Abrahamic religions

nadateturbe

Christianity does not advocate violence in any circumstances.

Jesus throws over tables in the Temple...Matthew 21:12-13, Mark 11:15-18

Matthew 10:34-36
34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.

Whitewavemark2

Historically the Christian religion has been the most violent religion of any.

I don’t think that’s right, and here’s why:

1. According to the Encyclopedia of Wars, 7% of wars have been motivated by religion. Of these, 54% have been motivated by Islam and the rest by all other religions put together. So Christianity has not caused the most wars.

www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-alan-lurie/is-religion-the-cause-of-_b_1400766.html

freegrace.in/is-religion-really-the-1-cause-of-war/

2. The Islamic hadiths teach that people who leave Islam should be killed.

“… the statement of Allah's Apostle [Mohammed], 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"
⁃Sahih Al-Bukharivolume 9, book 84, no. 57

Christianity has no such teaching.

3. The Qur’an teaches the violent subjugation of unbelievers.

‘Fight against those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful, and who do not adopt the religion of truth [Islam], from those who were given the Scripture [Jews and Christians] - fight until they give the jizyah [special tax] willingly while they are humbled.’
⁃Surah 9.29

(There are other less violent teachings about the treatment of unbelievers, but in Islam later teachings abrogate, or supersede, earlier teachings, and this is the latest one.)

Whereas Christianity teaches, ‘love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you’ (Matthew 5.44).

Islam in its early days was mainly spread by the sword. Christianity in its early days was spread by peaceful conversion.

4. There is a teaching in Islam (not agreed with by all Muslims) that there is a duty to regain any land that has once been under Islamic control. This is one factor in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel was under the rule of the Islamic Ottoman Empire for centuries, and Hamas and other groups see it as their duty to regain it.

Christianity does not have such a teaching.

Every religion does a pic 'n' mix in their texts to suit the argument of the moment. People can justify anything in that way.

vampirequeen

nadateturbe

Christianity does not advocate violence in any circumstances.

Jesus throws over tables in the Temple...Matthew 21:12-13, Mark 11:15-18

Matthew 10:34-36
34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.

You are not understanding what Jesus meant.

The predictions of the arrival of the Messiah were that he would bring peace to the world but Jesus knew that would not be the case.

The machairan (sword), was used by fishermen to cut up fish - Jesus knew that his coming would divide people, even in families, into believers and non-believers.
He knew tthat political peace was not going to be achieved for a long time.

He was right in his predictions.

I wonder if all these wars would have happened if 'God' was female.

vampirequeen

nadateturbe

Christianity does not advocate violence in any circumstances.

Jesus throws over tables in the Temple...Matthew 21:12-13, Mark 11:15-18

Matthew 10:34-36
34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.

In Matthew 21, Jesus did not commit violence against people. He overturned the tables of the money-changers and drove out animals which were being sold for sacrifice (at inflated prices). This was because the money-changers and sellers were in the Court of the Gentiles, the only place where Gentiles were allowed to go to pray to God. Besides excessive profit–taking, they were filling the court with noise and movement, preventing the Gentiles from praying and worshipping there.

In Matthew 10, Jesus is not advocating conflict. He is saying that when some members of a household follow him and some do not, this will inevitably cause division. This has to be read alongside other passages such as Isaiah 9.6, where it is prophesied that the Messiah will be called ‘Prince of Peace’, and Matthew 5.44, ‘pray for those who persecute you’.

The Bible teaches that Jesus will return to the earth and will then bring peace. Meanwhile anyone who follows him can have peace with God, but some division and conflict with other people is unavoidable. Christians are to minimise this, as it says in Romans 12.18:

‘If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.’

Thanks Callistemon21 I'm just in. You put it better than I could.

Luckygirl3

Every religion does a pic 'n' mix in their texts to suit the argument of the moment. People can justify anything in that way.

You won’t find any commands in the Bible to kill apostates, violently subjugate non-Christians, or conquer land that has once been under Christian control. (Or to beat wives or throw people who have gay sex off tall buildings.)

It seems that violence isn't violence as long as Jesus did it. He didn't just overturn the tables. He 'drove out' those who were trading there. I doubt they'd have gone if he'd asked them nicely therefore he must have done more.

Jesus said that he wasn't coming to bring peace. At no point does he say that this has to be read in conjunction with other parts of the OT. Your response sounds like cherry picking to make Jesus say what you want him to say and not what he alone said.

As for Romans 12:18. It only says as 'far as it depends on you'. It's not an instruction not to go to war. It's more of a 'you can if you want'.

Leviticus 20:13 makes it very clear that homosexuals should be executed if they have a sexual relationship with another man. "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them,"

Numbers 31:17-18
King James Version
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Now you may say, "Well that's the OT and Christians follow the teachings of the NT", which is fine but then you can't use anything in the OT to prove that JC was the messiah or that the Bible is the word of an immutable god.

You either believe and follow the Bible in total, just follow the NT or don't follow it at all. You can't cherry pick the bits that suit you.

vampirequeen

It seems that violence isn't violence as long as Jesus did it. He didn't just overturn the tables. He 'drove out' those who were trading there. I doubt they'd have gone if he'd asked them nicely therefore he must have done more.

Jesus said that he wasn't coming to bring peace. At no point does he say that this has to be read in conjunction with other parts of the OT. Your response sounds like cherry picking to make Jesus say what you want him to say and not what he alone said.

As for Romans 12:18. It only says as 'far as it depends on you'. It's not an instruction not to go to war. It's more of a 'you can if you want'.

Leviticus 20:13 makes it very clear that homosexuals should be executed if they have a sexual relationship with another man. "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them,"

Numbers 31:17-18
King James Version
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Now you may say, "Well that's the OT and Christians follow the teachings of the NT", which is fine but then you can't use anything in the OT to prove that JC was the messiah or that the Bible is the word of an immutable god.

You either believe and follow the Bible in total, just follow the NT or don't follow it at all. You can't cherry pick the bits that suit you.

Oh dear!

Why did he overturn the tables?
Why did he drive them from a House of God?

Your response sounds like cherry picking to make Jesus say what you want him to say and not what he alone said

No, far more learned scholars than me seem to agree.

Perhaps you're the one doing the cherry-picking and misinterpreting texts.

Leviticus and Numbers are in the Old Testament, btw, before Jesus was born. Christians follow Jesus's message.

So you don't follow the OT. In that case you can't use any of the texts to help support the NT claim that JC is the messiah.

I'm quoting directly from the OT and the NT. It's not my problem that the Bible has some problematic instructions that don't fit with your interpretation of Christianity. But then, isn't that the problem with all religions i.e. they're all open to interpretation. The Bible is a translation of a translation of a translation...Bits that were in it originally are no longer in it because some men decided they didn't fit with how they wanted Christianity to develop. The words of JC weren't even written down at the time he said them so they're hardly verbatim. Right from the beginning there was in fighting among believers as to who was teaching the correct message. Paul won. Christianity is based on the version taught by someone who didn't even see JC let alone speak to him, then developed over time by men with their own agendas. Hardly the true, unadulterated word of God.

Don't lecture, please.

vampirequeen I wonder why non believers are so eager to destroy the faith of true Christians. What do you hope to achieve? You certainly wouldn't stop all the violence in the world. Christians make the world a much better place. So why do you have a problem with them?
I don't claim to have all the answers to things I don't understand, but I can wait.
You don't have all the answers either.

Callistemon21

Don't lecture, please.

I'm not lecturing. I'm simply using the Bible to show that it's totally ambiguous and that all religious practices and rules, whether by accident or intent, are devised by men and do not come directly from a god.

nadateturbe

vampirequeen I wonder why non believers are so eager to destroy the faith of true Christians. What do you hope to achieve? You certainly wouldn't stop all the violence in the world. Christians make the world a much better place. So why do you have a problem with them?
I don't claim to have all the answers to things I don't understand, but I can wait.
You don't have all the answers either.

I have no wish to destroy anyone's faith. If it brings you comfort then fair enough but if you're going to quote from the Bible to prove something that don't agree with then I'm going to quote from the Bible to prove the opposite.

Although Europeans are not descended from Abraham, he is considered to be the patriarch of both Jews and Muslims (he fathered both Isaac and Ishmael). This makes the hatred between them even more difficult to understand.

vampirequeen

nadateturbe

vampirequeen I wonder why non believers are so eager to destroy the faith of true Christians. What do you hope to achieve? You certainly wouldn't stop all the violence in the world. Christians make the world a much better place. So why do you have a problem with them?
I don't claim to have all the answers to things I don't understand, but I can wait.
You don't have all the answers either.

I have no wish to destroy anyone's faith. If it brings you comfort then fair enough but if you're going to quote from the Bible to prove something that don't agree with then I'm going to quote from the Bible to prove the opposite.

I haven't quoted anything you could disagree with. I know there are things that I don't understand in the Bible. But you are so trying to destroy faith and prove that God doesn't exist. But you can't and you cannot prove that Jesus didn't exist as a man on this earth. And you haven't answered my question about what you hope to achieve. Will it make you happy to destroy faith and all the good that Christians do? The world would be a poorer place.

vampirequeen

Callistemon21

Don't lecture, please.

I'm not lecturing. I'm simply using the Bible to show that it's totally ambiguous and that all religious practices and rules, whether by accident or intent, are devised by men and do not come directly from a god.

You don't know that.

Christians follow the teachings of Christ, hence the name. Jesus gave his followers a new commandment ‘Love one another as I have loved you.’ He also gave them a new covenant which takes over from all and any covenants from the Old Testament, ‘This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.’ Christians remember this new covenant when they take Holy Communion. What is written in the Old Testament is interesting, and historical, but not relevant to the teachings of Christ and the followers of Christ, because Christ’s teachings supersede the Old Testament.
People are entitled to believe as they wish, but it is unacceptable to try to ‘prove’ that others are wrong in their beliefs unless they are using those beliefs to commit evil. Evil is committed in the name of religion, but not by true Christians in these days.

Thanks Maddyone. The day I became a believer ( very, very late on,I am sad to say ) was the best day of my life. It changed everything. That is why I pray for the nonbelievers in my family - I don’t preach, moved on from that but praying is something I can do without fear or favour.

Surely God would want us to love the best truth we can possibly know.

To believe what was taught to you as a child by people who learned from some others who believed what they were taught as children is not the best you can do. You should always question what others tell you.

I agree with much you say Vampire Q however I'd add Jesus of Nazareth was a good egg who supported the cause of the native Palestinians against the brutal Roman invaders. By supporting the Palestinians' way of life Jesus also supported the Jewish religion which was in the modern sense humanitarian.

lecture if you wish, Vampire Queen . I enjoy being lectured by someone who thinks for herself.

Thank you Maddyone for posting that. I just don't have the energy.

So Christians don't think hmm 🤔 .

Callistemon21

vampirequeen

Callistemon21

Don't lecture, please.

I'm not lecturing. I'm simply using the Bible to show that it's totally ambiguous and that all religious practices and rules, whether by accident or intent, are devised by men and do not come directly from a god.

You don't know that.

Jesus wasn't officially declared as divine until the Council of Nicea in 325CE. This council was set up to solve the issue as Christianity had split into two factions. One, Arianism, believed that JC wasn't divine but was a created being. This was found to be a heresy. The other, what we think of now as Christianity, believed that JC was divine. So it took over 300 years for JC to be completely acknowledged as divine and Christianity to become mainly Trinitarian. I say 'mainly' because some sects, such as the Unitarians, do not believe in the Trinity but are still accepted (nowadays) as Christians.

The Bible did not reach an agreed form until the Council of Rome in 382. This was reaffirmed at the Council of Hippo (393CE), Council of Carthage (397CE, Council of Florence (1442CE) and finally at the Council of Trent in 1546. Of course this is only the Bible used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Bible has 73 books ([plus 2 in the Appendix), the Protestant Bible has 66 books, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church has 81, other sects have their own versions too.

I think, from these two examples, we can see that man has had a large input into forming and manipulating Christian teachings. Who knows what the first teachings were? We weren't there and we can't trust that they haven't been corrupted over the centuries by men for their own purposes.

I'm not denying the existence or otherwise of a god or gods. I actually believe that there was a man called Jesus who tried to teach people how to live a positive life. I admire a lot of people with faith but not those who have blind faith. Faith by its definition is a belief in something that cannot be proven but know your Bible, know the history of your Church's teachings and don't simply believe everything you've been taught by other men and women. God may be infallible but man certainly isn't.