archaeologist

That doesn't matter, for you are not speaking from a position true knowledge of the topic but your own assumptions and mis-understandings. it is impossible for you to assess the truth of the issue when no one in your group possesses it or understands it.

I already know what atheists think of the Bible and it is not an excuse to distort and malign what is said in its pages. I am sure you would be very upset if i started to discuss atehism with non-atheists and we kept misrepresenting your words.

You would demand that we learn the truth and discuss that, so do the same with the Bible. The Bible is not violent, that is a total misleading of its accounts and the Op is not started with the an objective intent.

You should also include that all books and movies on all the wars inhistory as violent for they do the same thing as the Bible, record punishment, death, and other violent acts. To seperate religious writings ito their own category simply because they record acts you do not like is wrong.

The Bible is full of examples to communicate with you the simple lesson, whichyou refuse to learn, that God punishes sin and you will be punished for yours.

No matter how hard you deny it, you cannot change the truth or what is coming. There is only one way to change your outcome.

archaeologist

<edit>

steve_bnk

I did not say all Christians are violent. Personaly as I read the NT, to be a Christian almost implies pacifism.

The Catholic Crusades ostensibly to 'free' the Holy Land and the early argression of Islam are a matter of histortical record generaly beyond dispute.

The bloody European Christian conflicts were soley Christians killing Christians. Most recently Northern Ireland, and the current Muslim sect violence in Iraq and elsewhere.

Throw in the Cathlolic Inqustion and its killing in the name of faith, along wirth the Catholic missionary histories.

Historicaly post Constantine Christianity has had a lot of blood on its hands, both from above and those that followed.

From what I read in the first Crusades Muslims and Jews were shoulder to shoulder. The reality is at the time the Catholic crusdaes rolled in Jews, Christians, Muslims had a general balance of peace.

Organized Christianity and Islam has always been about imposing the will of the few on the many. Christians interpret the NT as giving them a god ordaind mission to convert people tio their faith.

The Vatican still uses excommuncation and the loss of eternity as a threat, even agaist American Catholic politicians.

On a personal level I have no issue what so ever with religious faith. I even see it as a positive thing. Organized religion and interpretation of scriptures are the root of much historical violence.

If anything the long running absues of organized Chrtianity overshadow those that do good in the name of a faith. Faith seems to tell some to oppress and some to do good things.

Do you argue that only a Chrisitian can be a good person?

I'd also point out atheists do good as well without any religion at all.

As to judge's chair, I refer you to the Catholic pope and those like Pat Roberston on the protestant side, and the Iranian ayatolla. All of which place themselves as moral judge and jurey over humanity..

archaeologist

<edit>

Toto

He did more of a qualitative analysis. He noted that the destruction of the Amalekites was thorough, and that this genocide was used by later Christians as justification for the slaughter of their enemies (including American settlers fighting the heathen Native Americans.) In contrast, the destruction of the unbeliever in the Qur'an was confined to the actual war; once victory was achieved, the slaughter ended.

I don't know of any other religious writings that call for the destruction of nonbelievers. In fact, "belief" is not a characteristic of any non-Abriahamic religion that I can think of.

What other religious documents talk about warfare? In the Illiad and the Odyssey, war is part of the story, but is more a part of life than an exhortation. The depiction of warfare in the Mahabarata appears to be symbolic, and is not glorified.

steve_bnk

<edited>

Typical resposnes by Christians:

Christians are human and make mistakes.
Those other people are not Christians, but I am Christian.
'They' are attacking Chrtians.

Again, bloody conflicts have arisen over differing Christians. Our mythical Pilghrims were not fleeing atheists. Jews, or Muslims, they werer fleeing other Christians.

There are militant Christians who see the current conflicts in Afganistan and Iraq as a holy Christian battle against Islam.

I can't speak to other areas of the world, but here in the USA the resistance by atheists to Chrtianity and insistence on separation of church and state is a response to attempts by Christians to force biblical interpretation onto everyone. No one is forcing atheism on anyone. No once is attacking Christianity, we just want Chrtianity out of our lives unless we chose it.

Globaly Christianity has a long history of mssionary interfernce through today in cultures. Consider the Christianity forced on our Native Americans in the past up through the eraly 1900s.

By defintion a beliif in Christianity implies those that don't are wrong, a fundamantal moral judgement.

You can't get ariound it, organized Chrtainity through today is an invasive culture. as the bible itself days, the truth shall set you free.

The problem Chrtians have is that JC, who was a Jew, left no code, he did noit foiund a relgion, he was Jewsih and a rabai. As a result Chrtisnas are left with interpreting the patchwrok of the New Testamant which really has no definition of what a Chrtian is, Christians did not exist then. As aresult a Christian is anyone who says they have a faith in JC and god. Beyond that it is all interpretation.

From the NT

The meek shall inherit the Earth.
What you do to the least you do to me.
Turn the other cheek.
If asked for your cloak throw in your shirt.
Do not do as the hypocrites who wear their faith on their sleeves, pray in private.
Easier for a camel to pass the eye of the needle than a rich man getting into heaven.

As I read the NT I do not see how you can be anything but a pacifist, and I do not see how a Chrtian can reconcile the accumulation of materal things with the NT. James is pretty harsh on the wealthy.

Point being, all Chrtians end up taking a specific interortaion.

To the OP, Chrtianity has has a lot of violence due to issues of faith. Organized Christianity in the USA ids trying to force us all to fall under the bible, a form of violence.

OAO

The historical actions on the part of Christians and Muslims are not relevant. The question is, which texts sanction violence.

The OT is clearly bloody, with the genocide the Canaanites and brutal policies. However, genocides were only sanctioned in particular cases, not as a general rule. The NT is more ambiguous, but clearly shows a preference toward non-violent behavior.

The early parts of the Quran are most peaceful, but when Muhammad is rejected, he begins a crusade of violent conquest. Some of these acts are defensive, but many are not: he brutally murders Jews, for instance, and Sura 9 reads

Yeah, real merciful. You won't find that in the NT.

ApostateAbe

I get what you are saying, and I think the best way to get through to us is with reason. There is little use telling us to accept your dogmas, shaming us for refusing, and simply leaving it at that. Such a message will be dismissed the same as missionaries from the LDS church so often get the door closed in their faces. A good argument can be made with evidence. Or, you can tell us how our ways of thinking fails through reductio ad absurdum, which requires putting yourself in our shoes and telling us how such a viewpoint does not make sense. We already know that our way of thinking does not make sense from your perspective.

steve_bnk

In that context, the NT is non violent going by the words attributed to JC.

OAO

Something like that, but I'd be a little more hesitant to say that Jesus never sanctioned violence ("sell your cloak and buy a sword", John the Baptist didn't condemn soldiers, Jesus didn't scold the soldier who had great faith).