more boring rantings on religion.
In my Race, Religion, and Murder class today, a student did a presentation on violence in Christianity. Her main argument seemed to be that God created man in His image and since God was perfect, this meant man was to be perfect as well. Thus violence and Christianity were not compatible and they never were. Instead violence was regulated only to extremist fringe groups and was never a part of mainstream Christian theology. However, this theory completely ignores the entire history of Christianity. Here are a few of my long boring somewhat incoherent un-proofread stream of consciousness thoughts on religious violence with a focus on Christianity:
The Old Testament, in particular, is FULL of horrifically disturbing and violent acts. Some are perpetrated by man (even men as revered as Moses who slaughtered an Egyptian after making sure no one was looking in Exodus 2:12). However, other violent acts such as the plagues of Egypt and the murder of Egyptian children were committed by God Himself.
God even brags of his violent acts in Exodus 10:1-2 "And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him: And that thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son, and of thy son's son, what things I have wrought in Egypt, and my signs which I have done among them; that ye may know how that I am the LORD."
Countless other stories, such as that of Noah indicate the violent nature of God as portrayed in the Old Testament. God apparently felt it was necessary to murder every single living creature except for the minimum needed to continue the population. All of the three Abrahamic religions have their roots in violence and even seem to encourage it - at least when it is "justified," that is. But while some actions can theoretically be justified by theology (such as God punishing his opponents like the Egyptians or Christian antisemitism based upon the belief of a Jewish deicide and supersession), it is rather absurd to advocate such acts based solely on theological justification. An Islamic terrorist is just as certain in his beliefs as a fundamentalist Christian, but they can't both be right, can they? It is impossible to "prove" any one theology, however, so violence should definitely not be condoned by any religious group, in my opinion. Faith (because no matter how strong your convictions are, religion is FAITH and not FACT simply because it cannot be proved) should not lead to violence, although historically, it has.
In regards to Christianity specifically, the New Testament does seem to promote violence in some instances. There is a common belief that the God of the New Testament Christians is dramatically different than that of the Old Testament Jews. Perhaps the New Testament depictions of God are distinctly more civil, but violence is still present - even in the words of Jesus Himself. A Biblical passage I mentioned in class today is found in Matthew chapter 10 (specifically verse 34). The King James version of the Bible is directly quoting Jesus and reads "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
Furthermore, when foretelling the events of his arrest, Jesus instructs his disciples to acquire swords. Just after informing Peter of his forthcoming denial(s), Luke 22:36 states "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 19:27 quotes Jesus and appears to blatantly provide instruction to violence: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
While these passages are obviously subject to interpretation, it is absurd to deny that Christianity is devoid of violence - even at its origin. However, I will admit that the vagueness and controversial nature of the texts have allowed for countless interpretations. Perhaps the "sword" Jesus spoke of was meant metaphorically. But then how can one pick and choose which verses of the Bible are to be literal and which are to be figurative? Some groups (including the majority of Christians at certain historical times) definitely did interpret such verses as a call to arms.
These passages can all be interpreted in various ways, of course. But one shouldn't deny or minimize the history of violence in regards to religion. Most modern Christians do not promote violence, of course. But that is simply because theological interpretations have changed over time due to societal circumstances. Luckily, violence propagated by Christians is generally limited to fringe groups these days. But that does not mean that historically it has always been so. The persecution of Jews (historically from the time of Jesus through the Holocaust and even into modern times in some instances), the Crusades, the Catholic persecution of Protestants, and the Salem witch trials are just a few examples of obvious Christian fueled violence.
Personally, I believe the terrible atrocities of the Holocaust illuminated the problematic nature of violence being so intertwined with religion, but anti-Judaism was definitely nothing new at the time. Even Martin Luther wrote quite vitriolic antisemitic rants. The Holocaust was not a random isolated event but a culmination of ideas that were at least somewhat permeated with antisemitic Christian beliefs. However, I feel once people realized the true horrors of such violence on such a massive scale, Christianity began to shift its focus towards a more peaceful doctrine as it is today. I am by no means comparing the average modern Christian to Nazis, but the history of Christianity was very much intertwined with antisemitic thinking and violence. I would argue that it wasn't until after WWII that Christianity shifted its focus onto a strikingly more peaceful doctrine after finally realizing the terrible effects that some interpretations of Biblical texts could lead to.
Once again, I'm definitely not stating that modern popular/common Christianity as we know it promotes violence. I am talking solely in historical terms and want to emphasize the shift in doctrine and interpretation that took place primarily in the last century. This was definitely not meant as an attack on Christianity as we recognize it today (which is somewhat absurd but for different reasons), but this was merely a look at the historical context of violence in Christianity.
The Old Testament, in particular, is FULL of horrifically disturbing and violent acts. Some are perpetrated by man (even men as revered as Moses who slaughtered an Egyptian after making sure no one was looking in Exodus 2:12). However, other violent acts such as the plagues of Egypt and the murder of Egyptian children were committed by God Himself.
God even brags of his violent acts in Exodus 10:1-2 "And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him: And that thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son, and of thy son's son, what things I have wrought in Egypt, and my signs which I have done among them; that ye may know how that I am the LORD."
Countless other stories, such as that of Noah indicate the violent nature of God as portrayed in the Old Testament. God apparently felt it was necessary to murder every single living creature except for the minimum needed to continue the population. All of the three Abrahamic religions have their roots in violence and even seem to encourage it - at least when it is "justified," that is. But while some actions can theoretically be justified by theology (such as God punishing his opponents like the Egyptians or Christian antisemitism based upon the belief of a Jewish deicide and supersession), it is rather absurd to advocate such acts based solely on theological justification. An Islamic terrorist is just as certain in his beliefs as a fundamentalist Christian, but they can't both be right, can they? It is impossible to "prove" any one theology, however, so violence should definitely not be condoned by any religious group, in my opinion. Faith (because no matter how strong your convictions are, religion is FAITH and not FACT simply because it cannot be proved) should not lead to violence, although historically, it has.
In regards to Christianity specifically, the New Testament does seem to promote violence in some instances. There is a common belief that the God of the New Testament Christians is dramatically different than that of the Old Testament Jews. Perhaps the New Testament depictions of God are distinctly more civil, but violence is still present - even in the words of Jesus Himself. A Biblical passage I mentioned in class today is found in Matthew chapter 10 (specifically verse 34). The King James version of the Bible is directly quoting Jesus and reads "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
Furthermore, when foretelling the events of his arrest, Jesus instructs his disciples to acquire swords. Just after informing Peter of his forthcoming denial(s), Luke 22:36 states "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 19:27 quotes Jesus and appears to blatantly provide instruction to violence: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
While these passages are obviously subject to interpretation, it is absurd to deny that Christianity is devoid of violence - even at its origin. However, I will admit that the vagueness and controversial nature of the texts have allowed for countless interpretations. Perhaps the "sword" Jesus spoke of was meant metaphorically. But then how can one pick and choose which verses of the Bible are to be literal and which are to be figurative? Some groups (including the majority of Christians at certain historical times) definitely did interpret such verses as a call to arms.
These passages can all be interpreted in various ways, of course. But one shouldn't deny or minimize the history of violence in regards to religion. Most modern Christians do not promote violence, of course. But that is simply because theological interpretations have changed over time due to societal circumstances. Luckily, violence propagated by Christians is generally limited to fringe groups these days. But that does not mean that historically it has always been so. The persecution of Jews (historically from the time of Jesus through the Holocaust and even into modern times in some instances), the Crusades, the Catholic persecution of Protestants, and the Salem witch trials are just a few examples of obvious Christian fueled violence.
Personally, I believe the terrible atrocities of the Holocaust illuminated the problematic nature of violence being so intertwined with religion, but anti-Judaism was definitely nothing new at the time. Even Martin Luther wrote quite vitriolic antisemitic rants. The Holocaust was not a random isolated event but a culmination of ideas that were at least somewhat permeated with antisemitic Christian beliefs. However, I feel once people realized the true horrors of such violence on such a massive scale, Christianity began to shift its focus towards a more peaceful doctrine as it is today. I am by no means comparing the average modern Christian to Nazis, but the history of Christianity was very much intertwined with antisemitic thinking and violence. I would argue that it wasn't until after WWII that Christianity shifted its focus onto a strikingly more peaceful doctrine after finally realizing the terrible effects that some interpretations of Biblical texts could lead to.
Once again, I'm definitely not stating that modern popular/common Christianity as we know it promotes violence. I am talking solely in historical terms and want to emphasize the shift in doctrine and interpretation that took place primarily in the last century. This was definitely not meant as an attack on Christianity as we recognize it today (which is somewhat absurd but for different reasons), but this was merely a look at the historical context of violence in Christianity.