The plot of Dune?A small band of people from the boonies, armed with little more than a story, managed to overtake the greatest empire the world had known. Something to that, it seems to me.
So did Christianity.I don’t think you can compare the expansion of Christianity to Islam or Buddhism.
Islam spread by the sword.
Wrong millennium.So did Christianity.
Forget about the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition?
Not quite, but you know thatSo did Christianity.
Forget about the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition?
Not quite, but you know that
No, you are contorting ancient history to fit with your bias and desired outcome.Same Playbook
We abhor their behavior, but Islam was literally spread at the tip of the spear#NotPayingAttentionToWhatReligiousConservativesAreDoingInAfrica
No; it did not.No, you are contorting ancient history to fit with your bias and desired outcome.
The Christian church grew dramatically in the first 200 or so years organically & peacefully.
Here we go!No; it did not.
You want to pretend that Christians were different, but they were not.
Beginning with Constantine, spudHere we go!
Please provide evidence of Christian violence in the first millennia AD to support your claim.
I would suggest steady growth for the 1st 300 years . It really took off in the 4th century when it was adopted as the official religion of Rome. The estimates most commonly put out are about 10% of the Roman population was Christian in 300 and by 350 it was over 50%.No, you are contorting ancient history to fit with your bias and desired outcome.
The Christian church grew dramatically in the first 200 or so years organically & peacefully. It grew during a time when non-Christians were persecuting Christ followers. It continued to grow to become the dominant religion in the region over the next several hundred years.
The crusades were not so much about new growth as they were about stopping growth (of Islam).
You should prolly sit this one out Joe.
You're just ignorant.I only made it to first communion before we stopped bothering, so I'm not all that familiar.
Do people really believe the risen part or is that just a fun aspect to go with the important teachings?
I guess, is the rising analogous to Santa Clauss where it's fun to for the kids to believe in but most adults are aware he's just made up?
Holy shit.Beginning with Constantine, spud
J. Denny Weaver, Professor Emeritus of Religion at Bluffton University, suggests that there are numerous evolving views on violence and nonviolence throughout the history of Christian theology.[15] According to the view of many historians, the Constantinian shift turned Christianity from a persecuted into a persecuting religion.[16]
Miroslav Volf has identified the intervention of a "new creation", as in the Second Coming, as a particular aspect of Christianity that generates violence.[17] Writing about the latter, Volf says: "Beginning at least with Constantine's conversion, the followers of the Crucified have perpetrated gruesome acts of violence under the sign of the cross. Over the centuries, the seasons of Lent and Holy Week were, for the Jews, times of fear and trepidation. Muslims also associate the cross with violence; crusaders' rampages were undertaken under the sign of the cross."[18]
The statement attributed to Jesus "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" has been interpreted by some as a call to arms for Christians.[19] Mark Juergensmeyer argues that "despite its central tenets of love and peace, Christianity—like most traditions—has always had a violent side.
...
Historically, according to René Girard, many Christians embraced violence when it became the state religion of the Roman Empire: "Beginning with Constantine, Christianity triumphed at the level of the state and soon began to cloak with its authority persecutions similar to those in which the early Christians were victims."[21]
Christianity and violence - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Holy shit.
Your whole argument comes from a Wikipedia article that begins by stating the opposite of your assertion and includes a section on violence based on a few assertions from a small handful of authors?
So you decide Wikipedia and a couple no-name authors are definitive yet ignore:
Augustine
Clement
Justin Martyr
Origen
Polycarp
Athanasius
Ignatius
Jerome
Augustine of Hippo
When I set sit this one out, I meant it man. Geez!!
Beyond all that, it’s not exactly like Ancient Rome was some sort of isolationist conclave before Christianity came along. Indeed, I may be misremembering, but weren’t they sort of controlling Jerusalem when all that Jesus stuff went down?Holy shit.
Your whole argument comes from a Wikipedia article that begins by stating the opposite of your assertion and includes a section on violence based on a few assertions from a small handful of authors?
So you decide Wikipedia and a couple no-name authors are definitive yet ignore:
Augustine
Clement
Justin Martyr
Origen
Polycarp
Athanasius
Ignatius
Jerome
Augustine of Hippo
When I set sit this one out, I meant it man. Geez!!
Holy shit.
Your whole argument comes from a Wikipedia article that begins by stating the opposite of your assertion
And the Christians who ended up now on the "winning end" didn't alter a thing, did they?Beyond all that, it’s not exactly like Ancient Rome was some sort of isolationist conclave before Christianity came along.
No Joe - that’s not evidence. Ugh…The opposite? Hardly.
Go dig into the Wiki sources, if you want. You asked for evidence. You have it.
That is quite literally what you asked for.You found a Wikipedia article that gave a few examples.
You gave some anecdotes about some that went rogue while ignoring the written history of the ancient church (which was pointed out to you earlier and is obvious you haven’t read one iota). Your own wiki source led off with an opening on the church’s non-war / non-violence stance.That is quite literally what you asked for.
Westerners whitewashing Christianity's atrocities during the same period, doesn't mean they didn't happen.
Bruh…from your same wiki page, the opening paragraph:Those are cited examples.
Bruh…from your same wiki page, the opening paragraph:
“In the Roman Empire, the early church adopted a nonviolent stance when it came to war because the imitation of Jesus's sacrificial life was preferable to it
Nope, re-read the last sentence of the opening paragraph of what you linked:Yes; this was prior to Constantine.
You asked for the 1st Millennium. You are now restricting your window to the first few hundred years.
Now you're changing your claims here. I'd made no mention of "Holy War", anywhere.
See your post # 126. You interjected the crusades and inquisition. That was not relevant to the discussion since we were discussing early (1st millenia) spread of Christianity and comparing that to other faiths. The widespread consensus is that Christianity spread dramatically through non-violent means in the first millennia (to which your “source” agreed). Case closed.Now you're changing your claims here. I'd made no mention of "Holy War", anywhere.
Merely that Christians have "converted" people thru violence as well. Which is factual.
And those are right in line with what you've claimed on Islam.See your post # 126. You interjected the crusades and inquisition.
Except the article you posted gave zero specific examples.And those are right in line with what you've claimed on Islam.
You asked for examples in the 1st Millennium. I provided those. There are more.
It sure did. Including references.Except the article you posted gave zero specific examples.
It sure did. Including references.
No, it just said stuff happened without any specific examples or citations.It sure did. Including references.
What does this have to do with Christians whitewashing their history?Were you ever baptized?