy to your soul that goes? (NOT YOUR BODY) What kind of ‘god’ is going to reward a person so violent? Maybe a ‘false one’ with ‘false rewards of torture’ or an ‘evil’ one!
My goodness! What does it take to learn how to love?
All you who read this, non-believers of Jesus Christ the TRUE King, do not rebel. I am warning you because I care and I know that I have found the truth, the ‘simple’ truth that has always been there. (you might be saying yeah right, what do you know) BUT I have warned you, I have seen with my own eyes.
God Bless you (especially those that require more attention to go on the right track)
Islam, like Christianity, teaches the bodily resurrection of the dead. Muslims believe you will have a body in the afterlife. But I agree with your main point. The 72 virgins idea is pretty crazy. How many does one need?
If he wants to use those historical examples than he should blame Catholics, Fundamentalists weren’t even around then. Then he says that some person said and doesn’t give the name of the person. Then he will complain that no one is denouncing that person, IF YOU ARE GOING TO DENOUNCE SOMEONE GIVE THE NAME AND CONTEXT AND DO NOT JUST CRITICISE OTHERS FOR NOT DOING WHAT YOU ARE NOT DOING YOU HYPOCRITE. The muslims in those occupied countries, many of them were not well treated by the Muslims that were in power as well. How many people did Saddam kill? Oh yeah, I guess he was in the minority and wasn’t a true Muslim. Why don’t you give Cristianity the same leeway? And in invading those countries, whether it was the right thing or the wrong thing to do, I never heard as a reason for it was to spread the Christian faith and to assert that the American forces are all Christians is ridiculous.
Walter, please tell me you are a spam bot. I would really hate to have to believe that a real flesh and blood person could be as stupid as you are. The article was intended to criticize those who use illegitimate tactics to attack the Islamic religion. Maybe you should get a third grade equivalent education before you try expressing your political thoughts in writing again. Thanks.
“Why don’t you give Christianity the same leeway?” Best comment ever.
Atanamis, perhaps Walter is just a brilliant role player…
Definitely possible.
People, People People if you look at the history of religions such as Judasim, Chritianty and Islam they are violent, all religions are violent and in the same time GOD order them to love others and leave them be, it doesnt make any sence at all. Religions were created to control and brainwash peopel at the same time, by breaching love and mercy as well as hate and fight. Hummans always look for something to follow to make thier life meanninful and the need for knowng the unkwon such as after death, and unfortunally others take an advantage of that and control the public, just study religions and see all kinds of messed up informations and morals they feed your brain. not talking about the stories that all religious books provid us with, stories that make no sence whatsoever.
Peace to All humans
one earth one life live it well
Awaken, please come back when you’ve passed the third grade, and have learned reading comprehension as well as basic spelling and grammar. I mean seriously, you don’t even really need to learn to spell! You can just get a modern web browser that provides spell checking for you. “peopel”? “Hummans”? “meanninful”? “sence”? Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously?