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

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again, the exception to the rule. Norway was NOT Christianized by force. Europe was missionized by the church, not conquered.

Excuse me? Note the bit in bold:

Olaf I then made it his priority to convert the country to Christianity using all means at his disposal. By destroying temples and torturing and killing pagan resisters he succeeded in making every part of Norway at least nominally Christian.[24] Expanding his efforts to the Norse settlements in the west the kings' sagas credit him with Christianizing the Faroes, Orkney, Shetland, Iceland, and Greenland.

Christianization of Scandinavia - Wikipedia

 

[Audie]

They don't need to be excluded. While there was plenty of forced conversion, even in the colonies this was not the majority.

This is not really a topic of concern to me, so I
and not likely to do the study needed to come
up with a treatise on it.

It does not appear that anyone else actually knows
what was the majority, nor has any metric for
the the level of / types of coercion involved.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It only has to do with an example of what
an authoritarian state does re something so
potentially important as religion.

The European countries for example, had the
people tight in the grip of the church / king power
and were disinclined to accept any free thinking.

Christianity, btw, has limited appeal in China.

And yet it is the Christian West that developed the concept of unalienable rights bestowed by the Creator. It is the Christian West which includes the freedom of religion among these rights. You can't just pick out a section in time. You have to look at the over all evolution of a faith, where it is going.

Judaism, the oldest of the ethical monotheistic faiths, was the first to evolve this enlightened stage. Then Christianity. Islam is the youngest by 600 years. Give it some time.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Excuse me? Note the bit in bold:



Christianization of Scandinavia - Wikipedia

During the age of Olaf, a true, full Christianization did not occur. The scandinavians basically adopted the Christian God as one god among their many gods. IOW Olaf may have had an impact, but ultimately did not succeed. It would take centuries of slow gradual voluntary assimilation for Scandinavia to become truly Christian.

 

[Audie]

And yet it is the Christian West that developed the concept of unalienable rights bestowed by the Creator. It is the Christian West which includes the freedom of religion among these rights. You can't just pick out a section in time. You have to look at the over all evolution of a faith, where it is going.

Judaism, the oldest of the ethical monotheistic faiths, was the first to evolve this enlightened stage. Then Christianity. Islam is the youngest by 600 years. Give it some time.

So you say.

 

[Shad]

Judaism, the oldest of the ethical monotheistic faiths, was the first to evolve this enlightened stage.

The OT establishes the opposite of this. People were killed for being the wrong religion

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The OT establishes the opposite of this. People were killed for being the wrong religion

No, people were killed for being the enemies of Israel. In God's view, they had used up their quota of time to repent of their sins and this is why God was removing them from the Land and giving the Land to Israel.

You'll notice that once Israel was settled in the promised Land, it didn't go about trying to conquer its neighbors in the name of religion.

 

[Audie]

Shad said: ↑
The OT establishes the opposite of this. People were killed for being the wrong religion



No, people were killed for being the enemies of Israel. In God's view, they had used up their quota of time to repent of their sins and this is why God was removing them from the Land and giving the Land to Israel.

You'll notice that once Israel was settled in the promised Land, it didn't go about trying to conquer its neighbors in the name of religion.

distinction without a difference

 

[Shad]

No, people were killed for being the enemies of Israel. In God's view, they had used up their quota of time to repent of their sins and this is why God was removing them from the Land and giving the Land to Israel.

I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about those that rejected the covenant at some point during the kings period. Toss in the destruction of various temples.

Golden Calf.

You'll notice that once Israel was settled in the promised Land, it didn't go about trying to conquer its neighbors in the name of religion.

Never said they did.

 

[Shad]

distinction without a difference

The difference is people will kill others on God's command. Do as you are told!

 

[Audie]

The difference is people will kill others on God's command. Do as you are told!

Oh yeah. That.

 

[joelr]

. If Christianity is about Jesus Christ then these examples of atrocities and violence are solely the work of humans misusing, even blaspheming the name of Christ, as Jesus or even His apostles never spread the gospel in forceful, violent ways.

Matthew 10:34-36

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 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. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.

Apologists say it's a metaphorical sword to bring peace between god and yourself. I call BS on that.
He's saying non-believers are screwed and may as well be chopped by a sword. Pretty agro.


He hates non-believers:
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. Luke 12:51

 

[InChrist]

Matthew 10:34-36

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 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. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.

Apologists say it's a metaphorical sword to bring peace between god and yourself. I call BS on that.
He's saying non-believers are screwed and may as well be chopped by a sword. Pretty agro.


He hates non-believers:
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. Luke 12:51

You are welcome to your opinion, of course, but I believe it is a spiritual sword, Jesus refers to and has no reference to a physical weapon. This is demonstrated elsewhere in the scriptures, such as Ephesians 6:17 and Hebrews 4:12 where the sword of the spirit is defined as...the Word of God. The Word of God divides people into believers and non-believers, as some believe and some do not.

This has nothing to do with taking up a literal a literal sword or advocating violence because in reference to taking up a literal sword Jesus said,...Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. (Matt. 26:52). All my relatives are non-believers and I love them. There is no way the scriptures indicate that I should feel otherwise. On the contrary, Jesus advocated even loving one's enemies and praying for others. He came to save sinners. Although, many take one or two verses out of context to come up with unbiblical theologies or convoluted ideas, it is a foolish way to read or interpret the scriptures.

 

[joelr]

You are welcome to your opinion, of course, but I believe it is a spiritual sword, Jesus refers to and has no reference to a physical weapon. This is demonstrated elsewhere in the scriptures, such as Ephesians 6:17 and Hebrews 4:12 where the sword of the spirit is defined as...the Word of God. The Word of God divides people into believers and non-believers, as some believe and some do not.

This has nothing to do with taking up a literal a literal sword or advocating violence because in reference to taking up a literal sword Jesus said,...Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. (Matt. 26:52). All my relatives are non-believers and I love them. There is no way the scriptures indicate that I should feel otherwise. On the contrary, Jesus advocated even loving one's enemies and praying for others. He came to save sinners. Although, many take one or two verses out of context to come up with unbiblical theologies or convoluted ideas, it is a foolish way to read or interpret the scriptures.

No I don't see this as a spiritual message. Look around Math 10:
It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.

And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

This is exactly the forceful violent ways that the poster said didn't exist. This is one page.


Fear mongering, hatred of sinners, judgment day, Jesus will deny you before his father, sty with your family and you're not worthy....?

 

[InChrist]

No I don't see this as a spiritual message. Look around Math 10:
It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.

And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

This is exactly the forceful violent ways that the poster said didn't exist. This is one page.


Fear mongering, hatred of sinners, judgment day, Jesus will deny you before his father, sty with your family and you're not worthy....?

Matthew 10 is speaking about the way those who follow Christ will often be treated violently by non-believers. This occurs often in other countries where Christians are severely persecuted or killed.