Yeah, the sort of simplistic nonsense that one expects from any and every one who associates with the one-dimensional dimwits that congregate around the Public Christianity propaganda machine.

Meanwhile this one stark image tells us how Christian-ISM as a would be world conquering power-and-control-seeking IDEOLOGY really came to dominate the entire world - the applied politics of Constantine's famous sword. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel13.html

Never mind too that never-ending warfare was the norm throughout Christian Europe prior to say the French Revolution and the subsequent rise of atheistic inspired political movements. All of the slaughters were done/justified with appeals to the christian "god" and "jesus".

Never mind too, that Jesus was always and only a Jew and was never ever in any sense a Christian, nor did he found the religion about him - aka Christian-ISM.

Am I the only one having trouble accessing this article?

Cheers,

Tony

Just click on ALL, Tony.
However, none of the various religious/politics/race arguments hold water. They however, may well be part of the problems under examination?
Conversely, it is ignorance and fear, (fear of difference) that is behind almost every act of bastardy, if you exclude out and out insanity, or the psychosis of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Armin, etc/etc.
Perhaps we just need to subject every would be, if he/she could be political/religious/corporate leader to a thorough and entirely mandatory, triple psychological profiling/examination, as a prelude to their acceptance as a potential candidate?
To see if they can pass the standard clinical test for psychosis, or that which reveals the corporate psychopath!
Surely it is the psychotic manifesting as the all knowing mystic or Messiah, charismatic, supremely confident, self assured, idea stealing, blame shifting, history revising, never wrong leader, that is central to all the refereed to problems.
Ideally, we need the latter as our soldiers, who perform at their best, in the battle field following orders.
The only problem we have, what do we do with the poor bastards when they finally if ever, come home?
Rhrosty.

"Jesus, who instructed his followers to make disciples of all nations, taught that the interests of Christianity were not to be promoted by violence."

Cherry-picking again?

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace but a sword.Matthew 10:34"

"I came to bring fire to the earth and how I wish it were already kindled! Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.Luke 12:49-51"

"And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:35-38"

I wonder how much of the success of Christianity is due to having a holy book so full of contradictions that you can read it to mean anything you want.

This would seemingly be one of those pieces of great profundity which entails no prolixity of needless verbiage, without which we are all much better off nae doot. It's a bit like that play by whoever-it-was, in which the audience watches two loons sitting there with nary a skerrick nor spittle of twaddle e'er spaken atween 'em. Irish o'course, what else. You project onto it your inward blather and thus are all cathartised if there be such a word, which there ain't. It reminds one of Monkey, in the Chinese classic of that name by Wu Cheng 'en. He went from being called just plain old "Monkey", to "Handsome Monkey King", to "Great Sage, Equal of Heaven" until finally he was ushered into the presence of the Lord Buddha himself and received his name in religion, which was "Aware of Vacuity".

Daffy did his bit, dismissed with a link the credulity of the Christian, or Christianist, faith, to which I would only add that a perusal or scrutiny of the Gospels showeth that, not only did Jesus never refer to himself as "God", but he never referred to himself as the "son of God" neither - if the Gospels are to be believed. But alas the link led me to no more than "this webpage is not available" so Daffy's message was a bit inscrutable too, which being on theme, was perhaps intended?

Tony simply bounced off but we think no less of him for that.

However Stephen Liggins did leave us this little hint in the subtitle as to what the title may have intended to import, given the expatiation for which the world waits with tongue hanging out.

"Of course, religion is not the only cause to have been promoted through the use, or threatened use, of force. There is politics."

To which the assembled masses of the world cry in liturgical-like response with one slavering voice, only:
"True."

“Just click on ALL, Tony.”

O-oh. *Now* I get it.

I can’t see why everyone is chucking off at this article. Seems to me to be perfectly true.

“It has to be acknowledged that after Christianity merged with power and government in the fourth century, and in later years, violence and coercion came to play a role among those who claimed allegiance …”

Well it wasn’t so much “after” as pretty much “the instant” Christianity got the power to become the established religion, it banned all other religions.

Certainly the history of the church is a history of religious intolerance in a way that was unknown to the polytheistic communities of the ancient world. It was this inflexible rejection of other faiths which was the reason why the ancient Romans considered the Jews and Christians to be religious perverts.

According to Gibbon, this characteristic of the Christians, of hotly disputing over these fine points of metaphysical theory that are ultimately unknowable, was a distinguishing characteristic of Christianity.

But Stephen’s point is perfectly valid. While Christianity has often and long been involved in violence and threats, on the other hand, Christians have often and long stood against it too.

The evolutionary explanation of the phenomenon of religion is that it comprises false beliefs which tend on average to promote relative reproductive success in its propagators. Why false? Because “the best deception is self-deception.” Our anti-cheating programs would detect arrant liars. Genuinely-held false beliefs, which just happen to promote relative reproductive success, pass under our anti-cheating radar.

Religion may or may not be violence-based. But politics is *intrinsically and always* involved in the use and advocacy of force and threats, in the very nature of the State as a legal monopoly of the use of force and threats.

The irony of the modern statists' disdain of religion is that their own views are just exactly the same old mediaeval belief in a morally superior super-corporation, capable of suspending nature’s limitations in our favour, only with the violent irrationality and uncritical worship projected onto the State instead of the church.

The Spanish Inquisition was an interesting mix of force and religion. What is happening in Occupied Palestine is another example.

Religion that preaches love and caring and no killing seems to have trouble following its basic precepts.

Humans may be the problem. Their genes belong to a more primitive period in their evolution.

They will destroy themselves in the near future, you mark my words!

No great loss.

Religion is the scourge of nearly all people on earth, when o when will people wake up to the fact that what they are following is nothing but complete rubbish. Wars and suffering have all been fought and still being fought over the one thing that there is a God or something similar that is the right God in their mind, if we look at Germany , 2nd world war,the majority of people were of the same religion and praying to the same God as say the British, both wanting "him" to answer their prayers, Britain won, Germany lost, so where was the same God of the Germans, unfortunately as children the religion of the parents will prevail, and so in the coming centuries nothing will change the violence scenario. There are also many other factors in a cruel world, wealth , power and poverty.
When will we learn

We will never learn, Onjab! We've had 10,000 years to get it right and nothing has changed. We are still invading and occupying just like the primitive barbarians did.

The irony is that we claim we are intelligent!

"While Christianity has often and long been involved in violence and threats, on the other hand, Christians have often and long stood against it too. "

As have many non-christians, as usual missing the point. Christianity as with most religions was born with violence and slaughter and continued on that way, usually motivated by improving or keeping its position of authority. The difference is that people shouldn't need any religion to convince them slaughter is wrong, that is simply decent morality.
It's the usual rub, in how many cases has non-religion specifically been used to advocate violence as opposed to religion? Secular morality should allow people to make free judgement as to murder and pillaging, however some people will be driven to do evil things, whether motivated by religion or other reasons.

Thanks Ludwig.

Matt
"Christianity as with most religions was born with violence and slaughter and continued on that way, usually motivated by improving or keeping its position of authority."

No it wasn't. The first 100 years the church had not separated out from the synagogue, and the early Christians weren't in a position to exercise authority backed by violence and slaughter. It wasn't until it was legalised in the 300s that it became backed with violence and slaughter.

" The difference is that people shouldn't need any religion to convince them slaughter is wrong, that is simply decent morality."

Yes. And exactly the same applies to the violence of the state.

"It's the usual rub, in how many cases has non-religion specifically been used to advocate violence as opposed to religion?"

By far the greatest violence has been done by the modern secular State, the democracies among them - much more than was ever done in the name of religion.

"By far the greatest violence has been done by the modern secular State, the democracies among them - much more than was ever done in the name of religion."

Done "BY" the modern secular state, I thought we were talking about motivation? Can give me some examples where non-religion was the inspiration for the widespread violence and murder that religion has been (or much more as you claim)? I'm talking about people specifically killing to spread and propagate non-religion. Communists don't kill in the name of atheism, and calling yourself a secular state doesn't make you one.

"Yes. And exactly the same applies to the violence of the state. "
Absolutely, but then why hold up religion (specifically christianity) as if it is some harbinger of peace, when clearly it isn't. There are christians who advocate for peace, just like there are christians who champion eternal torture in hellfire as a reasonable consequence of simply disbelieving them. Often, they can even do both at the same time, ironic right?

As for founded in violence, apologies that was probably the wrong wording, it would be more accurate to say the bible kicks off with slaughter and violence, and carries it through to conclusion. No doubt you can cherry pick some of jesus more gentle moments, but the themes are there and

Religions are ideologies and as ideologies are subject to many interpretations as societies change--the jihadi psychopaths and the lethal apparatchiks of the Inquisition were, and are religious by their own standards. So claims that some religiots 'misunderstand' the 'true' nature of their religion are irrelevant, their religion is just what they choose it to be.

Many atrocities were committed in the name of Marxism, however, like Christianity, it was originally conceived as a humane doctrine and also like Christianity is was used to establish a totalitarian regime.

Hi Stephen,

I’ve stood back from your article because it is on the one hand difficult to translate, it is most certainly mixed up thinking. That said, it is so close to the historical reality of the methodology being implemented to “induce” compliance by true believers, it does require some consideration.

I think you have mixed up the direct threat of totalitarianism with the implied threat of socialism.

Many lost their lives through directly opposing totalitarian regimes however, socialism has not directly imposed the death penalty upon those who do not support its values or ideology, rather it seeks to impose “implied threats” as a consequence of non-compliance.

The Edict of Worms was a decree issued on 25 May 1521 by Emperor Charles V, with a little assistance from the Papal wordsmiths, declaring:

<< For this reason we forbid anyone from this time forward to dare, either by words or by deeds, to receive, defend, sustain, or favor the said Martin Luther. On the contrary, we want him to be apprehended and punished as a notorious heretic, as he deserves.>>

Today we see the very same religious mantra manifest in the multiple socialist “causes” without any direct threat to life or limb. Just the implied threat to future well being.

The religious connotations to which you refer are more to do with the “implied” threat of, peak oil, peak food production, peak population, peak big business, peak USA, peak big banks and more recently, peak CO2.

The model is the same, the same people in our society fall for it and the reality, or lack of it, is present for all those who accept through gullibility, ignorance, laziness or adopted “intellect”, over and over again.

There is nothing general society can offer these incompetents, they are a lost cause. They are destined to be angry, confrontational, bitter, offensive, divisive and dysfunctional. This is because they have no reality upon which to rely. Rather they have “adopted” the opinion of others because they lack the intellectual capacity to develop there own.

strange how its the self righteous god deniers who see nothing wrong with slaughtering thousands of unborn babies in the womb. Oh that's right like the nazis did to the Jews they redefine the name for the unborn. NOw with Mao and Stalin it must make them feel very superior in their godless beliefs. Funny how all of a sudden they insist on absolutes even know they deny any such thing. Some of the above posters demonstrate it so well.

Psychologists will tell you that human being comprise a number of different personality types. One personality type is the "absolutist personality." A person with this sort of personality is unable to distinguish shades of grey. Morality can only be right or wrong. Moral perspectives and moral quandaries can not exist. Such people take good ideas to their most extreme because they do not have the wit to see things in perspective.

Religion, environmentalism, philosophy, diet, refugees, racism, physical fitness, you name it, Absolutists will take it to the most extreme position and think that they are so superior to the rest of us because they do take every good idea to extremes. Such people are great moral puritans and a pain in the butt.

There is nothing wrong with trying to solve disputes without violence, but Pacifism represents the extreme edge of this noble philosophy. And it is an absolutely idiotic position. All forms of government require rules, and those rules are enforced, either with violence or the threat of violence. Totally pacific societies can not exist outside of the protection of a tolerant society which does not believe in pacifism.

The original Christians were pacifists and they suffered terribly because of it. The Emprorer Constantine realised that the only hope of holding the multicultural Roman Empire together, with its multiplicity of religions and races, was to unite them with a common religion. But he wasn't having a bar of Pacifism. He was a general himself who worshipped Sol Invictus, Christianity was merely a social tool for him. His rejection of Pacifism was just as well. Because from 400-1600 AD Europe was a continent under seige. It was being attacked by barabarians from the North, East and South, and had it remained a pacific religion, Europe would have been over run by Vikings, Muslims, Goths, Visigoths, Alans, Mongols and Huns.

It is soon going to be over run by Muslims anyway, because people like Stephen Liggens have forgotten that an organism which stops fighting to survive will be eventually be destroyed.

So the Christians in the 4th century did exactly what the Lefty Roxon with support of her Cabinet leaders Gillard and Swan tried to do last year, destroy free speech. In the 4th century they did what Warmists wanted to do now to Sceptics (Ralionalists), threaten, kill and oppress.

Where is the greater sin?

Dan
“Can give me some examples where non-religion was the inspiration for the widespread violence and murder that religion has been (or much more as you claim)? “

You appear to be defining the state as “non-religion”. My point is that being motivated by statism is indistinguishable from being motivated by religion.

“If one assumes that there exists above and beyond the individual’s actions an imperishable entity aiming at its own ends, different from those of mortal men, one has already constructed the concept of a superhuman being.”
Ludwig von Mises

Statists believe that the state is a superbeing, morally superior, presumptively stands for the greater good, is charged with leading fallible man the way to salvation, capable of miraculously suspending nature’s limitations in our favour (e.g. printing money creates physical wealth), it can cure the sick, make the rivers flow, fine-tune the weather in 500 years time. They have their own revered emblems, often centred on weaponry e.g. coats of arms. Their own revered rituals, often mindlessly worshipping authority and violence (e.g. Anzac Day – worship of aggressive violence) and irrational revered sacraments (voting – the will of the majority defines what is good, magically optimises scarce resources) etc. etc. etc.

We are surrounded by the statists' religious violence: their price and wage controls, statist broadcasting, government indoctrination of children, endless wars for "defence", monetary policy, endless violent restrictions of freedom.

Just as the ancient Romans fed people to the lions for the public entertainment, and didn't notice it was immoral, so the statists don't notice that everything they do and think is based on their idea that violence is the basis of the good society. And they don't see it because they don't count force and threats as violence when done by the State.

I have looked a bit in the bible for this answer, and perhaps I am dumb, but where in Christian tenets is the belief that Christianity ever should have political power?

I mean, I saw that Jesus would come back again and be the king of the world, and I get the JW's at my door telling me that their church is the kingdom being prepared for God, but where is the actual teaching that the church should be in charge or have authority? Why did the early Christians want authority?

In my mind a church is something distinct and separate from government. Government is made from people unifying together with similar cultures/lifestyles.