The violent history of.......

[River Jordan]

Christianity?

After the recent horrific executions carried out and publicized by ISIS, President Obama gave a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast where he attempted to argue that ISIS members were no more representative of Islam than the Crusades and the Inquisition are for Christianity. Obviously those remarks generated a lot of reactions and debate. Interestingly though, I was surprised that Obama, being part black, didn't mention the more recent atrocities carried out by American Christians, i.e., the public torture and executions of blacks across the South from the 1870's to the 1950's. These horrific events can't be easily dismissed by saying "they happened a long time ago", since some of the people who carried out and witnessed these events are still alive today.

And if you read the detailed accounts of what they did, they make ISIS look like a bunch of wimps.

When ISIS Ran the American South

WARNING: The article contains graphic depictions of public executions

Yes, burning the Jordanian pilot alive was awful and shocking. But compared to the thousands of public executions of blacks carried out by American Christians in the South? It almost seems humane....they didn't deliberately torture the man or take extra measures to make his execution as slow and painful as possible.

The lesson from this? For me, it's that people are pretty much people no matter where they live or what they believe, and there are a lot of people who only need to have an excuse (e.g., violating God's laws or the social order) and some authority to carry out truly horrendous acts of terror. We'd be well advised not to be so quick to condemn an entire religion because of the atrocities of its extremists, because one day our faith may be judged by the same standard.

 

[Born_Again]

But in certain respects, the crusades did use God's will as an excuse to kill, a lot. But, true, you cant let a group of radicals set the example of an entire religion. However, perception is reality. Same with Christians. This is why showing His love and leading a life that brings glory to Him is the best way to make the perception fit the reality.

 

[FHII]

Anyone who participated in killing in the name of Jesus was not a Christian. Jesus preached against it and actually could've fought back with overwelming power. Paul preached going to war, but not in the carnal sense.

Perhaps God will have mercy on the souls if the soldiers who fought in the crusades as I think many if them were illiterate or never had a bible.

If it is a matter of self preservation, I can also understand it. But this shouldn't be laid on real Christians.

 

[clark thompson]

I do not think true Christians kill if people not turn to the Faith, I think all those people were part of the religion but not the relationship which truly makes us His.

 

[justaname]

In light of the current racial events in America it is no wonder the President chose not to use the violent south example.

That being said there are plain reading examples in the Koran citing violence against the infidel.

Old Testament Laws are not applicable to Christianity today, so there is no reason to say " Well in Liviticus the Bible says..."

 

[Angelina]

After the recent horrific executions carried out and publicized by ISIS, President Obama gave a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast where he attempted to argue that ISIS members were no more representative of Islam than the Crusades and the Inquisition are for Christianity

I wonder if the President would argue this point if the circumstances were reversed? ;)

 

[Born_Again]

Interestingly enough, it was leaders of Europe and the Pope who commissioned the crusades... Every time. Those men (knights) went out with the intent of bloodshed to reclaim Jerusalem. The Church knew what it was doing. "It was God's will".

 

[River Jordan]

See, this IMO is a big problem within Christianity (at least here in the US). Rather than own our history and deal with it as it is, too many Christians go into "Yeah, but..." mode.

All those Christians tortured and killed black people for 80 years? Yeah, but......they weren't "true Christians".

All those Christians tortured and killed black people for 80 years? Yeah, but......the Quran has terrible things in it.

Our Bible has terrible things in it too? Yeah, but......those things don't count now.


Come on guys. We can do better than invoking logical fallacies and engaging in special pleading.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FBI investigates claim suspects in 1946 Georgia mass lynching may be alive

US authorities are investigating whether some of those responsible for one of the American south’s most notorious mass lynchings are still alive, in an attempt to finally bring prosecutions over the brutal unsolved killings.

FBI agents have questioned a man in Georgia about the Moore’s Ford Bridge lynching of 1946, the man told the Guardian. The man was among several in their 80s and 90s named in connection with the incident on a list given to the US Department of Justice by civil rights activists.

 

[lforrest]

If people from the church act contrary to God's will, would their actions be Christ's responsibility as the head of the church? Do you think Jesus Christ himself is going to apologize for the things done in his name?

I don't think so; Christians are not following his Spirit when committing violations of his will. The church is one body and one Spirit, when one acts contrary to that Spirit they can not be representing the Church.

I count it as nothing to call myself a Christian, it is like my blood type; of little consequence most of the time but don't try to substitute it for something else or I'll die. Being part of his Church is a higher calling, since that is always keeping with the Holy Spirit, the Church can do no wrong.

 

[HammerStone]

See, this IMO is a big problem within Christianity (at least here in the US). Rather than own our history and deal with it as it is, too many Christians go into "Yeah, but..." mode

What does "deal with it" even mean?

FWIW, Dreher is one of my favorite writers and I agree with the fundamental statement that American Christianity indeed has a dark past that is way too easily glossed over. What was done is deplorable, and these lynchings are some of the most heinous acts of Christianity. What I fail to see was really taken from speech was how this is supposed to "deal with it" and fix much of anything, other than giving the ISIL fanatics more verbal weaponry to convince their propaganda victims that we're connected to the same mindset of the Crusaders. IMHO, this would be a more appropriate critique of the speech, and perhaps it's a version of mission accomplished in a different form. Our Commander in Chiefs seem to be good at that one, lately.

With that said, I think it's a time to reflect upon Christianity and understand that it's the only faith that offers the framework for even trying to understand how evil the heart of man can be, even when the evil comes from what's seemingly its own bosom. However, it is also a time for pointing to their prophet and his foundational actions versus our greatest Prophet and King of kings and his foundational action.

The narratives on both "sides" have become way oversimplified.

 

[River Jordan]

What does "deal with it" even mean?

For starters, admitting that these things happened without any "Yeah but..." apologetics. Hopefully acknowledging our own dark past will help in our relationships with other religions. When Christians try and pretend that Christianity is free of such atrocities and use that as a starting point in our dialog with other faiths, we're pretty much doomed to fail.

FWIW, Dreher is one of my favorite writers and I agree with the fundamental statement that American Christianity indeed has a dark past that is way too easily glossed over. What was done is deplorable, and these lynchings are some of the most heinous acts of Christianity. What I fail to see was really taken from speech was how this is supposed to "deal with it" and fix much of anything, other than giving the ISIL fanatics more verbal weaponry to convince their propaganda victims that we're connected to the same mindset of the Crusaders.

It's far easier to have a dialog with the majority of Muslims who also despise ISIS when we can basically say "We've had our share of violent extremists too", rather than "Nope...not Christianity. Violence in the name of religion is Islam's problem!"

IMHO, this would be a more appropriate critique of the speech, and perhaps it's a version of mission accomplished in a different form. Our Commander in Chiefs seem to be good at that one, lately.

While I agree that the comparison's to Lincoln's speech are kind of weak, but...

"Undoubtedly Obama wants to defeat ISIS, which he strongly denounced, but he is seemingly discomfited by confident rhetorical affirmations of what once was called “Christian civilization.” Such hesitance invites concerns about irresolution and overly abundant moral ambiguity."

....kinda misses the point of the speech. Obama wasn't being morally ambiguous about ISIS. He specifically referred to them as "a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism -- terrorizing religious minorities like the Yezidis, subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war, and claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions". Is that "overly abundant moral ambiguity"?

I have to wonder if Tooley even listened to, or read, the speech. If he had, he'd have easily realized that the larger context was about how to reconcile all the good that's done in the name of religion with all the evil that's done in the name of religion. And his point about the Crusades and such was a warning to Christians not to "get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place", which I think is a fair point.

Also, keep in mind that the President of the United States represents all US citizens, not just Christians. He also represents American Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, Jews, Atheists....everyone. And after the last administration, it's not a bad thing for him to let those folks know that the gov't works for them, not just Christians.

With that said, I think it's a time to reflect upon Christianity and understand that it's the only faith that offers the framework for even trying to understand how evil the heart of man can be, even when the evil comes from what's seemingly its own bosom. However, it is also a time for pointing to their prophet and his foundational actions versus our greatest Prophet and King of kings and his foundational action.

If you think Christianity is the only religion that tries to explain human evil, then you should really take a comparative religion course.

The narratives on both "sides" have become way oversimplified.

Unfortunately, that's what politics is.

 

[KingJ]

For starters, admitting that these things happened without any "Yeah but..." apologetics. Hopefully acknowledging our own dark past will help in our relationships with other religions. When Christians try and pretend that Christianity is free of such atrocities and use that as a starting point in our dialog with other faiths, we're pretty much doomed to fail.

So what you are proposing is that we say Jesus also ordained the raping of little girls, cutting off fingertips and heads of unbelievers / is evil like Muhammad....now lets talk about peace. :lol: h34r:

 

[River Jordan]

So what you are proposing is that we say Jesus also ordained the raping of little girls, cutting off fingertips and heads of unbelievers / is evil like Muhammad....now lets talk about peace. :lol: h34r:

I think I may have overestimated you.....by a lot.

 

[Wormwood]

Im not trying to excuse or justify any behavior. I think the difference, although, is one in which those who are Christian (or carry the label) do horrible things and one in which one's religious beliefs compel them to do horrible things. I know supposed Christians used the Bible as a means to excuse the killing and torture of others. This is inexcusable and God will judge such people. However, this is very different than saying the Bible "teaches me" or "commands me" to beat, torture and kill others. These are two vastly different concepts. Claiming the Bible states that a different race is inferior is quite different from saying that the Bible commands me to lop off the head of those who don't believe as I do (and results in thousands of years of Jihad). Again, while both are horrible, the second is in a different category entirely. I think this is seen in the way these acts of Jihad have endured for over a thousand years whereas slavery did not (primarily because of Christian influence).

In either event, the President's comments were ignorant of history and the differences between Jihad and the Crusades. Its like equating America's invasion of Iraq and the Nazi's invasion of other countries.

 

[River Jordan]

Im not trying to excuse or justify any behavior. I think the difference, although, is one in which those who are Christian (or carry the label) do horrible things and one in which one's religious beliefs compel them to do horrible things. I know supposed Christians used the Bible as a means to excuse the killing and torture of others. This is inexcusable and God will judge such people. However, this is very different than saying the Bible "teaches me" or "commands me" to beat, torture and kill others. These are two vastly different concepts. Claiming the Bible states that a different race is inferior is quite different from saying that the Bible commands me to lop off the head of those who don't believe as I do (and results in thousands of years of Jihad). Again, while both are horrible, the second is in a different category entirely. I think this is seen in the way these acts of Jihad have endured for over a thousand years whereas slavery did not (primarily because of Christian influence).

I find it hard to believe that anyone who's read the Bible would say there's nothing in it that would justify violence.

In either event, the President's comments were ignorant of history and the differences between Jihad and the Crusades. Its like equating America's invasion of Iraq and the Nazi's invasion of other countries.

Yeah, the Nazis didn't lie about why they invaded.

 

[heretoeternity]

So what you are proposing is that we say Jesus also ordained the raping of little girls, cutting off fingertips and heads of unbelievers / is evil like Muhammad....now lets talk about peace. :lol: h34r:

Before casting the stones at Muslim doctrine, read the Jewish talmud, to see a sickening document...check it out on Veterans Today, or Henry Makow websites...

 

[Wormwood]

I find it hard to believe that anyone who's read the Bible would say there's nothing in it that would justify violence.

I think if you look at the vast majority of Christian history, you will see very little violence and a great deal of humanitarian actions. The very few acts of violence committed by Christians were more of a result of authoritarianism than any specific pleas to Bible doctrine (most people in that era had no access to the Bible).

Yeah, the Nazis didn't lie about why they invaded.

Wow. You really just said that?

 

[KingJ]

I think I may have overestimated you.....by a lot.

Don't worry. I do that to myself all the time. But I like to think I am wise enough to know the difference between God of the universe who died for me and taught me to love my enemy vs a merciless war mongering dictator.

Obama has unsaved speech writers giving him his political correct speeches. As always, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt since you contribute a lot to this site, but you really do need a lot of prayer if you compare Christianity to other religions as though its English vs French.

We have discussed the OT. We have discussed Islam. You are simply being a frustrating fire starter. Stop trying to cause dissension among Christians. Bat for Jesus. Jesus is the answer to all wars. Running Him / Christianity down is not the correct first step to peace.

Before casting the stones at Muslim doctrine, read the Jewish talmud, to see a sickening document...check it out on Veterans Today, or Henry Makow websites...

You can discern that the Talmud as evil and not the Koran? How about we admit that simply grey matter between ears is needed to know that killing those who believe differently to us is evil and then grasp that Christianity does one better by exhorting us to not just tolerate / live at peace with, but to actively love our enemy. Peace + charity. Not fingertips + head.

Even the OT supports that. I want to be able to tolerate the Koran. I know so many good Muslims. But the brick wall I hit is everything Muhammad said. Can you really not see that?

Would you from free will follow Muhammad? How big would Islam be if you could freely de convert and change beliefs?

 

[River Jordan]

I think if you look at the vast majority of Christian history, you will see very little violence and a great deal of humanitarian actions. The very few acts of violence committed by Christians were more of a result of authoritarianism than any specific pleas to Bible doctrine (most people in that era had no access to the Bible).

Are you kidding me? European colonialism? Manifest Destiny? Treatment of Jews (ever read Martin Luther's books on that)? I mean....it would take years to catalog the history of violence committed by Christians over the course of history.

That was the point of the OP.

Wow. You really just said that?

Since the invasion of Iraq, it's become patently obvious that the Bush administration deliberately manufactured their public argument for invading.

 

[Born_Again]

I cant speak for anything Muslim as I have never really investigated their beliefs. However, for Christians I can speak. Any acts of violence beyond the time frame of the OT were obviously wrong. NT going forward there should have never been any justifiable acts of violence. The greatest and simplest message of the NT was simply Love. I don't think there is any scripture saying it is okay to murder in the name of Christ.

Having that in mind, all who committed acts of violence if the name of Christ were not, in fact, Christians. If anything they were a horrible representation of our faith. Unfortunately the stigma followed them. That being said, no, I don't feel I have to own up or "deal with" anything they have done. Unless any of them repented we know they did not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. If the church has anything to own up to it is crucifying the Son of God. The Catholic church commissioned the crusades. I am not Catholic so I wont own up or apologize for what they did either. If this does not make any sense to you I recommend you read the red letters in the Bible.

BA out!