FACT: Christianity has almost solely been spread through the sword

St. Peter was at the very beginning of Christianity so how do you figure?

Well, Peter was married, so ... And the most violent that the record has him being was cutting off Malchus' ear when they came to arrest Jesus. But Jesus healed Malchus and rebuked and taught Peter. Peter and the rest still didn't get the nature of the kingdom Jesus came to establish.
 
Violence in Ancient Christianity
Victims and Perpetrators

The ambivalence of ancient Christianity toward violence is investigated in ten studies, ranging from the persecution of Christians to Christian oppression of Jews, heretics and pagans, and the application of Jesus’ teaching to love one’s enemies.

"Ancient Christianity had an ambivalent stance toward violence. Jesus had instructed his disciples to love their enemies, and in the first centuries Christians were proud of this lofty teaching and tried to apply it to their persecutors and to competing religious groups. Yet at the same time they testify to their virulent verbal criticism of Jews, heretics and pagans, who could not accept the Christian exclusiveness. After emperor Constantine had turned to Christianity, Christians acquired the opportunity to use violence toward competing groups and pagans, even though they were instructed to love them personally and Jewish-Christian relationships flourished at grass root level. General analyses and case studies demonstrate that the fashionable distinction between intolerant monotheism and tolerant polytheism must be qualified."

http://www.brill.com/products/book/violence-ancient-christianity
 
Anti-Semitism in the early church.

John Chrysostom, Against the Jews. Homily 1Another very serious illness calls for any cure my words can bring, an illness which has become implanted in the body of the Church. We must first root this ailment out and then take thought for matters outside; we must first cure our own and then be concerned for others who are strangers.
(5) What is this disease? The festivals of the pitiful and miserable Jews are soon to march upon us one after the other and in quick succession: the feast of Trumpets, the feast of Tabernacles, the fasts. There are many in our ranks who say they think as we do. Yet some of these are going to watch the festivals and others will join the Jews in keeping their feasts and observing their fasts. I wish to drive this perverse custom from the Church right now. My homilies against the Anomians can be put off to another time, and the postponement would cause no harm. But now that the Jewish festivals are close by and at the very door, if I should fail to cure those who are sick with the Judaizing disease. I am afraid that, because of their ill-suited association and deep ignorance, some Christians may partake in the Jews' transgressions; once they have done so, I fear my homilies on these transgressions will be in vain. For if they hear no word from me today, they will then join the Jews in their fasts; once they have committed this sin it will be useless for me to apply the remedy.

But do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable.
When so many blessings from heaven came into their hands, they thrust them aside and were at great pains to reject them. The morning Sun of Justice arose for them, but they thrust aside its rays and still sit in darkness. We, who were nurtured by darkness, drew the light to ourselves and were freed from the gloom of their error. They were the branches of that holy root, but those branches were broken. We had no share in the root, but we did reap the fruit of godliness. From their childhood they read the prophets, but they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold. We did not hear the divine prophecies but we did worship him of whom they prophesied. And so they are pitiful because they rejected the blessings which were sent to them, while others seized hold of these blessing and drew them to themselves. Although those Jews had been called to the adoption of sons, they fell to kinship with dogs; we who were dogs received the strength, through God's grace, to put aside the irrational nature which was ours and to rise to the honor of sons. How do I prove this? Christ said: "It is no fair to take the children's bread and to cast it to the dogs". Christ was speaking to the Canaanite woman when He called the Jews children and the Gentiles dogs.


http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/chrysostom_adversus_judaeos_01_homily1.htm
 
Was Peter violent? Tradition has it was crucified upside down.

My point was that Christianity is a non-violent religion---at its essence. There was no violence done by Christians until the Pope was called a Pope, some centuries after Jesus or even Peter.

In contrast, Islam began peacefully until Mohammed conquered Mecca. Only a period of some years. So 'the essential Islam' is violent by comparison. By essence I mean the religion as it was conceived by its originators and not later followers who tend to misinterpret it or use it for their own ends.

And I will go as far to say it's easy to make the argument that radical Muslims aren't perverting Islam---based on the model of Mohammed.

It's apparent that the radicals think it's an easy argument to make. Or at least they seem to have considerable success in making it.

The millennium of Muslim conquests could be classified, technically, as "religious war", however the applicability of the term has been questioned. The reason is that the very notion of a "religious war" as opposed to a "secular war" is the result of the Western concept of the separation of Church and State. No such division has ever existed in the Islamic world, and consequently there cannot be a real division between wars that are "religious" from such that are "non-religious". [SUP][/SUP]
 
Was Peter violent? Tradition has it was crucified upside down.

My point was that Christianity is a non-violent religion---at its essence. There was no violence done by Christians until the Pope was called a Pope, some centuries after Jesus or even Peter.

In contrast, Islam began peacefully until Mohammed conquered Mecca. Only a period of some years. So 'the essential Islam' is violent by comparison. By essence I mean the religion as it was conceived by its originators and not later followers who tend to misinterpret it or use it for their own ends.

And I will go as far to say it's easy to make the argument that radical Muslims aren't perverting Islam---based on the model of Mohammed.

It's apparent that the radicals think it's an easy argument to make. Or at least they seem to have considerable success in making it.
Christians were a small cult until Constantine and not totally non violent, they were killing each other over doctrine, so to say they weren't violent isn't factual.
 
To compare it with Islam isn't factual.
I didn't, I have just been disproving your belief that Christians were non violent and your comment about the Pope. I believe all religions have used violence at some point to convert or kill those who they perceive as a threat.
 
I didn't, I have just been disproving your belief that Christians were non violent and your comment about the Pope. I believe all religions have used violence at some point to convert or kill those who they perceive as a threat.

Even Buddhists??
 
I didn't, I have just been disproving your belief that Christians were non violent and your comment about the Pope. I believe all religions have used violence at some point to convert or kill those who they perceive as a threat.

But you have yet to prove Islam is a non-violent religion.
 
There's been violence in probably all religions at one time or another and a lot of that violence was horrible and unnecessary, but even the violence committed by past Christians shouldn't take away from the peaceful and important messages and actions of past and current Christians. A lot of evil has been done in Christ's name, it just has, and so we as Christians have work to do to right those past wrongs, and I believe we have and are, but we can do that through truly being Christ's example and by spreading the good news in a peaceful and genuine way and not through violence or through judgments that we shouldn't be making as sinners ourselves.

Tell me all about the Great Buddhist War of Philosophical Spreading... I don't remember reading about that one.
 
1.6 billion Muslims in the world. ISIS can 'muster' between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters, CIA says.

There's the math.

And there's religionists and religion. There's always going to be corrupters of religion.

Do radical Muslims error in following Mohammed as a model of Islam? Can you prove it?
 
And there's religionists and religion. There's always going to be corrupters of religion.

Do radical Muslims error in following Mohammed as a model of Islam? Can you prove it?

What kind of proof would you accept? Numerous Muslim scholars and imams have gone public to protest ISIS, here in the states and around the world.
 
Back
Top