The Scourge of Christianity and the Need for Christian Humility

[Lyndon]

Maybe if you really feel that way about Christians, you should consider changing your religion??

 

[Thana]

You just posted something completely irrelevant.

Not really, Since I'm a Christian and you're asking me to take on the sins of others and 'Show some Humility' so I ask you, Why should I?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Not really, Since I'm a Christian and you're asking me to take on the sins of others and 'Show some Humility' so I ask you, Why should I?

I did no such thing.

I do think that you might be demonstrating precisely the kind of arrogance that I have in mind -- unless somehow you are truly sequestered from the Western church. I doubt that very much, but it is a possibility.

I have in mind Christians who present Christianity to the world as if it were in some way superior morally (especially), but also as if Christianity were in any way holy or special. It's not. Why is it not? Well, Christians are especially susceptible to interpreting their own religion in such a way to justify murder.

If you're a Western Christian - that is, a Protestant of any variety in any country in Europe or America (except for Quakers, who are pacifists, and maybe one or two splinter groups), you are in a tradition that not only has a history of bloodshed but have done it recently. Now you may try and separate yourself somehow from these crimes, but you would be indulging in the worst kind of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty, refusing to take responsibility for your heritage.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Maybe if you really feel that way about Christians, you should consider changing your religion??

This is off topic.

 

[JFish123]

Christianity is guilty for many sins in its 2,000 year history, but I want to meditate on one in particular, that should rank among its unquestionably evil acts: murder.

Historically, Christianity has been the religion of death rather than life: there must be something inherently inhumane and dysfunctional about a religion that can be exploited for evil in every generation and almost every form.

In the West, Christians have murdered each other en masse, and Christian leaders (both religious, like Popes and pastors) have used Christianity as an argument for war / motivation to kill and die in wars. This is not an accident of the majority of the people being Christian, because every aspect of Western life has been Christianized - the conquering of the indigenous peoples, industrialism, capitalism, nationalism, and terrorism.

In fact, I would venture to predict that as long as a majority of Americans are Christian, the world is not safe from aggressive American wars. As Christians, the capital ventures of America that rely on the oppression of other countries is considered a divine right, and soldiers do good when they kill anyone who threatens it.

Jesus isn't the answer, Christian, Jesus is the problem. A significant problem that creates very real threats for the poor, innocent, and weak.

Before you tout Jesus as an answer to anything, consider how much damage Christians have done (and this is not a comprehensive list):

- Christians slaughtered each other in Europe for hundreds of years (Catholics and Protestants)
- Christians perpetrated genocides in the New World to secure its resources (both in North and South America)
- Christians slaughtered each other to secure that wealth (the Revolutionary and Pre-Revolutionary Wars)
- Christians enslaved African Americans and wrote the Constitution in a way that purposefully ensured that slavery would last indefinitely in the USA
- Christians slaughtered each other by the thousands to preserve slavery
- Christians slaughtered each other on a then unprecedented scale in WWI
- Christians developed and supported the Nazi final solution
- Christians killed other Christians in WWII
- A Christian President is the only person who dropped an atomic bomb
- A Christian President illegally started two wars of aggression, costing more than a million lives, fought by a largely Christian military, and openly supported by evangelicals

You are recruiting other people into this bloody legacy.

So at least show some humility.

Christians and War:
The Bible teaches that we have the right to self-defense, Exodus 22:2: "If the thief is caught while breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there will be no blood guiltiness on his account." The Bible also tells us to protect the innocent, Deut. 19:10, "So innocent blood will not be shed in the midst of your land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance, and blood guiltiness be on you." Also, see "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin," (Deut. 24:16). If we were to apply these principles to war, I would conclude that war is justifiable when it is in self-defense and/or when it is to protect the innocent. Therefore, a Christian could rightfully engage in war given those conditions.
From this we can easily conclude that going to war is not a sin. That is, if it complies with the Biblical instructions of self-defense and protection of the innocent.
Finally, notice that some soldiers approached John the Baptist and inquired about repentance. John did not tell them to stop being soldiers but to do their jobs properly, honestly.
"And some soldiers were questioning him, saying, "And what about us, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages," (Luke 3:14).
From all of this, we can see that going to war is not wrong in itself and that a Christian can go to war under the right circumstances. Any other war is wrong Biblically. And just because someone calls themselves a Christian and does evil or starts an unjust war, it doesn't mean Christianity is at fault, just that individual person.
You judge a faith by its founder. So what did Jesus preach? He peaches when someone strikes your face, turn the other cheek. If someone asks to go one mile, go two. If they do harm to you, forgive them. To love others as you love yourself. And to help others as if it were God Himself that needed help. And Jesus not only commanded these and more, but He lived by them, by forgiving those who even tortured Him and put Him on a Cross to die.
Now, anyone can call themselves Christian, but it doesn't make them one now does it? I can call myself a muslim, but since I eat pork (particularly bacon), don't believe in Muhammad, nor observe Ramadan, I wouldn't be a Muslim no matter how many times I said I was. Likewise, if a man calls himself a Christian and does genocide, well what do you think, knowing what Jesus said and did? Was he a Christian or did he just call himself a Christian without obeying what Jesus said?

 

[psychoslice]

Yes Christianity has a lot to answer for, that's for sure.

 

[Augustus]

All of them.

So WW1, WW2, the transatlantic slave trade, and Hiroshima/Nagasaki were a direct result of Christianity?

Interesting theory....

Any actual reasoning behind this? Or is everything done by Christians a direct result of their religion?

Could just as easily write about the scourge of Buddhism.

Buddhists in India waged bitter wars of conquest to secure resources.
Buddhist enslaved countless people and grew fat off the profits.
The Buddhist Sriwijaya Empire was established by the sword.
Buddhists in Burma are still carrying out a brutal oppression of religious minorites who are not even recognised as citizens.
The Buddhist military in Thailand have attempted around 30 military coups in the past century.
The Khmers ruthlessly conquered enormous territories with an army featuring many Buddhists.
etc.

How many ideological systems can you think of that you couldn't write such a specious and facile list about?

The unfortunate truth is that it is not Christianity that is the problem, it is people that are the problem.

I do think that you might be demonstrating precisely the kind of arrogance that I have in mind -- unless somehow you are truly sequestered from the Western church. I doubt that very much, but it is a possibility.

I have in mind Christians who present Christianity to the world as if it were in some way superior morally (especially), but also as if Christianity were in any way holy or special. It's not. Why is it not? Well, Christians are especially susceptible to interpreting their own religion in such a way to justify murder.

If you're a Western Christian - that is, a Protestant of any variety in any country in Europe or America (except for Quakers, who are pacifists, and maybe one or two splinter groups), you are in a tradition that not only has a history of bloodshed but have done it recently. Now you may try and separate yourself somehow from these crimes, but you would be indulging in the worst kind of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty, refusing to take responsibility for your heritage.

Or you could think about the 'arrogance', 'hypocrisy' and 'intellectual dishonesty' it requires to ignore the totality of human history just so you can refuse to 'take responsibility' for your heritage.

Much more convenient to blame Christianity, then we can all pretend that we are a nice species, cruelly dragged away from our intrinsic goodness by false religions. A 'counterfactual world' with no Christianity could just have easily been more violent. Christians at no point in history have stood out as being uniquely prone to violence. They have frequently had greater capabilities to carry out violence, but there is no group in history that has failed to use their superior military capabilities to benefit themselves.

We now fight wars in the name of secular democracy and human rights; humanists justify torturing people as part of the War on Terror. People will always find a way to justify what benefits them, and if it isn't Christianity it will be something else. Thinking otherwise is utopian and irrational as we have all the evidence we need from our history.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So WW1, WW2, the transatlantic slave trade, and Hiroshima/Nagasaki were a direct result of Christianity?

Interesting theory....

Any actual reasoning behind this? Or is everything done by Christians a direct result of their religion?

Well, my argument covers both sides of the coin - I recognize that secular governments have exploited Christianity to motivate Christians to kill and Christian leaders have done the same thing -- so it's come from without and within.

Now I did not argue that Christianity was the sole cause for all war, but that Christianity has some inherent weakness in it because the religion can be so easily used to motivate people to kill. It does not take much knowledge of WWI and WW2 to prove this point, as churches were used as a critical tool to bolster nationalism in Europe and America, and Christians on all sides of the conflict had the blessings of their religion. The other motivations for war are irrelevant for this point - had Christianity done its job properly, there would be no soldiers to fight.

Do other religions share this weakness? Obviously they do, but Christianity is the only western religion that has had the repeated propensity for violence.

 

[Revoltingest]

So you don't think that it's a problem that the next Republican president can use the evangelical right to promote a theological justification for an aggressive war in Iran? It's a large group of Americans that can be very easily manipulated - and it's exactly what George W. Bush did to gain support for his wars.

Why do Democrats get a pass on supporting these wars?
Note that Old Blood & Guts Hillary is their current front runner.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Why do Democrats get a pass on supporting these wars?
Note that Old Blood & Guts Hillary is their current front runner.

Using the Republicans was just an example - they used the evangelical right to garner support for the wars -- and the evangelical right is low hanging fruit for the next Republican President, not the next Democrat (well, at least it's not immediately obvious to me - I don't think that evangelical Christians will be supporting a Democrat any time soon). In addition to this, the current Republicans that conservative Christians favor are basically running on a war-mongering platform.

 

[Revoltingest]

Using the Republicans was just an example - they used the evangelical right to garner support for the wars -- and the evangelical right is low hanging fruit for the next Republican President, not the next Democrat (well, at least it's not immediately obvious to me - I don't think that evangelical Christians will be supporting a Democrat any time soon). In addition to this, the current Republicans that conservative Christians favor are basically running on a war-mongering platform.

So the right leaning evangelicals aren't much different from the left leaning 'progressives'.
I don't know much about Ron Paul.
Is he an evangelical type?
(Yeah, I could search, but you're so gosh darn knowledgeable about arcane words like "evangelical".)

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So the right leaning evangelicals aren't much different from the left leaning 'progressives'.
I don't know much about Ron Paul.
Is he an evangelical type?
(Yeah, I could search, but you're so gosh darn knowledgeable about arcane words like "evangelical".)

I hear you - the Christian argument for war follows Augustine's just war theory - the same argument has been used in both conservative and liberal churches. Thomas Aquinas is also used... that's the conversation at least.

Just after I typed that, I found this - (I believe that Paul has always argued against 'just war' - I have not watched the video)

 

[Revoltingest]

I hear you - the Christian argument for war follows Augustine's just war theory - the same argument has been used in both conservative and liberal churches. Thomas Aquinas is also used... that's the conversation at least.

Just after I typed that, I found this - (I believe that Paul has always argued against 'just war' - I have not watched the video)

I misspoke.....I meant Rand Paul.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I misspoke.....I meant

Rand Paul.

Yeah, that's what I thought, but I didn't want to presume.

It seems that Rand Paul is decisively different from his father, embracing an evangelical just war policy.

7 Interesting Facts About Rand Paul's Christian Faith

 

[Augustus]

Well, my argument covers both sides of the coin - I recognize that secular governments have exploited Christianity to motivate Christians to kill and Christian leaders have done the same thing -- so it's come from without and within.

Now I did not argue that Christianity was the sole cause for all war, but that Christianity has some inherent weakness in it because the religion can be so easily used to motivate people to kill. It does not take much knowledge of WWI and WW2 to prove this point, as churches were used as a critical tool to bolster nationalism in Europe and America, and Christians on all sides of the conflict had the blessings of their religion. The other motivations for war are irrelevant for this point - had Christianity done its job properly, there would be no soldiers to fight.

Do other religions share this weakness? Obviously they do, but Christianity is the only western religion that has had the repeated propensity for violence.

People exploit whatever they have at hand to justify their actions: "You persuade a man only as much as you speak his language". Almost anything can be used to motivate people to kill, its just a question of framing.

It doesn't take much knowledge of WW1 & 2 to know that everything was used to bolster nationalism. You might say God, might say country, might say family or whatever. Look at a TV advert, how do they get you to buy a product? It's usually not by saying 'this is a good product', its through an emotion or image.

And, even if we hypothetically accept your dubious premise, if Christianity was used as a tool to fight Naziism and Communism then is that not a good thing to balance the bad?

To say 'if Christianity had done it's job' is also an flagrant straw man, you aren't arguing that Christianity has failed to live up to its ideals (which is a given). You are arguing that Christianity is a 'scourge' that is a stand out cause of evil in the world.

All ideologies, either directly or passively, allow injustice to flourish because all ideologies involve people. Some ideologies are worse than others, but Christianity, at worst, is middle of the pack in terms of negatives. It's no nationalism, Naziism or Communism for example.

You can say Christians profited from slavery, you can say Christians helped abolish slavery. Christians fought in wars, Christians opposed wars. Christians supported colonialism, Christians supported colonised peoples.

So the right leaning evangelicals aren't much different from the left leaning 'progressives'.

I hear you - the Christian argument for war follows Augustine's just war theory - the same argument has been used in both conservative and liberal churches. Thomas Aquinas is also used... that's the conversation at least.

So the evangelical right supported the Iraq war because of the 4th C theology of a Zoroastrian convert? I'll probably disagree with that.

The 'just war' doctrine has at least as much in common with the neo-conservative (not religious conservative) and progressive justifications for war as it does with the religious conservatives (arguably more susceptible to USA USA USA type nationalism, although this arguably could be considered to have a religious dimension also).

Why did a militant atheist like Christopher Hitchens support the war? how does his reasoning differ from Augustine's? Or Bush's?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So the evangelical right supported the Iraq war because of the 4th C theology of a Zoroastrian convert? I'll probably disagree with that.

That's because you have no clue what you're talking about.

 

[Augustus]

That's because you have no clue what you're talking about.

That's what I'd say about you given the totalities of your posts on this topic, but at least I supplied reasoning behind my claims.

I forget the exact figures, but something like 50% of Americans thought Iraq was at least partly responsible for 9-11 and al-Qaeda. Let's hazard a guess that a disproportionate amount of the religious right was represented in this figure. So we basically get into a straight retaliation justification, relying on absolutely no theology whatsoever for many of them.

Now we can also look at the neo-conservative and progressive reasoning - people who are less likely to hold support a retaliation reasoning as they know it is completely fictitious. Which requires more of a 'just war' justification?

All societies have justified wars in retaliation, but how many justified them in the name of protecting the 'human rights' of an unrelated people? The idea of the virtuous man taking up the sword to defeat evil was at least as relevant to the 'progressive' supporters of the war.

Simple question: why did the average evangelical rely more on a 'just war' rationale than the militant atheist Christopher Hitchens in their support of the war ?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

On topic discussion is welcome, of course.

I would appreciate at least a partial effort.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well this was the best threat ever. HAHA

 

[wizanda]

It's the delusion that God blesses it that concerns me.

Based on the Bible or Quran it isn't a delusion, it is based on instruction.... Both of these books say God gave victory to those who followed him in battle. Judaism without Yeshua is a war like religion, with the Torah insisting 'God is a man of war'.

My take on the four horse men, is the white horse is the fake white version of jesus, that went to the American Indians and left blood shed on the land, went to the black skins and stole their wealth from them (unbalanced scales), and the green/pale skins is the famine/pestilence caused due to the death of animals.

Yet lets not blame Christianity completely; the Roman Empire still exists under its new name, and it's still in the same place.