Is Christianity actually peaceful?

[Terrence]

Alright then, what is Christianity?

True religion.

What does it take to be a Christian?

God being pleased to changed a person's heart and creating in him a new person whereby the person will be molded into the image of Christ.

Who decides?

God.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

Why would Nero set fire to his own capital and lose money from tax and rebuilding? Historians would actually sway towards the Christians starting it. As you say they were suppressed! Maybe they got alittle annoyed and thought they would fulfil a prophecy so there belief system could be justified?

He was losing control of his empire, because he was more inerested in wine, women, boys and song. He did not last long as an emperor...

Oh, did I mention he was nuts?

v/r

Q

edit: sorry Juan, I had to add the other elements into the equation...

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by cavalier

Alright then, what is Christianity? What does it take to be a Christian? Who decides?

1. Belief unto a being who taught us how to act, like Him, regardless of the circumstances we faced. He offered or commanded two laws of us...Love God with all one's heart, might and soul, and Love neighbor as self.

2. Acceptance of the gift that God has offered. Eternal life for those who believe.

3. The person who chooses Christ's gift, decides.

But it isn't as easy as it sounds. None the less, God states He will help the believer, make it easier.

[cavalier]

Originally Posted by Terrence

What does it take to be a Christian?

God being pleased to changed a person's heart and creating in him a new person whereby the person will be molded into the image of Christ.

Interesting. The thing is, as Juantoo3 pointed out, everyone has their own definition

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Are we speaking of what defines the individual Christian (which would take forever as it seems new definitions keep cropping up)

Which one are we supposed to take for the truth?
Well that's easy, it's your definition isn't it. Well lets look at your definition, "God being pleased to change a person's heart.." Who are you to judge another man's heart, to go around as you have been doing saying who is and who isn't a Christian? The Bible makes it clear that you, along with the rest of us are unqualified for that job.

Now, it may be that those people are not real Christians, it may also be that you are not, but people looking on will not know for sure until judgement day. On that day the word, "Christianity" will no longer be important. Until then it will continue to refer to a religion based on many different interpretations of the teachings of Jesus, and on the various interpretations of those interpretations. It refers to a body of people who call themsleves, believe themselves to be, Christian.

Christianity has a history of violence, look hard enough in today's newspaper and you see that that history is continuing.

You may want to distance yourself from those who you believe are not real Christians. Well there are also Muslims who, citing the Quran, would like to distance themselves from those who would kill in the name of Allah.
If they cannot distance themselves, then neither can you. If Islam is not peaceful, then neither is Christianity.

[Terrence]

Where did I judge anyone's heart? All I said is that when God changes someone's heart, they react in love and believe the seemingly foolish gospel. Just to make it clear to you, I judge no one's heart - Only God can see the heart and knows it. That said, where in the bible does it say that we cannot judge who is a Christian? The actuall truth is that we ought to have right fellowship with Christians and we will know them by their fruits according to Jesus is matt. 4. This by the way goes into what you're saying about knowing true Christian. Again, if a person does not adhere to the teachings of Jesus (if you love me keep my commandments) they are not Christians, no matter how much they claim to be or how sincere they are. Dont judge Christanity the so called believers of Jesus, rather, judge it on what the Scriptures says it is. Thats easy enough. So agian, Christanity has not a history of violence...wait, on second thought, I change my mind. You're actuaully right, Christanity does have a vivid history of violence and bloodshed - the blood of the Christian who have been murdered for nothing more than their love for God. Have you ever read the Bible? Even if you're not a believer, you could be able to see what Christanity is and what it is not. Islam kill for their faith, Christians become martyrs for theirs. No real Christian will steal God's glory by taking vengence, that belongs to God.

[juantoo3]

edit: sorry Juan, I had to add the other elements into the equation...

No problem Q, like I said, it has been a long time and the details are fuzzy. Of course, one could argue that Nero's personal preferences had little or nothing to do with the burning of the city, but the point that he was nuts sure does figure in.

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by cavalier

Christianity has a history of violence, look hard enough in today's newspaper and you see that that history is continuing.

the truth is man has a history of violence in the name of religion. christianity itself is rooted in gods love and gods desire that we love to all of his creatures. just because some adopt, borrow, or claim christianity, does not make it so.

You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorn bushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards!

While I can appreciate the distinction being made regarding "who is a Christian?" on a personal level, I would ask if it is proper to lay the actions of an institution at the feet of random individuals? It seems to me this is what Muslims in general ask of Christians in general, yet is not the same respect to be asked in return?

Indeed, can this distinction not apply across the board between all institutional religions (particularly those with political power), and those random individuals that compose those religious bodies? It is like implying that any specific individual represents the whole of a religious body. It is no different than accusing G. W. Bush as representing Christianity, equally the same with accusing any particular Imam, or Sheik, or President with representing the whole of Islam.

Is Christianity peaceful? Yes, just as Islam is. Just as Buddhism is. Just as Judaism is. Just as Hinduism is. Just as Paganism is. All of these have peaceful teachings.

Are the political institutions that stand behind the various faith walks peaceful? I suspect that is where we may find our problems with perception.

Are random individuals to be held accountable for the actions of political institutions that stand behind the various religious faiths? This is where things get tricky, are we to conclude that one is not faithful if one is not peaceful? In every circumstance? Even extenuating circumstance, such as defensive war?

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

Cavalier,

I dont know if this is appropriate for this thread, but I think this article shows that christianity can be just as "un-peaceful" as any other religion.

It's not the religion that is "un-peaceful" but the people who are in it. Like the old saying goes "guns don't kill people, People kill people."

I guess your question can be best answered by the people who suffered (and still do suffer) the most under christian authority.

Was Slavery God's Will?

Some Christian writers have said slavery in America was divinely sanctioned because it helped bring Africans to Christ. Is this true?

—Casey Mercer, Columbus, Ohio
By Ronald C. Potter | posted 6/7/00

At the 1996 Promise Keepers pastors conference in Atlanta, a Native American brother stood up and chronicled the many gross sins committed by white Americans against Native Americans over the centuries. He reminded the audience of the violation of hundreds of treaties, the slaughter of millions of buffalo, and the near genocide of numerous tribes.

His conclusion, however, disturbed me. In spite of the horror, he told the gathered pastors, most of whom were white, if the white man had not come to the Americas, we wouldn't know Jesus. The crowd of 40,000 shouted "Amen!" in stirring unison.

I returned home in a quandary. I appreciated the fellowship I experienced with my Christian brothers, but I could not shake the deep reservations I had concerning that Native American pastor's remarks. I realized that this same perspective sometimes is applied to the African-American experience: You suffered horribly under chattel slavery, you were brutalized and dehumanized, but if the slave ships had not arrived and brought you to the New World, you wouldn't have found Jesus.

African-American pastor Earl Carter articulated that view a year later in his book No Apology Necessary. Carter argues that white people need not apologize to people of African descent because: (1) God instituted slavery due to Africans' pagan idolatry and (2) importation to the New World eventually resulted in the Christianization of African slaves.


Carter's book leaves a lot to be desired exegetically and morally. To suggest that Euro-Americans are not morally culpable for their involvement in the Atlantic slave trade is ludicrous.


What's more, to suggest that slavery was necessary for African people to be introduced to Jesus trivializes the horrors of the Middle Passage, the utter dehumanization of plantation life, and the forced breakup of black families.

African cultures were no more or less idolatrous than those of pre-Christian pagan European peoples. Was worship of the Yoruba deity Orisa-nla more idolatrous than worship of the Norse god Thor?


It is always problematic for us to rank one culture's sin above another's. Apart from God's grace, we all stand under divine wrath. Still, what are we to make of Scripture's ambiguity on the subject of slavery?


Neither the Old nor New Testament directly condemns slavery or calls for its abolition. In fact, both Paul and Peter admonished slaves to obey their masters.

First, we need to understand the historical and cultural context of Scripture. Slavery was pervasive throughout the ancient Near East of the Old Testament and the Greco-Roman world of the New Testament era.

The practice of slavery was so integral to Roman society that some historians estimate slaves made up almost half of the population. Of course, to acknowledge the pervasiveness of something is not to condone its practice. Polytheism and sexual immorality were pervasive throughout biblical times, yet Scripture explicitly condemns those practices.


Why not slavery? Some Christian thinkers argue that passages such as Galatians 3:28 have hermeneutical priority over other passages which appear to justify slavery. Without presuming to rank Scripture over and against itself, it's safe to say any institution that exploits and abuses people made in God's image is not in his perfect will.

In fact, throughout Scripture one finds motifs of justice and liberation for the oppressed. In the Old Testament, the saga of Israel's Exodus and, later, the prophetic discourses of the eighth-century prophets, speak of the importance of both spiritual and physical liberation and foreshadow the emancipating power of the gospel (e.g., Amos 5:21–24).

Indeed, Jesus described his messianic mission in terms of proclaiming freedom for the prisoners and release for the oppressed (Luke 4:18–19). This declaration—a fulfillment of Isaiah 61—underscores his role as a holistic liberator. And though Paul doesn't speak out directly against slavery, his egalitarian assessment of community in Christ, in effect, undermines the institution and lays a groundwork for a Christian perspective on all issues of justice and equality.

Which brings me back to the statement made by my Native American brother. The ugly side of our nation's history cannot be wiped away by collectively disowning it or engaging in dubious quid pro quos. Such endeavors will neither eliminate injustice in church and society nor impress the nonbelieving world.
Yes, we must move beyond the sins of the past. But we also must look for a more thoughtful and biblical understanding of the history of America's oppressed peoples. God redeems even our sinful history, but he does not excuse it. And neither should we.

Seems old crimes come back to haunt you in many forms.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by YO-ELEVEN-11

Cavalier,


Seems old crimes come back to haunt you in many forms.

Yes, the bitter pill that is the sins of our fathers, his hard to swallow...

It causes a strong resolve in me to see to it that our sons do not have to swallow the same pill...

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Yo eleven!

What say you of a person of poor white European lineage, who ancestors wwere so poor they couldn't afford a slave if they wanted to? Are they guilty by association? Or, in my particular case, do I get a "get-out-of-indemnity-free" card because of my Native American heritage? If only life truly were black and white...and red and yellow and brown.

[juantoo3]

I guess if I must be held guilty for the sins of the fathers, at least let it be the sins of *my* fathers for which I am held liable. Not the presumed sins based upon the color of my skin, the neighborhood I grew up in, and the language I speak.

BTW, Yo, good post, and it is a good contribution to this discussion.

[cavalier]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Yes, the bitter pill that is the sins of our fathers, his hard to swallow...

It causes a strong resolve in me to see to it that our sons do not have to swallow the same pill...

Q, that's an interesting way that you've chosen to quote YO. Do you mean something by it, or is it simply accidental?

[cavalier]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Is Christianity peaceful? Yes, just as Islam is. Just as Buddhism is. Just as Judaism is. Just as Hinduism is. Just as Paganism is. All of these have peaceful teachings.

Originally Posted by YO-ELEVEN-11

It's not the religion that is "un-peaceful" but the people who are in it. Like the old saying goes "guns don't kill people, People kill people."

Precisely.

[jiii]

Originally Posted by YO-ELEVEN-11
It's not the religion that is "un-peaceful" but the people who are in it. Like the old saying goes "guns don't kill people, People kill people."

This is a most important addition to the discussion. And, I think it opens the door to a further idea:

Christianity is not a person. As such, it is not capable of emotion or action. Thus, Christianity cannot really be peaceful, or war-like, or have any human quality. 'Religion' may be an important thing. It may even be amongst the most important of things. But as it is not a human being, it has mostly the qualities of an inanimate object. Religion cannot hold a gun, be hateful, be paranoid, or be selfish. Religion cannot be compassionate, kind, understanding, or selfless. Religion is not a human.

To ask, "Is Christianity peaceful?" is certainly an interesting question. Many interesting ideas and discoveries may derive from asking such a question. But, ultimately, to ask if Christianity, as a religion, is peaceful, is not much different than saying "Is a rock peaceful?", "Is a cloud peaceful?", or "Is a prime rib peaceful?" None of these things are capable of being peaceful, as they aren't human.

Of course, one might note that religion is, after all, uniquely a human invention. And, indeed, this is true. Religion is a tool. Now, take any given human tool. Is a bow and arrow peaceful? Well, all by itself, sitting on a shelf, its not anything in particular. Just a stick with string and some straight pieces of wood. However, it could be used as a bow to start a campfire, it could be used as an exhibit at a museum, it could be used as sporting equipment, it could be used as a walking cane (maybe? ), it could be used to hunt for food, and it can be used to kill people...whatever someone can use it for, that is what it is in that instance. But none of these are qualities the bow necessarily possesses without a human user.

Religion, I would offer, is similar to this. It all depends on how you use it. In the hands of one man it may be a tool for assisting in attaining transcendental wisdom. In the hands of another, it may be a tool for justifying the most appalling carnage. None of these possibilities, though, are inherent in the religion itself. And whether or not a bow and arrow is used to kill a man, or to teach a spiritual insight (in the case of Zen and archery, for instance), is up to the users. It all depends in which direction you point it.