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

[InChrist]

Yes, but you are cherry picking the "born again"line, which has quite a few different interpretations depending upon one's sect.

and like it or not your belief is a religion. You wish it was more than that.

So what do you think Jesus meant by saying one must be born again? And what about other verses, as below, which imply the same concept? The Bible also makes a point of stating that God is Love. Love is relational, isn't is?

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. John 1:12-13

Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. Romans 6:4

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 2 Cor. 5:17

I may not get back to this tonight or even tomorrow, so have a good weekend.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So what do you think Jesus meant by saying one must be born again? And what about other verses, as below, which imply the same concept? The Bible also makes a point of stating that God is Love. Love is relational, isn't is?

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. John 1:12-13

Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. Romans 6:4

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 2 Cor. 5:17

I may not get back to this tonight or even tomorrow, so have a good weekend.

It clearly does not have the meaning that you think it does. There is nothing about being "born again" that means one cannot go back. It is merely a new perspective. That happens quite often it also means that one's behavior is not to change, but there is nothing unique or unusual to that. You are making it far too mystical.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not sure the intention of the battle was to 'spread' Christianity though... I do recognize that Constantine converted during that timeframe however -but the "purpose" is what the topic is.

"Christian author Lactantius, writing several years after the battle, described that “Constantine was directed in a dream to have the heavenly sign delineated on the shields of his soldiers, and so to proceed to battle. He did as he had been commanded, and he marked on their shields the letter Χ, with a perpendicular line drawn through it and turned round thus at the top, being the cipher of Christ. Having this sign (ΧР), his troops stood to arms.”[2] Eusebius, the Constantine apologist, also described the event in “Life of Constantine,” which he wrote after Constantine’s death in 337. According to Eusebius, Constantine saw a vision of a cross rather than the letters of Christ. “He saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, CONQUER BY THIS – Εν τούτῳ Νίκα[3]. At this sight he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole army also, which followed him on this expedition, and witnessed the miracle,” wrote Eusebius."
http://pemptousia.com/2014/07/constantine-the-great-through-lactantius-eusebius-texts/

But regardless of what Constantine actually saw or thought, Christian influencers like Lactantius and Eusebius were promoting the idea that spreading Christianity with violence was A-OK... and they were doing it long before Muhammad was born.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

one must be born again? And what about other verses, as below, which imply the same concept? The Bible also makes a point of stating that God is Love. Love is relational, isn't is?

I think he meant baptism... but as it was originally practiced:

Originally, Christian baptism involved holding the new believer under water until he had a near-death experience. They took this to be literal death. When the Epistles said that Christians had "died with Christ to the laws of the world," they meant it literally.

 

[Augustus]

But regardless of what Constantine actually saw or thought, Christian influencers like Lactantius and Eusebius were promoting the idea that spreading Christianity with violence was A-OK... and they were doing it long before Muhammad was born.

That's a terrible example for 'spreading Christianity by violence'. If it happened, it happened in the middle of a civil war that began between 2 pagans for political dominance of the Empire. The implication of the text is 'because he adopted the One True God, he was favoured with victory the next day' as Divine favour was a common Roman trope.

It's not hard to find actual examples of Christianity being spread via violence, surely you can do better than that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think he meant baptism... but as it was originally practiced:

Originally, Christian baptism involved holding the new believer under water until he had a near-death experience. They took this to be literal death. When the Epistles said that Christians had "died with Christ to the laws of the world," they meant it literally.

So an ancient practice of waterboarding made people 'born again'. I guess that might go a long way towards explaining why so many evangelicals seem to accept torture.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's a terrible example for 'spreading Christianity by violence'. If it happened, it happened in the middle of a civil war that began between 2 pagans for political dominance of the Empire. The implication of the text is 'because he adopted the One True God, he was favoured with victory the next day' as Divine favour was a common Roman trope.

It's not hard to find actual examples of Christianity being spread via violence, surely you can do better than that.

I do not think that people are debating the "why". They are merely debating whether it was done or not and that Christianity was spread through violence appears to be the case.

 

[Audie]

It clearly does not have the meaning that you think it does. There is nothing about being "born again" that means one cannot go back. It is merely a new perspective. That happens quite often it also means that one's behavior is not to change, but there is nothing unique or unusual to that. You are making it far too mystical.

Mystical? Not at all. It is simple, like arithmatic.

Once born again, you are home free. You cannot sin,
and you are always right. (Mileage may vary)

 

[Audie]

I do not think that people are debating the "why". They are merely debating whether it was done or not and that Christianity was spread through violence appears to be the case.

There is a high probability that our trueist of "christians"
here inherited a faith imposed on their forebearers
by force.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is a high probability that our trueist of "christians"
here inherited a faith imposed on their forebearers
by force.

Shhhh! That's a secret.

 

[Augustus]

There is a high probability that our trueist of "christians"
here inherited a faith imposed on their forebearers
by force.

Not really. Imposition by force was far from the main way that it spread.

How low a threshold do you have for 'high probability'?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not really. Imposition by force was far from the main way that it spread.

How low a threshold do you have for 'high probability'?

It is hard to say how much of it was through force since people do not tend to keep accurate records of such in the past. We do know of specific examples of force. Granted it did not spread solely through force.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Well, I'd agree that what you see portrayed as the religion of Christianity is what it is today. But real Christianity, the truth and reality of relationship with Jesus and the impact of His love on others, is and always has existed beyond the organizational or religious misrepresentations.

You have an different notion of what real means than I do. What you are calling real Christianity is what I would call idealized (or imagined) Christianity, and what I see today is what I would call real.

Since Christianity is ALL about Jesus, then Jesus is relevant and It is Jesus who determines what is and is not Christianity.

Perhaps for you, but not for all others. We each decide for ourselves what Christianity is as you have seen in this thread. Most of us consider it a religion, one frequently spread by violence in its past, but even now employing the psychological violence of hell theology to promote Christianity, especially in children.

Those that say that Christianity is not a religion are virtually always Christians trying to distance themselves from the negative connotations religion as acquired. That doesn't make Christianity no longer a religion. In fact, it is the world's largest religion.

it is ironic that that an atheist thinks he knows what a Christian is better than a Christian

Not really. The believer is not in the best position to see objectively. You might ask a Muslim or Scientologist to describe his experience from within his religion, but you certainly wouldn't take his opinion about what his religion was. You have the better vantage point for deciding that. No Scientologist could convince me (and probably you) that his religion isn't false or a cult that engages in a lot of nasty business, but he almost certainly believes as much and would tell you so, possibly followed by a comment like yours above dismissing your viewpoint about Scientology because you aren't a Scientologist.

If you agree with that, perhaps you understand why atheists feel that they understand Christianity well enough to disagree with Christians about Christianity.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you are looking from the outside and can only see superficially

Looking from the outside is not superficiality. It's the best vantage point. As I indicated earlier, it's the believer ensconsed in a religion whose assessment of it will be sanitized and its various scars and warts, which is what these No True Christian fallacies are intended to do - jettison the less desirable parts of the religion. The unbeliever has no need to do that. In fact, if he wants an accurate picture of the religion, he should not throw any of the evidence out.

If a person is born again they don't become unborn and become an atheist or whatever.

Born again is a euphemism for becoming a Christian, that is, accepting that Christ is a risen god and is the only path to salvation. I once used that phrase to describe my Christian walk. I could just as easily describe my tunneling out and returning to atheism and secularism as being born again.

Can I assume that in your estimation, that because I abandoned the faith, that I was never a true Christian?

Biblical Christianity is about a living relationship with the Personal Creator God.

That is the language I used to use as well despite the fact that I was the only one participating in this so-called relationship. Today, I would say that I had no relationship - that nobody was listening to my prayers but me. I had mistaken aspects of my own mind for an external god. If that's a personal relationship, it was with myself.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Does anyone know why Christianity was spread by violent means?

My answer would be that it was because Christianity was useful to emperors and kings. It says that kings are divinely appointed by god, and that it is sin not to submit to them:

"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."- Romans 13:1-2

"Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient" - Titus 3:1
​

Also, the Sermon on the Mount and related scriptures define a way to live and view one's lot that has also got to be very attractive to anybody trying to exploit you and keep you from rising up. Blessed are the meek. Turn the other cheek if smitten. Be content with your poverty, for your reward will come later in an afterlife where you will be an equal and loved by God for your submissiveness.

It seems likely that Constantine understood that this religion would benefit him, made it the state religion, and began to use the might of his government to promote it.

By the time of the Crusades, the Conquistadores, and the Inquisition, the motives for spreading Christianity using force and violence had probably evolved to more that just making more people Christians. Now, accumulating and consolidating wealth and power were probably instrumental as well.

Here are a few more views on the usefulness of religion to rulers, and the incentive that they have to impose it on others:

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." -Seneca the Younger

"How can you have order in a state without religion? For, when one man is dying of hunger near another who is ill of surfeit, he cannot resign himself to this difference unless there is an authority which declares 'God wills it thus.' Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich." - Napoleon Bonaparte

"If you want to control a population and keep them passive ... give them a god to worship" ~ Noam Chomsky


​

 

[Audie]

if you agree with that, perhaps you understand why atheists feel that they understand Christianity well enough to disagree with Christians about Christianity.

The counter is to claim special access
to arcane knowledge denied the unanointed.

 

[Augustus]

It is hard to say how much of it was through force since people do not tend to keep accurate records of such in the past. We do know of specific examples of force. Granted it did not spread solely through force.

It's not hard to say that a minority of people became Christians due to imposition by force.

The logistics of such a thing in the pre-modern world with minimal communication and transportation infrastructure as well as the fact that the elite, in general, didn't prioritise wandering around the countryside forcing random peasants to become Christians.

Often what happened was a top-down process, where societies gradually became Christian due to their leaders becoming Christian, but not mass forced conversions.

For example, in the Roman Empire after the leaders adopted Christianity then Pagan temples lost much of their funding, this was compounded by gradual conversions to Christianity. Temples were expensive to run, so without money they closed down, and were frequently repurposed as Churches (as we see today in Europe with many Churches becoming apartments, restaurants, etc.). So you end up with a vicious cycle. Pagan religions were based more on praxis than beliefs, so without the ritual they gradually die out. As such you get a 'trickle down' effect from the elite over many generations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not hard to say that a minority of people became Christians due to imposition by force.

The logistics of such a thing in the pre-modern world with minimal communication and transportation infrastructure as well as the fact that the elite, in general, didn't prioritise wandering around the countryside forcing random peasants to become Christians.

Often what happened was a top-down process, where societies gradually became Christian due to their leaders becoming Christian, but not mass forced conversions.

For example, in the Roman Empire after the leaders adopted Christianity then Pagan temples lost much of their funding, this was compounded by gradual conversions to Christianity. Temples were expensive to run, so without money they closed down, and were frequently repurposed as Churches (as we see today in Europe with many Churches becoming apartments, restaurants, etc.). So you end up with a vicious cycle. Pagan religions were based more on praxis than beliefs, so without the ritual they gradually die out. As such you get a 'trickle down' effect from the elite over many generations.

When the Roman empire became Christian there may have been wide scale forced conversion. All it would take is an attack on existing churches and the setting up of a state authorized one. I am not a historian, but I do not see any real problem with this happening. I may have to check into the history of how Rome became Christian.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

When the Roman empire became Christian there may have been wide scale forced conversion. All it would take is an attack on existing churches and the setting up of a state authorized one. I am not a historian, but I do not see any real problem with this happening. I may have to check into the history of how Rome became Christian.

The Saxons were converted at the point of a sword. That's pretty much it. It is really not a fair assessment to say that Christianity was spread through violence the way Islam was.

 

[Augustus]

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." -Seneca the Younger

This was Edward Gibbon, not Seneca. Probably wouldn't have even have made conceptual sense in Seneca's time, as it seems to focus on a more modern belief type notion of religion.

Constantine understood that this religion would benefit him, made it the state religion

No, he didn't. They even had another pagan emperor, Constantine's nephew Julian, before it became Christian under Theodosius.