So why has Christianity led to so much violence?

When one thinks of the most violent cultures, it seems that most of them are imbued with Christian values. Why is it that Christian culture has given rise to people like King Leopold, Stalin, Hitler, as well as Colonialism and the many American wars? Why is it that in our free society, people raised with Christian values follow their right-wing leaders like sheep into crimes against humanity?

Don't get me wrong, in the arts and sciences and in the development of democracy, Christianity has been great, but in its treatment of humanity, it's track record is one of destruction time and again. And now we see the rise of Christianity in the United States and at the same time we see that bigots and war mongers are gaining in power. There are, of course, good Christians, but they generally do not get control until after the bad ones do their damage.

Why have Christian values led to so much destruction?

The Huns weren't Christians. The Mongolian hordes weren't Christians. The Roman Empire wasn't comprised of Christians. The Aztec Empire wasn't Christian.

Throughout history, people have attacked, killed and subjugated other people.

It's humanity, not Christianity.

Yes, obviously before Christianity existed, it was not the most violent thing around. But, since the Middle Ages, I think it's been overall the most violent culture, certainly the most violent in terms of its crimes against other nations.

Was Stalin a Christian? Were the Japanese that raped Nanking & killed millions of Chinese Christian? Pol Pot a Christian?

I think a more accurate assessment would be that religious conflict has created a lot of strife around the world throughout history.

and use that power to make themselves more secure. That goes for everyone.

Christians have been contending for power for a long time.

The drawback of religions is that they can't change the essential nature of a person. If someone is bad, religion isn't going to change anything. A bad person is going to use the religion to justify what ever. A fair minded person will remain so what ever their religion.

That is why there are evil and good people in all religions. The same goes with atheists.

because we are taught mostly the history of the west, and that has been Christian history, largely. People estimate that Genghis Khan killed a larger percentage of the world's population than any other leader. His successors were no more polite. The ancient Greeks, Egyptians, Sumerians, Romans, etc, all fought under the banners of their gods, and all shed lots of blood. There have been horrific slaughters in other cultures even in modern times--Pol Pot, Rwanda.

I think religion is just an excuse people use. Anytime a leader goes to war, he justifies it through his religion. God is always on every side. Just the name of the God changes a lot.

the religion of Christianity superceded the teachings of Jesus. Let's remember that the Christian churches we know today didn't spring up in AD 33; they evolved over time. And as they did, the power and responsibility of the individual over his own life/soul was taken away and given to intermediaries-a priest class, if you will-so that others would have power. The Council of Niacia is the most famous of the early church councils which decided what books went into the Bible. There are several other Gospels, many of which are more mystical in nature (which means that emphasis is on the individual having a direct link with God rather than having to go through a priest or minister), which were left out. Check out the Gospel of Thomas sometime, or read The Lost Books of the Bible for more.

Many of the early church fathers weren't interested as much in saving souls as consolidating power. Remember that all this really started happening when Emporer Constantine recognized Christianity as the official state religion. If one views church history from the power standpoint rather than the religious aspect, what has happened in Chrisitianity's name becomes what it really is, for the most part-what was done for power and control, using Christianity as an excuse.


Chrisitianity isn't the only faith where this has happened; you are seeing it to some extent in Islam, with the decrees of certain mullahs, etc. But Islam, by and large, does not recognize a priest class and believes in personal responsibility and a direct link between the individual and God (the latter is something one finds in the mystical sects of all religions; in fact, when mystics get together, little is said about the different faiths; instead, one gloires in sharing in the Unity of God).

I'm no defender of historical Christianity, but your post is just factually wrong. The mixing of state Hellenistic politics and a semitic religion creates lots of problems and ugliness.

1) "And as they did, the power and responsibility of the individual over his own life/soul was taken away and given to intermediaries-a priest class, if you will-so that others would have power."
***Have you never read the Acts of the Apostles? Have you never read ANY of the Pauline epistles?

2) It's spelled Nicea. Goodness, if you're going to cite the first ecumenical council, please at least spell it correctly.

3) Nicea DID NOT "decide" which books went into the canon. It was primarily concerned with the Arian heresy and sought to define and make concrete the trinitarian relationship between Father and Son.

4) "There are several other Gospels, many of which are more mystical in nature (which means that emphasis is on the individual having a direct link with God rather than having to go through a priest or minister)"
***This is just a silly statement. More "mystical" in nature? What does this mean? Did you mean "gnostic?" Mystical and gnostic ARE NOT the same thing.

5) "Many of the early church fathers weren't interested as much in saving souls as consolidating power. Remember that all this really started happening when Empire Constantine recognized Christianity as the official state religion. If one views church history from the power standpoint rather than the religious aspect, what has happened in Christianity's name becomes what it really is, for the most part-what was done for power and control, using Christianity as an excuse."
***Funny, let's go back to that First ecumenical council thingy again: "Nor was Constantine the last emperor to side with the Arians. Athanasius writes concerning this in "The Monks' History of Arian Impiety' (AD 358) saying, 'When did a decision of the Church receive its authority from the emperor?' and 'never did the fathers seek the consent of the emperor for them , nor did the emperor busy himself in the Church.' He goes on to say that the heretics banded with the emperor. (See Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume I, by William Jurgens)."
Constantine held many Arian beliefs, beliefs which were HERETICAL in the early Church.

Perhaps you should preface your posts concerning the early history of the Church with a disclaimer.

about the history than I do, and I'm not a great speller :). But it is true that early church councils did decide which books went into the Bible and which didn't. And yes, I've read the Epistles. I have my own opinion about Paul, and how he changed the message and teachings of Jesus from one of liberation and blessing to condemnation and self-loathing. That, again, is my interpretation of what I have read. But I still stand by my opinions about the mystical texts. I am talking mystical here, not gnostic. Mysticism deals with direct experience with God, dying before death, reaching Unity, and a lot more that really can't be put into words.

What I found interesting about your post was your talk of Hellenistic politics. As I recall from World History class, Constantine was converted because Jesus appeared to him on a battlefield-he won the battle, and so converted. And I seem to recall that Popes had their own armies later on, and weilded considerable political power on the European stage. Would this have happened if Christianity had not been set up in a hierarchial order? If it were everyone for himself to find salvation, what need would there be of a Pope?

But back to Greece-got me thinking of something you may find interesting. You will not argue that the early teachings of Jesus were often written down in Greek-I believe that is a correct historically (if not, please kindly correct me). What is interesting about that is that Greek language is very different from Aramaic and Hebrew. Basic concepts and ideas cannot be expressed in the same way. To quote Neil Douglas-Klotz, religious scholar and Sufi Murshid, from his book "Desert Wisdom", using an analogy to compare Greek and Aramaic forms of scripture--

...Imagine, for example, trying to render the Tao Te Ching exclusively from a Latin version, then suddenly discovering it was composed (or at least originally spoken) in Chinese.

Same thing here-in fact, he goes on to expound upon the basic differences in thinking between the Greeks and the Semites. Greeks see things as seperate, apart; light is a particle. In Aramaic and ancient Hebrew, things can have multiple aspects; light is a particle but also a wave.

You may find Douglas-Klotz's various books about Christianity's mystical aspects interesting. I would recommend "Desert Wisdom" and "Prayers of the Cosmos", which deals in most part with the Lord's Prayer.

can you recommend a good source to read more about this?

wrote another book called "Those Incredible Christians" which, if memory serves, takes a look at the early Christian Church. "A Brief History of God" is good for looking at how people's concepts of God have changed over time. "Original Blessing" by Matthew Fox is another good read.

I asked about the underlying anger.

He responded that one reason could be the moral indignation of being rebuffed. He rhetorically asked what if I had THE ANSWER to all problems on Earth (read, Jesus and salvation), I tried to offer to non-believers (read, impose) and they either said "No thank you" or worse. That kind of rebuffing would start as disappointment and grow into indignation and anger. Some believers might become fanatics, where being "right" was more important than living their faith, and they could end up persecuting those who were different from their faith.

I myself could intellectually understand the rabbi's point, but emotionally, this position is so foreign to my way of looking at things. I could never impose my views on the next person. I don't think I'm "right" and can be persuaded provided valid evidence is presented and I'm allowed to be an independent thinker.

"being right is more important than living thier faith"

All modern religion has pretty much devolved into this.

I'm am not talking about only Christianity but any religion. Religion has as it's core a set of beliefs that you are supposed to adhere to. Now if one of these core beliefs is that other people should be hurt then the religion delivers an organized mass to do the bidding of those in power.

People in the South used religion to promote segregation. It us used today to promote hatred against gays.

Imagine no religion. It's easy if you try. Nothing to kill or dye for. Above us only sky.

Both sides in the Civil War thought they would win because they had God on their side.

medicine man's juju would make them impervious to the white man's machine gun bullets.

It has nothing to do with the religion. It has everything with amoral leaders using religion as a tool and an excuse. They do so in “Gods Name” to give themselves an aura of “moral righteousness”. This makes it easier to get people following the popular religion of the nation behind them.

If America as a nation of Muslims it would still be the same problem. Everything would be done in the name of Allah and Islam.

The leaders have their own agenda and many Christians such as myself are very much against this war and the policies behind it. Unfortunately others do not want to think for themselves but be told what is right and wrong. IT has always been this way for Euqope and America.

The key here is EDUCATION

Think Leo Strauss.

it is oddly true that this current admin. wears its belief system on its shirt sleeve for all the world to see and it is not my imagination that leads me to believe that their thought is if your not "one of us" you are "one of them"

my fall back position is always John Lennon's "Imagine" it may be a little utopian but its better than what we have now.

I doubt an self confessed atheist would ever get a positino into power in the government that is very forward facing to the public

I mean, when Saul sends David to wipe out one of those other "ite" tribes and bring back 300 (or, was it 600?) foreskins of the enemy or when God demands that a whole tribe be slaughtered because one of them pissed on a wall, you can figure that it's not exactly love and compassion that's the driving force in the religion.

what you wrote might answer the question, "why has Judaism led to so much violence," but that wasn't the question.

Jesus was an observant Jew. Jews, Christans, Muslims, are all "people of the book" and claim the common ancestry of Abraham.

It may be convenient to abandon the connection of Christianity to Judaism, but if you buy a Christian Bible, it will contain the "Old Testament". I may be wrong, but I can think of no Christian Churches that adhere only to the New Testament.

It was centuries after Jesus' death that Christianity became a religion seperate from Judaism. Much as Protestantism broke away from Catholicism and became a new religion but still a "Christian" one.

In any event, my post was meant to be flippant.

A more realistic question would have been, "How has religion been used to justify violence?" Or, "What is it about the 3 religions founded in the Middle East that has led to so much violence"

And the chief point of that particular myth is that it is good to serve and be favored by God, because He will reward you - in David's case, with fighting prowess.

Not that you should go around killing non-Israelites and stealing their foreskins.

but of course, so does the enemy..

If you truly believe that God is on your side, you cannot lose..:(

and so.. EVERYONE loses..

there are no "winners' in a religious war. Religion , by its very structure, is a compilation of stories, and histories of events from the past, so NO slight, war, trauma is EVER forgotten.. It just gets added to the dogma, like necklace beads strung on wire.. Everything that "happens" to a group of a particular sect, cult, faith is just another bead on that necklace. The stories get longer, but they are still told and retold to each new generation, and the young take on the grudges and grievances of their parents.

Remember Kosovo? They were supposedly fighting about a massacre that happened a thousand years ago..

and now WE are re fighting the Crusades...

with thise.

Those things developed in europe in spite of the church, not because of it.


And i don't think its christianity per se, its human beings mixed with dogmatic belief systems, whether they be fascism, communism, Islam, Hindu, Christian...

Art, science and democracy have progressed in spite of religon, not because of it.

Isn't it amazing how comfortable the believer can be with revisionism?

Julie

The Vatican, for all its faults (and there are many), was a great patron of the arts. If you've ever been to continental Europe, you have to give the Vatican its due in this regard. Whatever it's motives, religion gave rise to the visual arts and, despite it's intents, enabled free thinking and religion and science to prosper. My biggest complaint about Christianity is that it has fostered more hate and violence than any other religion.

Patronage of the arts must indeed have compelled them to vandalize the Roman temples full of statues it took a thousand years for them to produce the likes of.

The entire Western musical tradition evolved and was codified in church settings.

The traditionally Christian areas have by far the most complex and sophisticated choral tradition in the world (southern Africa and the Pacific Islands are a distant second), and it was fostered almost entirely within the churches until the nineteenth century.

There's nothing comparable to the choral music of Monteverdi, Bach, Bortniansky, Mozart, or the other great Eastern and Western European choral composers anywhere else in the world, and the notational systems developed in the churches allowed composers to write down increasingly complex instrumental music as well. (Even the secular and folk choruses of the Soviet era in Eastern Europe used musical conventions and vocal techniques first developed in churches.)

Other than that your wrong i believe.

The church did not in any way encourage or support free thinking in any way. The church in Europe was in the main reactionary and oppressive.

The rise of Art, Science and philosophy (to include democracy) as we know and have the benefit of today was spawned from the enlightenment. The Church of Europe had absolutely nothing to do with this radicalism and in spite of the church this gave us what we appreciate today in terms of democracy, political thought and science

The problem is not Christianity. It stems from a dangerous mix of right-wing socio-political movements that have throughout history found a natural constituency in religious fundamentalism. Both are usually reactions to cultural and technological advances (i.e., cyclical religious revivals, like the 'The Great Awakening' of the early 1800s, and the Modern Revival that started in the late 1970s/early 1980s and continues today in this country), and both aim to achieve power over a perceived enemy (e.g., the 'persecution complex' of fundies) justified by a manipulation of ideology and language. There is no tolerance for dissent or questioning as they whip themselves into a group belief that their physical safety and social order is being attacked. Add to that the tendency of those who hold opposing views (usually the normative views of the particular society) to feel intimidated and confused by the irrational behavior in their communities, and retreat rather than confront the revivalists.

The revivalists usually come to power for a time, and then splinter as they begin to identify one another as 'the enemy' (e.g., who is the 'better Christian') after they've vanquished all of the undesirables on their violent powergrab and are left with no one else to fill that void necessary to feed their persecution complex. The cycle ends when they lose power and society accepts the new social and/or technological advances that made folks feel threatened to begin with (e.g., "those lesbians got married and the sky didn't eventally fall, so back to living rationally").

The violence is not due to Christianity - it is due to the irrational group fear that results from religious revivals (ideologically-driven, methodical violence as fight or flight on a society-wide scale, perhaps?).

The good thing is 'this too shall pass' - it always does, I just hope it happens sooner than later in the case of the current violent revival we're in the midst of.

***
A good read from Katherine Yurica's 'Bloodguilty Churches':

The GOP, joined by a chorus from the religious-right and the neo-conservatives who have sought to advance Mr. Bush’s power have all watched admiringly as he struts across the stage of America’s political theatre. Lassoing and exaggerating the importance of three issues highly susceptible to emotion baiting and a charged current of fear and irrationality, clever men have hijacked the churches into believing they have taken the moral high ground in America.<60>

The churches laud Mr. Bush as a “moral man” simply because he is against any legal union between gays, against any abortion and essentially (for all practical purposes) against stem cell research.

Sadly the churches and Mr. Bush have no knowledge of God. They are completely ignorant that in the Bible, the existence of ten righteous people in one of the cities would have been sufficient to spare Sodom and Gomorrah from destruction,<61> but ten righteous people are insufficient to spare the nation that refuses to defend the rights of the needy!<62> And what is perhaps even more significant, God equates the lying of church leaders—the false prophets of Jeremiah’s day, their adultery, and their encouragement of evil doers to be no different than the sins of those living in Sodom and Gomorrah.<63> The problem with today’s church leaders is that they refuse to confess their own adulterous acts while condemning the most hated and reviled members of American society—like poor Matthew Shepard—heaping vile abuse and death upon others so the eyes of churchgoers are always directed away from themselves, insuring that others will always be the scapegoats.<64>

Roman Catholic Bishops, while urging and even threatening their parishioners to vote only for those candidates who oppose abortion and gay unions, <65> hid active pedophiles from discovery and refuse to subject priests to prosecution for their criminal acts. If that is not enough, the Bishops have removed the churches’ auditing program on known pedophiles.<66> One is forced to ask, which sin is the greater—or which act does the most damage—the pedophiles or the consenting adult gays? <67>

Nor do the protestant churches have any excuse; they are shepherds over flocks living in the Bible belt where the towns, counties and states have the largest number of divorces in the nation. While Jesus was silent about homosexuals, he was not silent about divorce. He called divorce a sin unless adultery was the reason for it.<68>

According to columnist Andrew Sullivan, “the states with the highest divorce rates in the U.S. are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas,” which just happen to make up so-called “red” states which overwhelmingly support George W. Bush.<69> On the other hand, the states “with the lowest divorce rates are: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont.” Sullivan points out, “Every single one of the low divorce rate states went for Kerry. The Bible Belt divorce rate…is roughly 50 percent higher than the national average.”<70>

Sullivan says, “A staggering 23 percent of married born-agains have been divorced twice or more.”<71> And who has the most teen births? In the state where preaching against teen sex is the strongest—teen pregnancies are the highest: Sullivan says, 16.1 percent of all births are teen births in Texas, but in liberal Massachusetts, “it’s 7.4 almost half.”<72>

How dare the churchgoers think of themselves as a moral army, preparing America for their rule! Yet they protect pastors accused of adultery and homosexuality,<73> while they condemn without mercy “humanists” and “liberals” in America who follow the teachings of Jesus and seek to protect and provide for the poor and do justice.

There's a grave discrepancy between what the Bible says and what the churches are doing: the Bible makes it clear that Christians can associate with anyone who lives in this world. And what is even more significant, a Christian may not judge non-Christians! Even if Christians are the majority, they may not make laws that deny civil liberties to people because of alleged sexual sins. St. Paul makes it clear: a Christian's area of influence in such matters is restricted to the confines of church membership where members must expel an immoral offender from their midst: slanderers, liars, deceivers, the fearful and those involved in adultery or pedophilia comes to mind. Those members may not keep their church membership (1 Corinthians 5 : 9-13). The churches in America, however, have it just the opposite: they point their accusatory fingers at everyone outside their churches, and they seek to deny non-members civil rights, but never even look at their own hearts and guilty souls.

Katherine Yurica has done a fantastic job of exposing the agenda of the Dominionists.

And "Bloodgulity Churches" provides a Bible-based rationale for liberal/progressive values.

The entire piece is available at her website, Yurica Report http://www.yuricareport.com/ at this URL http://www.yuricareport.com/Religion/TheBloodGuiltyChurches.html
and an abbreviated version that is specifically aimed at domestic policies (social programs, environmental, judicial/tort reform) is available. It is titled "Congressional Handbook" and is available as a PDF here http://www.yuricareport.com/Congress/CongressionalHandbook.pdf

***

DOMINIONISM

Fundamentalist Radical Clerics such as Falwell, Dobson, and Robertson are not merely medieval throwbacks or misguided religious hacks. They are part of a well organized subversionary movement known as "Dominionism".

Dominionism constitutes a serious threat to American Democracy. These Radical Clerics have developed and are executing a detailed plan to gradually replace the free, secular democratic society of the United States with a Theocracy.

It is critical that people become aware of the extreme agenda these people have for the United States and ultimately for the world. The results of the 2004 Presidential Election were not a fluke or something that was drummed up over a period of months. It has been in planning for over 20 years, and what we are seeing take place now is, in the words of Katherine Yurica, "the swift advance of a planned coup".

The articles below are critical for understanding the Dominionist movement; for realizing how real and how detailed their plans are; and to become aware of how far they have come toward achieving their goals.

The Swift Advance of a Planned Coup: Conquering by Stealth and Deception - How the Dominionists Are Succeeding in Their Quest for National Control and World Power
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheSwiftAdvanceOfaPlannedCoup.htm

The Despoiling of America: How George W. Bush became the head of the new American Dominionist Church/State
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm

religion than all other reasons combined.

Disease kills more people than all our petty warlords, for all their murderous intent, could ever dream of killing.

my bad

Where it should be noted that the old-testament values that the reli-fundi "Christians" seem to adhere to (and seem to want everyone else to adhere to), do in fact pre-date the birth of Christ.

Christians are not bound to Old Testament Mosaic Law - the new covenant of Christ's death and suffering for the sins of all mankind means that the old covenant of Old Testament laws are no longer necessary. To Christians, no amount of lawful obedience is equivalent to God's own blood sacrifice on our behalf. Christ was the complete fulfilment of Old Testament prophesy, and the prophetic age came to an end with His death (the new convenant). "This is my body... This is the cup of my blood. The blood of the new and everlasting covenant, it will be shed for you and for all ..." It replaces the old convenant of rules and rituals that God gave Moses and the prophets.

Christians who point to Old Testament law as binding are often looking for justification for their rigid behavior or views. Fundamentalism is fundamentally not Christian.

PS to BabyMouse: I'm a Christian (a gay Catholic one at that) and I've also done a lot of drugs, and in neither case am I ever violent. I happen to like both Christianity and even a few drugs now and then, but I hate violence. Violence results from irrational fear. I think the root of it all is poverty - Christ taught that poverty was the key to changing the world. I believe that. Poor folks on drugs are violent because they're poor, not because they're on drugs or Christians. The Reverened Martin Luther King, Jr. comes to mind...

1. Christianity actually contains a lot of violent imagery
2. It contains a lot of contradictory ideology and cognitive dissonance leads to deep frustrations which lead to irrational behaviour
3. Much of its ideology runs against human nature and thus creates subtextual discontinuities that cause deep frustration in its believers
4. It's a hypnotic belief system, spreading itself through reassurance, personal isolation and dumbing down, hence it's eaiser to do stupid dangerous things on Christianity
5. It's addictive, people on Christianity need fixes and if external evidence suggests counter-theory the reaction of the Christian is not to question his/her belief but to leap back to the next fix.

Christianity is a drug. Drugs go with violence.

Religion is often used as a pretext for "overriding" empathy, for instance, by appeal to an afterlife; however, this is not a logical connection of religion with violence. What does exist is a historical connection of religion with violence. The appeal to the supernatural to claim that the violence natural empathy decries accomplishes some useful or beneficial supernatural effect such as punishing enemy heretics or elevated status in the afterlife.

The same effect can be honestly achieved by presenting risk assessments and cost/benefit analyses, but these are far more difficult to convey, and rarely find the understanding or emotional support required to recruit a public following.

For instance, our "fearless leaders" may hypothetically be aware of an impending crisis so dire it requires the conquest of major global resources and the vanquishing or even genocide of foreign nations to partially preserve the US' standard of living or to effect a transition to methods of sustaining this standard of living. Arguing this openly will likely confuse most less-educated people and "telegraph" their plans via overly broad dissemination that forewarns the intended victims. Propagandizing, even with violence against their own people, could be considered a "valid" alternative in this context since the honest discussion with 300 million people is infeasible and the losses incurred with the false flag attacks and ensuing warfare are sufficiently less than the losses to be incurred from the crisis.

Of course, after all of what's going on and the general level of incompetence demonstrated, no one really expects anything quite so beneficent of them. Rather, it's a hypothetical discussion of how some transparency could be brought to imperialism without using religion as a propaganda technique, and how religion as a propaganda technique could be used to compensate for the failure of open, honest discussion.

In any event, what happens at least behind closed doors is more like the risk assessment and cost/benefit analysis of the "open society" deciding to engage in warfare on economic or geopolitical grounds. The ultimate difference is that we, the people, are neither included in these discussions nor are we the beneficiaries of these manuevers, but rather cannon fodder and wage slave laborers serving to advance the imperialist regime with no effective compensation.

get the people all angry and ready to fight. Leaders have used religion in this way long before Christianity. Christianity just so happens to have been "involved" in many violent acts over the last several centuries- during which people have been able to write about it.

The persecution and killing of Jesus offers up basically two roles: victim
or victimizer. Most people quite rightly don't want to be the victim. But
for those fixated on the central drama of Christianity there is another
role that lurks in the subconcious: victimizer. This has lead to an easy
reversing of the role of Christians: Persecuting others in the name of
Christ.

Let's face it: Jesus is a hard act to live up to. Personally, I don't think as
humans we are supposed to attempt it. I think we are supposed to be
the best humans possible, and recognize that, unlike us, Jesus was a holy
force of pure goodness. I think our attempts to be Christ-like lead to
a vigilante-type thinking that in turn leads to condeming others. We
need to be content to be human, and leave judgement to God.

Stalin? You wish to include him in this discussion on Christianity?

... and Russia is largely Christian

his massacres and repressions occurred because he was obsessively paranoid and unable to take responsibility for his own failings. If something went wrong in the USSR, he scapegoated everyone from his own former Bolshevik colleagues on down.

He was terribly repressive toward the Russian Orthodox Church, to the extent of dynamiting historic churches or forcibly turning them to secular purposes and imprisoning clergy and other strong believers.

He let up only during World War II, when he needed the loyalty of all Russians and thought it would be better if he didn't alienate a large portion of the population.

My point is simply that Christianity seems to have inadvertently fostered some of the worst tyrants in history, of which Stalin is one. He came out of a culture that was influenced and shaped by Christianity, as did Hitler, as did King Leopold, as did the European Colonialists, as did the American invaders of Iraq.

The left looks at Hitler and points to Christianity...the right looks at Hilter and points to Darwinism. I guess it's a matter of perspective.

"Why have Christian values led to so much destruction?"

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

You have not shown a cause and effect relationship, only a coincidence in time. And which caused which? Perhaps bad behavior caused the weirdness in religion, and maybe the weirdness in religion caused bad behavior. You can't even say for sure which came first, much less that one caused the other.

It is my belief (unfounded and unfettered by facts) that religion is a result of and response to bad behavior, not the cause. But that's another thread I guess.

were Greece and Persia. They had technology that allowed them to be so.

Then Rome came along in the West. It was weakened by the Germanic tribes in the West, and Gothic/Slavic tribes in the East, at precisely the wrong time.

The Islamic empires inherited much of Roman/Hellenistic technology, and they were the bloodiest, conquering from India (and points east) to Spain. It took a while for the local squabbles in Europe to settled down to counter the Islamic conquests, and for European technology regain a state where it could rival it. We don't like mentioning it, because it implies that Islam was spread by the sword. But along with the usual bloodshed in Europe, there was the Ottoman expansion in the Renaissance into SE Europe, stopped only near Vienna.

When European technology surpassed the Muslim's, their days were numbered. Internecine warfare among various Muslim states along the way helped retard the spread of Islam.

In the New World, Olmecs, Aztecs, Mayans all engaged in bloodthirsty wars. But given no way to cover large distances, they had surprisingly small, bloodthirsty empires. Such warfare continued in small battles all through the Amazon. But for a while we wanted to think of the Europeans as 'infecting' the New World with violence.

The same can probably be said for Han and Bantu expansion, for the Indo-Europeanization of Europe and the Indian subcontinent. But we don't retain records of those expansions.

We retain no record of the Na-Dene and Algonquian expansions in the New World, or the expansions in South America (apart from what the Incas said of themselves). We know that many villages in Central Europe c. 400 AD were heavily fortified; we don't know who the attackers were.

We study what's important to us, and the records we have. Most of the warfare in the world is of scant interest to we Americans, obsessed with our own interests and concerns, and written in specialized works or in languages other than English. Many cultures came to literacy late, so we don't have a detailed 2000 year written history. And most other cultures aren't as willing to wallow in the sins of our cultural ancestors.

From the persecution of Gnostics and other sects in the first few centuries, the burning of books and destruction of schools, through the Inquisition, the Witch Hunts, right up to today's pedophile priests, Christianity has inflicted more suffering on mankind than Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Kahn, Pol Pot and all the "really bad guys" combined. It has been a 2,000 year nightmare of violence, intolerance, torture, murder, destruction and child molestation.

The Religious Right is out of control and is exerting a greater and greater influence on our society. They are flexing their muscles in the political process, the economy and our entire culture. Let us remember that the first time Christianity spread rapidly and gained control of the government (in Rome from 200 - 500 AD) it resulted in the utter collapse of Western Civilization and ushered in 1,000 years of darkness, superstition, ignorance and suffering. Finally, after a millennium of Darkness, mankind began to see the Dawn of The Age of Reason and The Enlightenment. Humanity recovered some dignity, science was freed from the chains of religious superstition and real progress began.

The Constitution of the United States of America was one of the crowning achievements of The Enlightenment, being a document for the Establishment of a government that did NOT MAKE ONE SINGLE REFERENCE TO "GOD". With the establishment of the United States, government as well as science was freed from the domination of religious superstition. Now, every day in the news there is some story about how the religionists are exerting their influence. Radical Clerics like James Dobson and Jerry Falwell get air time on network news. Religionists are organizing and boycotting businesses that do not adhere to their version of personal morality.

The specter of religious superstition is once again casting a frightening shadow over our world. The ghosts and demons of the Dark Ages, once believed to be banished forever by Reason, are again haunting our culture. Christianity destroyed civilization once before - it could happen again.

****
****

The Freethought Zone
Science and Reason Over Religion and Superstition
http://freethought.freeservers.com

Freedom from Religion Foundation
http://www.ffrf.org /

Secular Humanism
http://www.secularhumanism.org

Secular Web
http://www.infidels.org/index.shtml

You still have no evidence to substantiate the cause and effect relationship. If Christianity caused Torquemada to be evil, then how do you explain Francis of Assisi or Mother Theressa? How do you know Torquemada did not have a lithium imbalance? How do you know that he would not have behaved just as atrociously in a secular society.

To show causal relationship logically you must show several things such as:
1. A given cause in similar circumstances always has the same effect.
2. A given cause is always prior to the effect.
3. A cause or causal relation is always connected to events.
4. A given kind of effect is repeatable by the use of similar causal connections in relatively similar circumstances.

Re:#1 Your conclusion cannot explain Francis of Assisi (same cause, opposite result)
Re:#2 You cannot show that the evil men involved were not evil before they found religion.
Re:#3 Not all evil events are connected to religion. Not all religion is connected to evil events.
Re:#4 Introduction of Christianity under similar circumstances does not always lead to evil behavior.

In summary, I have just as much evidence (none) to support my theory that evil caused religion as you have to show that religion caused evil. And as long as your basic premise is unproven, ALL of your conclusions are unproven.


HA!!!! Nobody ever expects the Spanish Inquisition!

and can take credit for creating an environment where learning was valued. This learning led to great achievements in the arts and sciences, as well as in the evolution of democracy.

An unfortunate byproduct of religion, especially Christianity is that it allowed the growth of xenophobia and proseletyzing, both of which permitted grave violence against others. People like Stalin, Hitler, King Leopold, the Colonialists, Bush, etc., are direct byproducts of Christian arrogance. They were raised in and empowered by cultures imbued with Christian values. They are what Christian culture turned out.

Again, Christian has turned out many great people, too, but they are rarely strong enough or mean enough to stop the rise of evil.

That your premise is correct. But there has been no logically valid argument made in this thread to substantiate that. See points 1 through 4 above.

Again, if your basic premise is unproven, all your conclusions are unproven. All that is left is your faith in something you can't prove. Good luck with that!

Ok, your argument is reproduced below. I have used find/replace to substitute "Nazism" for "Christianity"; other find/replace substitutions have been made to keep the argument consistent and the cases parallel. Where there has been a substitution, the word is in bold. Just read it and get a feel for how the basic argument feels.


You still have no evidence to substantiate the cause and effect relationship. If Nazism caused the Holocaust, then how do you explain that Schindler guy who saved Jews? How do you know Hitler did not have a lithium imbalance? How do you know that he would not have behaved just as atrociously in a non-fascist society?

To show causal relationship logically you must show several things such as:
1. A given cause in similar circumstances always has the same effect.
2. A given cause is always prior to the effect.
3. A cause or causal relation is always connected to events.
4. A given kind of effect is repeatable by the use of similar causal connections in relatively similar circumstances.

Re:#1 Your conclusion cannot explain Schindler(same cause, opposite result)
Re:#2 You cannot show that the evil men involved were not evil before they found fascism.
Re:#3 Not all evil events are connected to fascism. Not all fascism is connected to evil events.
Re:#4 Introduction of Nazism under similar circumstances does not always lead to evil behavior.

In summary, I have just as much evidence (none) to support my theory that evil caused fascism as you have to show that fascism caused evil. And as long as your basic premise is unproven, ALL of your conclusions are unproven.

HA!!!! Nobody ever expects the Spanish Inquisition!

No, they sure don't!

But after reading the modified argument, I still think that Nazism is an evil, destructive force. Likewise, I am still convinced that Christianity is an evil, destructive force. That fact that there were some good people in Nazi Germany, and that there have been some good Christians all thru history does not change the fact that both basic systems are evil and lead to harm and suffering of the human race.

Go find ANY logic text book, that's where I get my information. Look up the necessary elements for proving causality. Then show how those elements have been demonstrated.

My Source: An Introductory Logic by William J. Kilgore, Professor of Logic at Baylor University, Pages 267 and 268, Ninth Edition, Published by Holt, Rinehart and Winston, originally copyrighted 1968, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 68-30722. (Yes, I saved my text book for 30 years for just such an occasion as this.)

It is OK to have faith in your belief. But it is not OK to substitute faith for fact. You conclude with: "I still think. . ." and "I am still convinced. . ." and you are welcome to that. But you conclusion that the systems lead to evil is not substantiated. I did not say it was wrong, I said that it is not proved (or provable). Your find/replace tactic only proves that your hypothesis about Nazism is also logically invalid.

In order to prove any conclusion that A caused B you must meet certain conditions. Those conditions have not been met.

for the same reason.

Your logic is indeed correct. It follows the conventions of formal logic, which are necessarily true.

My argument was an appeal to emotion; I deliberately selected an example which has strong emotional connotation. Further, it used analogy. Both of these techniques frequently result in fallacious thinking. You caught me.

However, I do think that the example of Nazism - in addition to be emotionally charged - is a clear counterexample to the notion that an ideology can be morally absolved by dismissing it's atrocities as having been done "in the name of..."

Imagine someone saying, "Yes, some Nazis instigated wars of aggression and conquest, and they systematically exterminated Jews, homosexuals, and gypsies. But although those and many other things were done in the name of Nazism, but they do not represent the true spirit of the Nazi Party. Nazism is about pride in the Teutonic Heritage, and patriotism for the Fatherland. It is not really about all those bad things that were done in it's name. Besides, that was over 50 years ago. Today's Nazis are peaceful and loving."

You could apply formal logic to that scenario, and make a case that Nazi-haters are committing the logical fallacy of generalizing beyond the data. But somehow, that does not seem adequate. Our moral intuitions are not satisfied. We inherently grasp that there is something in Nazism that begets violence, despite the protestations of it's defenders. And this was the essence of the original topic that started this thread ("So why has Christianity led to so much violence?").

I do not dispute your logic. My argument does not carry the weight of logical necessity. It relies on induction and generalization. But as Hume demonstrated, if you consistently apply formal logic and do not generalize you will end up in total skepticism. There is no necessary connection between any one thing and any other; knowledge is impossible; there are only generalizations which are merely statements of previous observed trends which are not logically necessary.

We know (sic) that is not true, and epistemology took answering Hume as it's primary task for many years. But now I digress...so have you seen the movie "I Heart Huckabees"? The title track from the soundtrack is Jon Brion's "Knock Yourself Out", lyrics below:

Knock Yourself Out

It’s something unattainable
That you can’t live without
And now the unexplainable
Has you riddled with doubt

Things begin Things decay
And you’ve gotta find a way
To be ok
But it you want to spend the day
Wond’ring what it’s all about
Go and knock yourself out

Why were put in this mess
Is anybody’s guess
It might be a test
or it might not be anything
You need to worry about
But if you’re still in doubt
Go and knock yourself out

"morally absolved by dismissing it's atrocities"

I hope you don't believe that was my intent. Rather, my contrarian argument(an equally invalid argument)is that evil caused religion. If you wish to cut down a tree, you get an axe. If you want to kill a million people, you get a religion. But you can use a chainsaw or a bulldozer instead of an axe just as you can use a nationalism or racism instead of a religion. In most of the cases of religious violence mentioned in this thread there was underlying racist or nationalistic content. Another reason not to accept the "Christian cause" argument.

In your counter example you seem to shift effortlessly between Nazi actions and Nazi beliefs, just as the anti-Christians tend to do. Christian and Nazi values are subjective not objective. You can't change back and forth from objectivity to subjectivity without losing validity.

As far as: "My argument does not carry the weight of logical necessity." You have impugned the beliefs of 250 million Americans and a bunch of foreigners. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

And I believe we are all grateful to Aristotle and Des Carte for knocking themselves out.

... that Christian cultures have given rise to so many terrible leaders who committed so many atrocities? Or, perhaps you think the genetic makeup of Europeans gave rise to a religion that in turn gave rise to so many terrible leaders? Either way, it's not a positive statement on Christianity. And that said, of course, there are a great many good Christians, and perhaps if it wasn't for them, there would have been even more tyrants from "Christian" nations.

on western history within the context of christianity. There is a whole world of history out there from the indians to the zulus to the chinese. Lots of bad things have went on over the centuries with all groups.

Perhaps too much of world history is not as documented as that of the west. Why is that?

Perhaps too we have become eurocentric in our views and so we look at our own failings and give a pass to others. From the jews to the aztecs the world has been an ugly place at times, as well as a beautiful one.

Many christians have devoted their lives to helping others (as have people of other faiths) but they don't get the press. Get one bad person who labels themselves X and we come down on all of X. How many 'christians' died trying to stop hitler? Does anyone care?

It also relates to proximity, but I do not believe that it is genetic.

Consider the Maya. They were an extremely violent people before the Christians arrived. They used the religion that was closest to them to justify that violence. After Christianity arrived, they became a relatively peaceful people. The same for the Incas to a lesser extent. They were not quite as violent as the Maya. (Speaking Generally) (point 4 above, same circumstances but NOT the European result)

Christianity was the best available religion in Europe. Just as a chainsaw is better than an axe, but less destructive than a bulldozer. You pick the best tool in the tool shed.

"it's not a positive statement on Christianity." Well said. But I am an atheist and I refuse to defend Christianity against anything except bad logic. But, "there are a great many good Christians" and it is not logical to paint them all with the Torquemada brush. (point 1 above)

What if we could remove extenuating circumstances from the equation. Take Nationalism, Racism, and Capitalism out of the equation and what do you get. Would Theism look as bad? Worse? Of course, we can't tell, but it seems to me that it is removing some of the straws from the camel's back.

If you disagree, please let me know your thoughts on that.

It's people who distort christianity and use it for their own reasons. I don't think true christianity is the problem. It's the same type of people who misuse other religions like Islam.

Well, whatever else you may think about the guy, he sure was right about THAT one.