Is Christianity a religion of violence?
- Thread starter MTAFFI
- Start date
- Replies 28
- Views 5K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | vBulletin 4 php 8.0 patch
no, simple as that, as a Muslim I see all forms of disbelief as not good for mankind as a whole but I will say this, christianity's teachings on the most part seem to be ok and the things that christians have done throughout history and even today whether it be major or minor are just the evil of some individuals, some things in the bible are a little disturbing, but that's about it.
- Qatada -
Spread this Avatar!
- Messages
- 11,349
- Reaction score
- 2,692
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
If this thread leads to arguments we might have to close it. [sorry for the repetition]
peace.
peace.
AHMED_GUREY
IB Veteran
- Messages
- 527
- Reaction score
- 71
Is Islam a religion of violence or a religion that condones violence?
Islam is so much deeper and greater than this tiny category so i reject it
Co-ordinated violence (war) as a reaction to injustice in the muslim lands is allowed
but it would be wrong to suggest that Islam revolves around this.
Is Christianity a religion of violence or a religion that condones violence
A person can take a kitchen knife and decide to stab the neighbour to death but the same person could also choose to use the said object for the sole reason it was created and that is to use it in the kitchen
one should study the said religions before making a stereotypical judgement about them wich are usually wrapped in my daddy is stronger than your daddy ad hominems, a follower of Christianity in the end has the choice to exploit his religion by projecting the wrong image or the complete opposite
so untill i'm more knowlegde about this subject my answer is a simple no
Islam is so much deeper and greater than this tiny category so i reject it
Co-ordinated violence (war) as a reaction to injustice in the muslim lands is allowed
but it would be wrong to suggest that Islam revolves around this.
Is Christianity a religion of violence or a religion that condones violence
A person can take a kitchen knife and decide to stab the neighbour to death but the same person could also choose to use the said object for the sole reason it was created and that is to use it in the kitchen
one should study the said religions before making a stereotypical judgement about them wich are usually wrapped in my daddy is stronger than your daddy ad hominems, a follower of Christianity in the end has the choice to exploit his religion by projecting the wrong image or the complete opposite
so untill i'm more knowlegde about this subject my answer is a simple no
Woodrow
May Allah have mercy on him رحمة الله عليه
- Messages
- 17,217
- Reaction score
- 4,224
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
I believe you are the first person to bring that up. That is a very good point.
My assumption and in answering too fast without thinking is to say violence is evil. So I responded to this thread with the presumption that violence is evil.
But, since you asked that question. If I think hard enough I can think of instances when violence is justified.
However, I would say violence is evil if not of itself but of the causes that provoked the evil. So, violence can be the result of reacting to an evil act or it can be an evil act in itself.
I think our language is in need of words to distinguish between justified and evil violence.
Keltoi
IB Legend
- Messages
- 5,061
- Reaction score
- 463
Similar to my reply to the "Is Islam a religion of violence" thread, I believe that Christianity, by definition, is a religion of peace. Of course many acts of brutality and murder have been committed by Christians who justified it by their religious beliefs. I think to a large extent Muslims are having to deal with the same issue Christianity dealt with hundreds of years ago. A religion should never be used to justify acts of murder or intolerance.
waldolicous
Rising Member
- Messages
- 12
- Reaction score
- 0
I voted no. In fact, I think Christianity is the most peaceful religion which exists today.
Grace Seeker
IB Legend
- Messages
- 5,343
- Reaction score
- 617
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
I would have to say that I presume violence to be evil. I do not necessarily presume the use of force to be evil. For me, the definition of violence, is the use of force for evil ends.
snakelegs
IB Legend
- Messages
- 5,742
- Reaction score
- 1,199
no, i don't think it is a religion of violence any more than islam or judaism are.
in fact, it could be argued that it is less so, because i don't think the new testament talks about conquering and killing unbelievers, like the bible and the qur'an do.
i think there are some inherent anti-jewish problems in christianity tho. not positve as i have not read the new testament.
i like grace seeker's comment about violence.
in fact, it could be argued that it is less so, because i don't think the new testament talks about conquering and killing unbelievers, like the bible and the qur'an do.
i think there are some inherent anti-jewish problems in christianity tho. not positve as i have not read the new testament.
i like grace seeker's comment about violence.
Grace Seeker
IB Legend
- Messages
- 5,343
- Reaction score
- 617
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
I would concur. I would say that the use of force for self-defense is not the use of force for evil ends. However, once we have defended ourselves, to continue to use force for the sake of "getting even", revenge, retribution or punishment of those who have attacked us would be to use force for evil ends and changes it from self-defense to violence.
By my definition, in Iraq the Americans and the militia are both committing acts of violence. For neither side is seeking to defend anything but to advance their own cause at the expense of another. Perhaps, the government of Iraq could be said to be attempting to use force for non-violent ends? I am not certain about that.
Malaikah
IB Legend
- Messages
- 6,351
- Reaction score
- 907
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
Where does the 'turn the other cheek' thing come in? I thought Christians are not even allowed to defend themselves?
I explicitly asked a Christian girl this, and she said that you can't even use violence to defend yourself.
Is that true?
I explicitly asked a Christian girl this, and she said that you can't even use violence to defend yourself.
Is that true?
Grace Seeker
IB Legend
- Messages
- 5,343
- Reaction score
- 617
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
Well, if you are talking to a Quaker, this would be their view.
he definition of violence I gave above was purely mine, not a Christian definition. Christians are all over the place in their understanding of this. All abhor violence, but the degree of force that one can use and for what purpose varies greatly depending on to what group, and sometimes what individual you are speaking.
Some, such as Quakers, are pure 100% pacifist. They will not go to war. They will not even rise to defend themselves if struck. True story, a burglar broke into a Quaker's home late at night to rob it. The man of the house woke to find the burglar about to make off with the families silverware. He grabbed a shotgun (kept for hunting pheasant) pointed in the general direction of the man and said, "Sir, I would not harm thee, but thou are standing where I am about to fire." With that the thief dropped the silverware and left. That's about as violent as I have ever heard of a Quaker getting. Afterward, the police caught the same man breaking into other people's homes and in possession of some items from the Quaker's house that he had evidently already taken before discovered, but the Quaker refused to press charges.
Others have gone so far as to develop a "just war theory".
Most would say that it is one thing to turn the other cheek one time. It is another thing to simply allow yourself to be used as a punching bag. While "turning the other cheek" can be taken literally, most today understand it in a figurative sense of not seeking revenge but offering forgiveness.
You might find this interesting. As Jesus first used the phrase, it may not have been as soft as it appears to us today. Remember it is said in the context of a few other admonitions from Jesus:
In the first part, Jesus is reinterpreting the Torah, because there are those who were then (and still today -- and I don't mean Jews, I mean Christians) misapplying it. That is they see the eye for an eye phrase as an excuse to get even. It was not intended that way. It was intended to put a limit. If you were a slave owner and your slave accidently cause some damage to another man's slave (or ox or anything else) and it lost an eye, the tendency was to have the slave put to death, the Torah limited the punishment to just the loss of an eye. So, Jesus makes it clear that the purposes of God are not in seeking retribution but in seeking reconciliation.
But as the people of Jesus' day were indeed oppressed by the occupying Romans would could pretty much order them to do anything they wanted and the citizenry had to comply, there was always within Judaism (especially among those who glorified the Maccabbeans who had briefly stood up to foreign rule) a sense that they ought not to comply or cooperate with these Roman pagans. So, there was always a simmering unrest ready to erupt. Jesus word's of "do not resist an evil person" were directed to those who felt strongly that they were ready to fight.
Now, although Rome occupied Palestine and could be brutal, there were actually some laws that the Roman soldiers had to obey, and they were enforced on pain of death. First, while they could be as viscous as they wanted in carrying out their orders, they could not simply strike someone for no reason. Now, of course, most people if struck, have a tendency to strike back. In that case, with a fight ensuing, the Roman soldier could call for help and have the person he was fighting with executed, if not killed on the spot. You know how in sporing events the referees never notice the first foul, but always notice the retaliation? So if you did nothing when struck the first time, but turned the other cheeck and were struck again, this second strike would probably be noticed and the soldier, not you, would be the one in trouble.
Likewise, Roman soldiers while going about town, could simply stop anyone and command them to carry their pack or other gear. It did not matter what you were doing, it was the law that you had to put down what you had and pick of their pack and carry it for them. But they could not make you carry it all day. The limit was 1 mile. Beyond that, again the Roman soldier could be in trouble. So, Jesus tells people to carry it not one, but two miles. I think today they call that passive-agressive behavior.
he definition of violence I gave above was purely mine, not a Christian definition. Christians are all over the place in their understanding of this. All abhor violence, but the degree of force that one can use and for what purpose varies greatly depending on to what group, and sometimes what individual you are speaking.
Some, such as Quakers, are pure 100% pacifist. They will not go to war. They will not even rise to defend themselves if struck. True story, a burglar broke into a Quaker's home late at night to rob it. The man of the house woke to find the burglar about to make off with the families silverware. He grabbed a shotgun (kept for hunting pheasant) pointed in the general direction of the man and said, "Sir, I would not harm thee, but thou are standing where I am about to fire." With that the thief dropped the silverware and left. That's about as violent as I have ever heard of a Quaker getting. Afterward, the police caught the same man breaking into other people's homes and in possession of some items from the Quaker's house that he had evidently already taken before discovered, but the Quaker refused to press charges.
Others have gone so far as to develop a "just war theory".
Most would say that it is one thing to turn the other cheek one time. It is another thing to simply allow yourself to be used as a punching bag. While "turning the other cheek" can be taken literally, most today understand it in a figurative sense of not seeking revenge but offering forgiveness.
You might find this interesting. As Jesus first used the phrase, it may not have been as soft as it appears to us today. Remember it is said in the context of a few other admonitions from Jesus:
In the first part, Jesus is reinterpreting the Torah, because there are those who were then (and still today -- and I don't mean Jews, I mean Christians) misapplying it. That is they see the eye for an eye phrase as an excuse to get even. It was not intended that way. It was intended to put a limit. If you were a slave owner and your slave accidently cause some damage to another man's slave (or ox or anything else) and it lost an eye, the tendency was to have the slave put to death, the Torah limited the punishment to just the loss of an eye. So, Jesus makes it clear that the purposes of God are not in seeking retribution but in seeking reconciliation.
But as the people of Jesus' day were indeed oppressed by the occupying Romans would could pretty much order them to do anything they wanted and the citizenry had to comply, there was always within Judaism (especially among those who glorified the Maccabbeans who had briefly stood up to foreign rule) a sense that they ought not to comply or cooperate with these Roman pagans. So, there was always a simmering unrest ready to erupt. Jesus word's of "do not resist an evil person" were directed to those who felt strongly that they were ready to fight.
Now, although Rome occupied Palestine and could be brutal, there were actually some laws that the Roman soldiers had to obey, and they were enforced on pain of death. First, while they could be as viscous as they wanted in carrying out their orders, they could not simply strike someone for no reason. Now, of course, most people if struck, have a tendency to strike back. In that case, with a fight ensuing, the Roman soldier could call for help and have the person he was fighting with executed, if not killed on the spot. You know how in sporing events the referees never notice the first foul, but always notice the retaliation? So if you did nothing when struck the first time, but turned the other cheeck and were struck again, this second strike would probably be noticed and the soldier, not you, would be the one in trouble.
Likewise, Roman soldiers while going about town, could simply stop anyone and command them to carry their pack or other gear. It did not matter what you were doing, it was the law that you had to put down what you had and pick of their pack and carry it for them. But they could not make you carry it all day. The limit was 1 mile. Beyond that, again the Roman soldier could be in trouble. So, Jesus tells people to carry it not one, but two miles. I think today they call that passive-agressive behavior.
In I Cor 10, Paul said:
23 All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify. 24 Let no one seek his own, but each one the other's well-being."
In Romans 12, he also said:
14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. 16 Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion. 17 Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. 18 If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. 19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. 20 Therefore "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head." 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. 19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord.
20 Therefore "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head." 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
So I would say that turning the other cheek is a way to submit to God in that it returns to Him the right to administer justice and breaks the cycle of violence. It is a humbling thought.