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

[ChristineM]

Yes, but it does not apply because it is Christ who defines Christianity, not the wrong actions of sinful humans.

They are still christian.

 

[InChrist]

Yet, were you to look at Buddhism in the same way you look at Christianity, you would be compelled to state that Buddhism has never killed anyone -- only corrupt humans have -- because the Buddha taught against such things.

Probably so. This doesn't detract from the fact that humans have wrongfully misrepresented Christianity committing evil or violence, therefore such actions are not representative of Christ or authentic Christianity. Same for Buddhism.

 

[InChrist]

I mean we literally know that Christians were violent right from the beginning of their movement. Just read about what they did to Hypatia of Alexandria

No, we literally know that a certain group of fanatical monks were involved with the murder of Hypatia of Alexandria, during the time of Cyril of Alexandria and that her death was due to politics and power, not the example or teachings of Jesus.


Parabalani - Wikipedia

 

[Draka]

They are following their sinful nature and may be religious persons, but not actually regenerate Christians. I think while a lot of so-called Christianity has been spread with violence any honest person should be willing to admit that there are sincere Christians who have spread Christianity with real sacrificial love throughout history. Have you heard of Amy Carmichael?

This is rich. Okay, how do you think you were taught about Jesus Christ? Now, unless you are really really old and learned directly from Jesus himself, his teachings were passed through interpretations of the bible. The bible that was interpreted into different languages and in different ways to spread, forcefully mind you, the "Word" into different areas and societies. It was from these interpreted bibles, these adjusted words, that came about from forceful endeavors into lands, that you learned about Christ at all. However you choose to believe your beliefs are more "pure" and "Christian" than others, they still came about as a result of crusades and more violence.

 

[InChrist]

They are still christian.

While I believe only God knows whether someone is a Christian or not, Jesus stated that they will be known by their fruits, meaning actions or behavior. Those who display the fruit of violence are showing bad unChrist-like fruit (behavior).

Disciples of Jesus Are Known by Their Fruit

 

[ChristineM]

While I believe only God knows whether someone is a Christian or not, Jesus stated that they will be known by their fruits, meaning actions or behavior. Those who display the fruit of violence are showing bad unChrist-like fruit (behavior).

Disciples of Jesus Are Known by Their Fruit

Your belief does not coincide with reality.

 

[InChrist]

This is rich. Okay, how do you think you were taught about Jesus Christ? Now, unless you are really really old and learned directly from Jesus himself, his teaching were passed through interpretations of the bible. The bible that was interpreted into different languages and in different ways to spread, forcefully mind you, the "Word" into different areas and societies. It was from these interpreted bibles, these adjusted words, that came about from forceful endeavors into lands, that you learned about Christ at all. However you choose to believe your beliefs are more "pure" and "Christian" than others, they still came about as a result of crusades and more violence.

According to the Bible...the scriptures are alive and active and... Every Word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him (Proverbs 30:5). So I believe the words of scriptures have been preserved and passed down through history by God Himself, through human instruments to personally reach and communicate the love of God/Christ to anyone and everyone. I'm not saying the Bible or what has been claimed to be "Christianity" has not been used (wrongly) to promote violence or force compliance, but again that is not the true Christianity and as a matter of fact there was a long period in history when the average person was forbidden to read or have access to the scriptures without facing death because when one reads the Bible themselves, without another misusing it as a means of control, the result is peace and freedom.

 

[InChrist]

Your belief does not coincide with reality.

You can elaborate your reasons for saying this, if you like, but it does coincide with my everyday reality.

 

[Revoltingest]

You'll notice it on Twitter in particular in the aftermath of a terrorist attack or if for some reason religion is being discussed in the mainstream, you'll see the atheist sjws come out and they so "Oh well you can't say anything about extremism in Islam because Christianity runs America and Christianity was spread through violence and forced conversions", "and I suppose Christianity has no violent aspect even though it was spread through fear and violence?".

And yet everyone retweets them and gives them thousands of upvotes when it's not really true, in fact it's not true at all that Christians converted people at the point of a sword. When you go into the Nordics, Clovis, nobody forced Clovis to become a Christian. Missionary works created Christian enclaves as far upwards as Britain and Ireland, which paved the way for the Christianization of those countries later on.

Even the Normans converted to Christianity after THEY had already raided the CHRISTIAN Franks.

The way Pagans and "nuatheist" Vikings or whatever you want to call them talk you'd think Christian armies marched into Northern Europe and converted everybody by force and yet nothing like that ever happened. Even when the western Roman Empire collapsed the papacy actually had to rely on the SELF-CONVERTED Northern barbarians for protection against tribes who had either not converted or were into heretic versions like Arianism and all this stuff.

The only time anything resembling a forced conversion happened was when Charlemagne forced the Saxons to become Christian, but there's a whole other story to why that actually happened which was mainly Charlemagne needing to "pacify" the Saxons because they kept plundering Frankish provinces and burning out their villages and churches. They were also threatening an alliance with the Vikings which would have overthrown the whole Frankish empire. What was Charlemagne supposed to do? Just watch the destruction of his own empire? He had to pacify them. And this was after the Saxons had broken his treaty over and over by the way. Really Charlemagne had shown so much patience to the Saxons more so than any other monarch from back then would've given them.

The "nu-atheists" who wear shirts with Vikings and Odin on the front of them and hold placards saying "This is what a male Feminist" looks like and all the rest of it. These guys are simply wrong when they passively suggest that Christianity grew from brutality and forced conversions and they don't expect to be pulled up on it. Because when you go into it, you see that the nordics abandoned their traditions and went to Christianity on their own violation. By the way, that tells you a lot of the state of those pagan religions *back then*. Imagine trying to resurrect something that was already corrupt back then after a thousand years of living under another religion.

Does the title mean that atheists are SJWs?

 

[ChristineM]

You can elaborate your reasons for saying this, if you like, but it does coincide with my everyday reality.

Without evidence of god and that gods thinking your belief is precisely that, belief, not reality.

Evidence also applies to JC, even if he existed as depicted in the bible there is no evidence he said anything claimed in the bible.

 

[Draka]

According to the Bible...the scriptures are alive and active and... Every Word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him (Proverbs 30:5). So I believe the words of scriptures have been preserved and passed down through history by God Himself, through human instruments to personally reach and communicate the love of God/Christ to anyone and everyone. I'm not saying the Bible or what has been claimed to be "Christianity" has not been used (wrongly) to promote violence or force compliance, but again that is not the true Christianity and as a matter of fact there was a long period in history when the average person was forbidden to read or have access to the scriptures without facing death because when one reads the Bible themselves, without another misusing it as a means of control, the result is peace and freedom.

So, the King James version of the bible was what? God himself speaking through King James to adjust and change his own words to suit the political endeavors of that time? There are several versions of the bible and they do not all line up, which means, they are not all as "preserved" as you'd like to believe them to be. And since the beliefs of Christians, any Christians, are based upon the words in those books then what you believe very much has been a product of the violence and force used to spread that religion. Just because you don't wish that to be true, that you want to believe your beliefs are untouched somehow by that past, doesn't make it not true. You can own the past while still endeavoring to make a better future.

 

[InChrist]

Without evidence of god and that gods thinking your belief is precisely that, belief, not reality.

Evidence also applies to JC, even if he existed as depicted in the bible there is no evidence he said anything claimed in the bible.

Thanks. I understand you have a different perspective and don't think there is evidence. I don't know how much you've personally looked into it or actually sought God to give you evidence or whether you are just echoing the repeated claim of skeptics that there is no evidence. I didn't just believe or become a Christian because I was raised Christian, or forced, or even taught Christianity. I searched and asked God over and over for answers and reasons to know. God has given me sufficient reasons and evidence to know the scriptures are reliable and Jesus is who the scriptures state Him to be.

 

[InChrist]

So, the King James version of the bible was what? God himself speaking through King James to adjust and change his own words to suit the political endeavors of that time? There are several versions of the bible and they do not all line up, which means, they are not all as "preserved" as you'd like to believe them to be. And since the beliefs of Christians, any Christians, are based upon the words in those books then what you believe very much has been a product of the violence and force used to spread that religion. Just because you don't wish that to be true, that you want to believe your beliefs are untouched somehow by that past, doesn't make it not true. You can own the past while still endeavoring to make a better future.

No, the KJV was not God speaking to or through King James. Only the original writers were inspired by God. Nevertheless, I believe through the various and numerous translations down through the centuries God has preserved and kept the main themes and message of His word intact. I will be the first to say that organized religion, including what is called "Christianity", has been spread forcefully and WRONGLY SO. But I am also saying that this religion is not the way God/Jesus or the apostles spread the gospel and never intended it to be spread in a coercive, violent way.

 

[Viviane LaFrance]

No, we literally know that a certain group of fanatical monks were involved with the murder of Hypatia of Alexandria, during the time of Cyril of Alexandria and that her death was due to politics and power, not the example or teachings of Jesus.


Parabalani - Wikipedia

They were still Christians

 

[InChrist]

They were still Christians

They may have claimed to be "Christians", but while I believe only God knows whether someone is a Christian or not, Jesus stated that they will be known by their fruits, meaning actions or behavior. Those who display the fruit of violence are showing bad unChrist-like fruit (behavior).

There are "Christians", even "Christian pastors" who abuse their wives or children behind closed doors. They misuse the Bible and Christianity for power and control. Everyone says and thinks of them as the nicest, godly "Christians", but the scriptures call such individuals wicked, evil hypocritical liars, deceivers, wolves in sheep's clothing.

Disciples of Jesus Are Known by Their Fruit

 

[SomeRandom]

That's a dreadful book for understanding the era. While it is well written as a polemic, it is a terrible work of history written by someone who either has little knowledge of the subject matter she is writing about, or absolutely no concern with presenting it accurately.

Oxford Professor Dame Avril Cameron, who called the book a 'travesty':

Hearts will sink among historians of early Christianity and late antiquity, as well as medievalists and, needless to say, Byzantinists, when they see the title of this pugnacious and energetically written book.

The words “darkening age” evoke everything they have been trying for years to overturn, implying as they do the notion of the “dark ages”, when the glories of classical civilisation were supposedly obliterated for centuries, until the Renaissance and the Enlightenment made possible the triumph of Western European liberalism and secularism.

We imagined that we had made some progress in finally overturning the Gibbonian model after a mere two and a quarter centuries. But, no. Catherine Nixey is a lively writer and likely to go far, but unfortunately in her first book she has rather unimaginatively bought into the old “blame the Christians” model. She drives it through with a steely-eyed determination, unrelieved by nuance or counter-argument. Readers would never imagine from her book that any alternative view is possible, or that there is anything unsatisfactory about the linear Western European narrative of darkness to light.

Hey, if it's got the boffins in a tizzy, then I'm all for it. Rebel till the end. Besides I could tell the bias, and I could very much get the sense that an alternative view was possible.
Upset the system, I like the book more now heh.


Besides, Mr Historian what exactly is a good book for understanding the era? I'm developing something of an obsession with Classical Rome and Greece (I've decided next year with be the "Year of Homer." And read various translations throughout the year, which spurned my curiosity.)
And Who's Pliny? I keep seeing the name crop up.

 

[blü 2]

You'll notice it on Twitter in particular in the aftermath of a terrorist attack or if for some reason religion is being discussed in the mainstream, you'll see the atheist sjws come out and they so "Oh well you can't say anything about extremism in Islam because Christianity runs America and Christianity was spread through violence and forced conversions"

Are you saying it wasn't? You haven't read eg Robin Lane Fox's Christians and Pagans? You're not familiar with the rise of Charlemagne? No one's mentioned the Crusades? The persecution of Jews, the Inquisition, the routine confiscation of their property, the pogroms, right across Europe/Russia? The role of the Christian church alongside the conquistadors? British evangelism hand in glove with British armies as the Empire was established? You think the many millions of slaves in the slave trade became Christian (or Muslim) because they wanted to?

"and I suppose Christianity has no violent aspect even though it was spread through fear and violence?".

You could question whether the invasive spread of Christianity was religious or political (or whether the difference is important), but one way or another there were a lot of bodies.

 

[Shad]

You'll notice it on Twitter

Found the problem. Twitter is a dumpster fire when it comes to politics and religion. SJW are just fuel for that fire.

 

[Viviane LaFrance]

They may have claimed to be "Christians", but while I believe only God knows whether someone is a Christian or not, Jesus stated that they will be known by their fruits, meaning actions or behavior. Those who display the fruit of violence are showing bad unChrist-like fruit (behavior).

There are "Christians", even "Christian pastors" who abuse their wives or children behind closed doors. They misuse the Bible and Christianity for power and control. Everyone says and thinks of them as the nicest, godly "Christians", but the scriptures call such individuals wicked, evil hypocritical liars, deceivers, wolves in sheep's clothing.

Disciples of Jesus Are Known by Their Fruit

The good ole "No True Scotsman" defense

 

[QuestioningMind]

You'll notice it on Twitter in particular in the aftermath of a terrorist attack or if for some reason religion is being discussed in the mainstream, you'll see the atheist sjws come out and they so "Oh well you can't say anything about extremism in Islam because Christianity runs America and Christianity was spread through violence and forced conversions", "and I suppose Christianity has no violent aspect even though it was spread through fear and violence?".

And yet everyone retweets them and gives them thousands of upvotes when it's not really true, in fact it's not true at all that Christians converted people at the point of a sword. When you go into the Nordics, Clovis, nobody forced Clovis to become a Christian. Missionary works created Christian enclaves as far upwards as Britain and Ireland, which paved the way for the Christianization of those countries later on.

Even the Normans converted to Christianity after THEY had already raided the CHRISTIAN Franks.

The way Pagans and "nuatheist" Vikings or whatever you want to call them talk you'd think Christian armies marched into Northern Europe and converted everybody by force and yet nothing like that ever happened. Even when the western Roman Empire collapsed the papacy actually had to rely on the SELF-CONVERTED Northern barbarians for protection against tribes who had either not converted or were into heretic versions like Arianism and all this stuff.

The only time anything resembling a forced conversion happened was when Charlemagne forced the Saxons to become Christian, but there's a whole other story to why that actually happened which was mainly Charlemagne needing to "pacify" the Saxons because they kept plundering Frankish provinces and burning out their villages and churches. They were also threatening an alliance with the Vikings which would have overthrown the whole Frankish empire. What was Charlemagne supposed to do? Just watch the destruction of his own empire? He had to pacify them. And this was after the Saxons had broken his treaty over and over by the way. Really Charlemagne had shown so much patience to the Saxons more so than any other monarch from back then would've given them.

The "nu-atheists" who wear shirts with Vikings and Odin on the front of them and hold placards saying "This is what a male Feminist" looks like and all the rest of it. These guys are simply wrong when they passively suggest that Christianity grew from brutality and forced conversions and they don't expect to be pulled up on it. Because when you go into it, you see that the nordics abandoned their traditions and went to Christianity on their own violation. By the way, that tells you a lot of the state of those pagan religions *back then*. Imagine trying to resurrect something that was already corrupt back then after a thousand years of living under another religion.

Why do so many Christians try and pretend as if people calling themselves Christians didn't use force and violence to spread what they called the Christian religion? Attempting to claim that any 'Christian' who used such methods wasn't a 'real' Christian is just plain silly. Christianity became a dominant world religion because of these so called 'unChristain' methods.