Deadliest religion ever?

[SteveII]

The NT, the New Covenant, cannot be construed to command violence of its adherents in any way--even in cases the OT would have called for a capital offense. So, there should be no difference between public and private faith (in that respect). 

I have read passages of the Koran that call for violence, so...apples and oranges.

You mean, if we ignore some violent parts outright, and pretend that other violent parts don't exist, then christianity doesn't seem as violent as islam..if we focus on the violent parts?  

Genius!

You are conflating Christianity with the OT theocracy. The two covenants are very different in their context, structure, and goals.

[Brian37]

You mean, if we ignore some violent parts outright, and pretend that other violent parts don't exist, then christianity doesn't seem as violent as islam..if we focus on the violent parts?  

Genius!

You are conflating Christianity with the OT theocracy. The two covenants are very different in their context, structure, and goals.

Bullshit. The man character "God" is the same character from the first page to the last page. You trying to argue the changing whims of God/Jesus/dad/me/same guy but not the same guy, does not change the core character of the book. 

"God changed his mind with Jesus" 

Yea, but at the end of the book he goes right back to beating the shit out of people who didn't kiss his ass.

Your character behaves just like an abusive spouse.

Part 1. "Be a good Hebrew and I wont beat the shit out of you. Fuck you, you didn't behave I will commit an act of genocide which is way beyond an act of correction, and only leave the Noah family left, let them fuck each other to repopulate the planet".

Part 2. "Ok, I am sorry I hit you, here are some flowers(Jesus) I promise not to beat you again, but please remember the 10 commandments in the OT and cherry pick to defend the old book while claiming it doesn't count."

Part 3. End Times Revenge of Jerry Springer, " Remember when I said I wouldn't beat you anymore? Fuck you, if you didn't kiss my ass I will torture you for eternity". 

"God changed his mind in the NT" Is not an argument. Tell me, even if you forgive a serial killer, should they be let out of prison? If you claim God did allow all the violent shit of the OT then cop out to "he can do what he wants" you are not erasing the acts one bit. Even the NT Jesus character says he didn't come to erase OT law but to uphold it. 

I was bullied as a kid, I have no desire as an adult to get revenge on them, but to gloss it over and forget that it happened would make me a doormat. 

The entire book as a whole does not paint the main character as someone to be reasoned with through consent logic and debate and compromise. The God Character as a whole comes across as a insecure narcissistic bully whom will squash you like a bug if you don't obey him. "Sometimes he'll give you flowers if you kiss his ass", is not an argument.

[SteveII]

You are conflating Christianity with the OT theocracy. The two covenants are very different in their context, structure, and goals.

Bullshit. The man character "God" is the same character from the first page to the last page. You trying to argue the changing whims of God/Jesus/dad/me/same guy but not the same guy, does not change the core character of the book. 

"God changed his mind with Jesus" 

Yea, but at the end of the book he goes right back to beating the shit out of people who didn't kiss his ass.

Your character behaves just like an abusive spouse.

Part 1. "Be a good Hebrew and I wont beat the shit out of you. Fuck you, you didn't behave I will commit an act of genocide which is way beyond an act of correction, and only leave the Noah family left, let them fuck each other to repopulate the planet".

Part 2. "Ok, I am sorry I hit you, here are some flowers(Jesus) I promise not to beat you again, but please remember the 10 commandments in the OT and cherry pick to defend the old book while claiming it doesn't count."

Part 3. End Times Revenge of Jerry Springer, " Remember when I said I wouldn't beat you anymore? Fuck you, if you didn't kiss my ass I will torture you for eternity". 

"God changed his mind in the NT" Is not an argument. Tell me, even if you forgive a serial killer, should they be let out of prison? If you claim God did allow all the violent shit of the OT then cop out to "he can do what he wants" you are not erasing the acts one bit. Even the NT Jesus character says he didn't come to erase OT law but to uphold it. 

I was bullied as a kid, I have no desire as an adult to get revenge on them, but to gloss it over and forget that it happened would make me a doormat. 

The entire book as a whole does not paint the main character as someone to be reasoned with through consent logic and debate and compromise. The God Character as a whole comes across as a insecure narcissistic bully whom will squash you like a bug if you don't obey him. "Sometimes he'll give you flowers if you kiss his ass", is not an argument.

You will not find God inconsistent if you pay attention to the fact that the two covenants are very different in their context, structure, and goals.

[Brian37]

Bullshit. The man character "God" is the same character from the first page to the last page. You trying to argue the changing whims of God/Jesus/dad/me/same guy but not the same guy, does not change the core character of the book. 

"God changed his mind with Jesus" 

Yea, but at the end of the book he goes right back to beating the shit out of people who didn't kiss his ass.

Your character behaves just like an abusive spouse.

Part 1. "Be a good Hebrew and I wont beat the shit out of you. Fuck you, you didn't behave I will commit an act of genocide which is way beyond an act of correction, and only leave the Noah family left, let them fuck each other to repopulate the planet".

Part 2. "Ok, I am sorry I hit you, here are some flowers(Jesus) I promise not to beat you again, but please remember the 10 commandments in the OT and cherry pick to defend the old book while claiming it doesn't count."

Part 3. End Times Revenge of Jerry Springer, " Remember when I said I wouldn't beat you anymore? Fuck you, if you didn't kiss my ass I will torture you for eternity". 

"God changed his mind in the NT" Is not an argument. Tell me, even if you forgive a serial killer, should they be let out of prison? If you claim God did allow all the violent shit of the OT then cop out to "he can do what he wants" you are not erasing the acts one bit. Even the NT Jesus character says he didn't come to erase OT law but to uphold it. 

I was bullied as a kid, I have no desire as an adult to get revenge on them, but to gloss it over and forget that it happened would make me a doormat. 

The entire book as a whole does not paint the main character as someone to be reasoned with through consent logic and debate and compromise. The God Character as a whole comes across as a insecure narcissistic bully whom will squash you like a bug if you don't obey him. "Sometimes he'll give you flowers if you kiss his ass", is not an argument.

You will not find God inconsistent if you pay attention to the fact that the two covenants are very different in their context, structure, and goals.

He his a character in a book, nothing more, just like Harry Potter, but without any empathy or compassion.

No, the only thing that character is constant about is being a insecure bully. No, I don't kiss anyone's ass, I am not a toy or lab rat to be bossed around and demanded to blindly swallow.

Now go back and READ my post again. You are the one cherry picking. THE NT character Jesus does not change a damned thing and there are quotes in the NT where he says he is there to uphold the OT.

I don't give one shit if you claim the "covenants are different", all you are saying is "God changed his mind". So the fuck what? That is like an abusive spouse promising not to hit you anymore. That still does not change that they hit you in the first place.

Fortunately for YOU your God character is just that, only a character who cannot threaten to beat you or promise you flowers after he beats you. Unfortunately for you, you buy this horrible fiction. There is no good way for you to put lipstick on this pig. How about you realize that book was written by tribal people in an age where blind loyalty was expected?

[vorlon13]

You mean, if we ignore some violent parts outright, and pretend that other violent parts don't exist, then christianity doesn't seem as violent as islam..if we focus on the violent parts?  

Genius!

You are conflating Christianity with the OT theocracy. The two covenants are very different in their context, structure, and goals.

And Apostle Paul's heretical re-write of Jewish Jesusism took the resulting chimera of a religion even further off the mark.

[Angrboda]

Maybe I am just being pedantic here, but I really don't see how a religion can be deadly. That's like saying atheism is deadly due to the high body count of dictators like Stalin and Mao.

I agree with your point, but would add that to claim a religion is deadly, you would have to look at the religious teachings themselves to make a determination. Do the teachings promote violence? If not, the religion is not 'deadly' and any deaths that may have occurred in it's name should be laid at the feet of the people committing them.

There are surface readings which reinforce your point. But religion isn't a surface phenomena, nor is it exclusively contained within the writings of the faith. Messages about purity and defilement are interwoven throughout Christianity and support things like xenophobia, us versus them mentality, and purification regimes. The deeper, structural meaning of Christianity does indeed support violence, in spite of your attempt to misdirect by only focusing on "the teachings." The violence of the first millennia didn't just spring unbidden from individual actors. It had a source in the themes of the religion. Horrors like the albigensian crusade spring whole cloth from the themes of Christianity.

[Brian37]

The ultimate goal of the God character is for you to kiss his ass for eternity. That is not love, that is narcissism. "Look at me". Narcissism is born out of insecurity. 

You know why words like "lord" "kingdom" "master" are used in that book? Because that is what humans lived under back then, ROYALTY, KINGS, even polytheists lived under Kings. And back then everyone mistook good fortune and success of class and status as coming from a divine world above. 

Back then, even in polytheism it was far more important to obey the king and ruling and warrior class because life was far more harsh back then and the mortality rate was far higher, and the city states competed for resources so loyalty was far more demanded back then. 

That book DOES NOT reflect our modern western secular concepts of morality, pluralism in things like consent of the governed. The character God in that book does not need our permission to rule over us, he wasn't voted into office, he cannot be removed from his position and he does not owe anyone any explanations. The God character in that book does depict acts of kindness but to loyalists and very little kindness to dissent, and at the end of the book throws all who didn't kiss his ass into eternal torture. That is not the behavior of an elected western official, but the behavior of a king, and kings are dictators. Your God has more in common with Kim Jong Un as a character, than he does with any western elected official.

[Jesster]

The deadliest religion ever is the one that includes deity worship.

[The Grand Nudger]

You mean, if we ignore some violent parts outright, and pretend that other violent parts don't exist, then christianity doesn't seem as violent as islam..if we focus on the violent parts?  

Genius!

You are conflating Christianity with the OT theocracy. The two covenants are very different in their context, structure, and goals.

I'm not, but if jettisoning the foundation of your shared faith tradition is necessary in order to defend it against itself and comparison to islam.... I hardly see the point in bickering with you?

[Brian37]

The deadliest religion ever is the one that includes deity worship.

Um no, China has had parts of its history which were lead by very superstitious religious and very brutal leaders, not under modern communism, but in antiquity. The Terracotta Warriors of antiquity were trained to be blind loyalists to their ruler, and within their ranks it was very Orwellian and dissent was met with brutality, on top of the age of their conquests. 

Even the dictators of modern Asia like Mao and Po Pot ruled over majority religions. North Korea also has it's own brand of religion. Deity worship isn't required for a religion to become brutal. You have to read and compare religion not just now, but everywhere in time throughout our species history to see this.

I can pull up even modern stories of Buddhists persecuting Muslims. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutio...in_Myanmar

There are only more active volcanos and more dormant volcanos over centuries, but power shifts over time and a less dormant volcano can become more active over time. No group of humans is immune to future barbarity if the conditions lead to that. It is only by understanding a global history of the past we can reduce the risk of repeating that barbarity in the future.