Is Christianity a Pacifistic Religion?

[SteveII]

I'm not talking about "in practice." Fundamentalists like to brandish their guns. The religious right commonly supports whatever war a Republican president gets us involved in. Historically speaking, there are no shortage of bloody wars waged in the name of Christianity. It is obvious that Christians (by and large) regard pacifism with little esteem.

You really have to separate things here. Can you even name an even moderately serious war that was not mainly about politics, power, or resources? This is interesting:

According to the Encyclopedia of Wars, out of all 1,763 known/recorded historical conflicts, 123, or 6.98%, had religion as their primary cause, and of that percentage, 66, or 53.66%, were related to Islam.[1] Matthew White's The Great Big Book of Horrible Things gives religion as the cause of 13 of the world's 100 deadliest atrocities.[2] In several conflicts including the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, the Syrian civil war, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, religious elements are overtly present but variously described as fundamentalism or religious extremism—depending upon the observer's sympathies. However, studies on these cases often conclude that ethnic animosities drive much of the conflicts.[3]

Some historians argue that what is termed "religious wars" is a largely "Western dichotomy" and a modern invention from the past few centuries, arguing that all wars that are classed as "religious" have secular (economic or political) ramifications.[4] Similar opinions were expressed as early as the 1760s, during the Seven Years' War, widely recognized to be "religious" in motivation, noting that the warring factions were not necessarily split along confessional lines as much as along secular interests.[5]

According to Jeffrey Burton Russell, numerous cases of supposed acts of religious wars such as the Thirty Years War, the French Wars of Religion, the Sri Lankan Civil War, 9/11 and other terrorist attacks, the Bosnian War, and the Rwandan Civil War were all primarily motivated by social, political, and economic issues rather than religion.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war (emphasis added)

But are Christians supposed to be pacifists? It seems to be part of Jesus' teachings. If followed correctly, is Christianity a pacifistic religion or not?

Matthew 7:38-42

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h]39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Does this verse command pacifism? Leo Tolstoy certainly thought so. And the Quakers hold pacifism as one of their central precepts, undoubtedly out of obedience to this set of instructions from the Sermon on the Mount. 

As some of you know, I am very interested in pacifism, chiefly as a moral means to make positive changes in the world (via civil disobedience and passive resistance as per Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King, and Gandhi). Philosophically speaking, I've given much consideration to the idea that nonviolence is at the root of all moral ideals.

I'd like to hear from the Christians: Does Jesus in fact preach pacifism in Matthew? I've heard plenty of interpretations that say "no." Martin Luther said the verse "represents an impossible demand like the Law of Moses." That it was in fact meant to show that "no one can possibly live in full accordance with the Law." --"We're all sinners..." yada, yada, yada. Sounds like a cop out to me. Not unlike when a Christian on another forum explained to me that the commands in Matthew were meant to demonstrate "the person of Christ," and not to be interpreted as imperatives.

If any of you wishes to hear an argument that Christianity is indeed a pacifist religion, and that Christ's commands in Matthew were meant to be followed, I have quoted a (somewhat lengthy) passage from Tolstoy below wherein he attempts to make the case. I understand if you don't have time to read all that. I just included it for sake of thoroughness. I'd still like to hear Christians' opinions on the subject, regardless if you read it or not.

---

After much useless study of the works that have been written in proof of the divinity or non-divinity of this doctrine, and after many doubts and much suffering, I was left alone with the mysterious Book, in which the doctrine of Christ is taught.  I could not interpret it as others did, I could not abjure the Book, and yet I could not find a new and satisfying interpretation.  It was only after losing all faith in the explanations of learned theology and criticism, and after laying them all aside in obedience to the words of Christ (Mark 10:15), that I began to understand what had until then seemed incomprehensible to me.  It was not by deep thought, or by skillfully comparing or commenting on the texts of the gospel, that I came to understand the doctrine.  On the contrary, all grew clear to me for the very reason that I had ceased to rest on mere interpretations.  The text that gave me the key to the truth was the thirty-ninth verse of the fifth chapter of St. Matthew, ‘You have heard that it has been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.  But I say to you, do not resist evil…’  The simple meaning of these words suddenly flashed full upon me; I accepted the fact that Christ meant exactly what He said; and then, though I had found nothing new, all that had hitherto obscured the truth cleared away, and the truth itself arose before me in all its solemn importance.

I had often read the passage, but these words had never until now arrested my attention:  ‘I say to you, do not resist evil.’

In my conversations since with many Christian people, who know the gospels well, I have observed the same indifference to the force of this text that I had felt.  Nobody specially remembered the words; and, while conversing with persons upon the text, I have known them to take up the New Testament in order to assure themselves that the words were really there.

The words, ‘Whoever shall strike you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also,’ had always presented themselves to me as requiring endurance and self-mastery such as human nature is hardly capable of.  They touched me.  I felt that to act thus would be to attain moral perfection; but I felt, too, that I should never be able to obey them if they entailed nothing but suffering.  I said to myself,  ‘Well, I will turn my cheek – I will let myself be struck again.  I will give up my coat – they shall take my all.  They shall even take away my life.  Yet, life is given to me.  Why should I thus lose it?  This cannot be what Christ requires of us.’  Then I said to myself, ‘Perhaps in these words Christ only purposes to extol suffering and self-denial, and in doing so He speaks exaggeratingly and His expressions are therefore to be regarded as illustrations rather than precise requirements.’  But as soon as I comprehended the meaning of the words, ‘do not resist evil,’ it became clear to me that Christ does not exaggerate, that He does not require suffering for the mere sake of suffering, and that He only expresses clearly and definitely what He means.  He says, ‘Do not resist evil,’ and if you do not resist evil, you may meet with some who, having struck you on one cheek, and meeting with no resistance, will strike you on the other; after having taken away your coat, will take away your cloak also; having profited by your work, will oblige you to work on; will take, and will never give back.  ‘Nevertheless, I say to you, do not resist evil.  Still do good to those who even strike and abuse you.’

Now I understood that the whole force of the teaching lay in the words ‘do not resist evil,’ and that the entire context was but an application of that great precept.  I saw that Christ does not require us to turn the other cheek, and to give away our cloak, in order to make us suffer; but He teaches us not to resist evil, and warns us that doing so may involve personal suffering.  Does a father, on seeing his son set out on a long journey, tell him to pass sleepless nights, to eat little, to get wet through, or to freeze?  Will he not rather say to him, ‘Go, and if on the road you are cold or hungry, do not be discouraged but go on’?  Christ does not say ‘Let a man strike your cheek, and suffer,’ but He says, ‘Do not resist evil.  Whatever men may do to you, do not resist evil.’  These words, ‘do not resist evil’ (the wicked man), thus apprehended, were the clue that made all clear to me, and I was surprised that I could have hitherto treated them in such a different way.  Christ meant to say, ‘Whatever men may do to you, bear, suffer, and submit; but never resist evil.’  What could be clearer, more intelligible, and more indubitable that this?  As soon as I understood the exact meaning of these simple words, all that had appeared confused to me in the doctrine of Christ grew intelligible; what had seemed contradictory now became consistent, and what I had deemed superfluous became indispensable.  All united in one whole, one part fitting into and supporting the other, like the pieces of a broken statue put together again in their proper places.

This doctrine of ‘non-resistance’ is commended again and again in the gospels.  In the Sermon on the Mount Christ represents His followers – i.e., those who follow this law of non-resistance – as liable to be persecuted, stoned, and reduced to beggary.  Elsewhere He tells us that the disciple who does not take up His cross, who is not willing to renounce all, cannot be His follower, and He thus describes the man who is ready to bear the consequences that may result from the practice of the doctrine of non-resistance.  Christ says to His disciples,  ‘Be poor, be ready to bear persecution, suffering, and even death, without resisting evil.’  He prepared for suffering and death Himself without resisting evil; He reproved Peter, who grieved over Him because He proposed to yield in this way; and He died, forbidding others to resist evil, remaining true to His own doctrine and His own example.  All His first disciples obeyed the same law of the non-resistance of evil, and passed their lives in disability and persecution.

We may bring forward, as an objection, the difficulty of always obeying such a law; we may even say, as unbelievers do, that it is a foolish doctrine, that Christ was a dreamer, an idealist who gave precepts that are impossible to follow.  But, whatever our objections may be, we cannot deny that Christ expresses His meaning most clearly and distinctly; and His meaning is that man must not resist evil; he who fully accepts His teaching cannot resist evil.

http://www.nonresistance.org/docs_htm/To...hap01.html

---

I find Tolstoy's advocacy of pacifism quite compelling, despite its Christian trappings. In addition to the Hindu doctrine of ahimsa, Gandhi was also heavily influenced by Tolstoy's idea that pacifism is a moral force that can change the world. And through Gandhi, the world was able to witness the efficacy of Tolstoy's ideals. Pretty impressive, really. This demonstrates well that the idea of "resist not evil" transcends Christianity. But I am also wondering if it really originates from Christianity to begin with. Perhaps these are just Tolstoy's own ideas, clothed in Christian raiment. After all, he was branded a heretic and excommunicated by the Russian Orthodox Church (an excommunication that stands to this day, despite an appeal by Tolstoy's great-great grandson to the Church in 2001).

So, to repeat the question- 

Christians: Is Christianity a pacifistic religion or not? 


If it isn't, what doctrinal teachings exempt a Christian from following the commands of Jesus found in Matthew 7?

Or if you think that Christianity is in fact a pacifistic religion, what do you make of all the gun toting and war mongering?

No, Christianity is not a pacifist religion. You can be a pacifist and a Christian, but pacifism does not necessarily follow from Christianity. 

I think that Matthew 5 and other similar passages are all about the internal attitudes of the heart and having the most Godly perspective on everyday living. Even when you continue to Paul and have the Fruits of the Spirit, they are of a personal nature. Nowhere in the NT are those concepts extrapolated to geo-political issues. There is plenty of opportunity to do so, yet, nothing--the topic is clearly focused on attitudes of the heart.

Jesus says: "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." (John 18:36). There are many other passages throughout the NT that recognize the rights and purposes of governments to protect citizens and oppose evil doers. Romans 13 is interesting: starting out talking about government instituted by God for order, justice, avenger, etc. and then right into "love your neighbor" by verse 9. 

What can we extrapolate? I think a coherent "just-war" theory can developed from the Judeo-Christian worldview. Tyrants must be opposed. Wars of oppression are morally wrong. Christians have been talking about the concept of quite some time:

Saint Augustine[edit]
Augustine of Hippo claimed that, while individuals should not resort immediately to violence, God has given the sword to government for good reason (based upon Romans 13:4). In Contra Faustum Manichaeum book 22 sections 69–76, Augustine argues that Christians, as part of a government, need not be ashamed of protecting peace and punishing wickedness when forced to do so by a government. Augustine asserted that this was a personal, philosophical stance: "What is here required is not a bodily action, but an inward disposition. The sacred seat of virtue is the heart."[15]

Nonetheless, he asserted, peacefulness in the face of a grave wrong that could only be stopped by violence would be a sin. Defense of one's self or others could be a necessity, especially when authorized by a legitimate authority:

They who have waged war in obedience to the divine command, or in conformity with His laws, have represented in their persons the public justice or the wisdom of government, and in this capacity have put to death wicked men; such persons have by no means violated the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill."[16]

While not breaking down the conditions necessary for war to be just, Augustine nonetheless originated the very phrase itself in his work :

But, say they, the wise man will wage Just Wars. As if he would not all the rather lament the necessity of just wars, if he remembers that he is a man; for if they were not just he would not wage them, and would therefore be delivered from all wars.[17]

J. Mark Mattox writes that, for the individual Christian under the rule of a government engaged in an immoral war, Augustine admonished that Christians, "by divine edict, have no choice but to subject themselves to their political masters and [should] seek to ensure that they execute their war-fighting duty as justly as possible."[18]

Saint Thomas Aquinas[edit]
Nine hundred years later, Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) laid out the conditions under which a war could be justified (combining the theological principles of faith with the philosophical principles of reason, he ranked among the most influential thinkers of medieval Scholasticism):[19]

• First, just war must be waged by a properly instituted authority such as the state. (Proper Authority is first: represents the common good: which is peace for the sake of man's true end—God.)
  
  
• Second, war must occur for a good and just purpose rather than for self-gain (for example, "in the nation's interest" is not just) or as an exercise of power (just cause: for the sake of restoring some good that has been denied. i.e. lost territory, lost goods, punishment for an evil perpetrated by a government, army, or even the civilian populace).
  
  
• Third, peace must be a central motive even in the midst of violence.[20] (right intention: an authority must fight for the just reasons it has expressly claimed for declaring war in the first place. Soldiers must also fight for this intention).[21]
  

In the Summa Theologica, Thomas proceeded to distinguish between philosophy and theology, and between reason and revelation, though he emphasized that these did not contradict each other. Both are fountains of knowledge; both come from God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory

[vorlon13]

I'm not talking about "in practice." Fundamentalists like to brandish their guns. The religious right commonly supports whatever war a Republican president gets us involved in. Historically speaking, there are no shortage of bloody wars waged in the name of Christianity. It is obvious that Christians (by and large) regard pacifism with little esteem. 

But are Christians supposed to be pacifists? It seems to be part of Jesus' teachings. If followed correctly, is Christianity a pacifistic religion or not?


Does this verse command pacifism? Leo Tolstoy certainly thought so. And the Quakers hold pacifism as one of their central precepts, undoubtedly out of obedience to this set of instructions from the Sermon on the Mount. 

As some of you know, I am very interested in pacifism, chiefly as a moral means to make positive changes in the world (via civil disobedience and passive resistance as per Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King, and Gandhi). Philosophically speaking, I've given much consideration to the idea that nonviolence is at the root of all moral ideals.

I'd like to hear from the Christians: Does Jesus in fact preach pacifism in Matthew? I've heard plenty of interpretations that say "no." Martin Luther said the verse "represents an impossible demand like the Law of Moses." That it was in fact meant to show that "no one can possibly live in full accordance with the Law." --"We're all sinners..." yada, yada, yada. Sounds like a cop out to me. Not unlike when a Christian on another forum explained to me that the commands in Matthew were meant to demonstrate "the person of Christ," and not to be interpreted as imperatives.

If any of you wishes to hear an argument that Christianity is indeed a pacifist religion, and that Christ's commands in Matthew were meant to be followed, I have quoted a (somewhat lengthy) passage from Tolstoy below wherein he attempts to make the case. I understand if you don't have time to read all that. I just included it for sake of thoroughness. I'd still like to hear Christians' opinions on the subject, regardless if you read it or not.

---

http://www.nonresistance.org/docs_htm/To...hap01.html

---

I find Tolstoy's advocacy of pacifism quite compelling, despite its Christian trappings. In addition to the Hindu doctrine of ahimsa, Gandhi was also heavily influenced by Tolstoy's idea that pacifism is a moral force that can change the world. And through Gandhi, the world was able to witness the efficacy of Tolstoy's ideals. Pretty impressive, really. This demonstrates well that the idea of "resist not evil" transcends Christianity. But I am also wondering if it really originates from Christianity to begin with. Perhaps these are just Tolstoy's own ideas, clothed in Christian raiment. After all, he was branded a heretic and excommunicated by the Russian Orthodox Church (an excommunication that stands to this day, despite an appeal by Tolstoy's great-great grandson to the Church in 2001).

So, to repeat the question- 

Christians: Is Christianity a pacifistic religion or not? 


If it isn't, what doctrinal teachings exempt a Christian from following the commands of Jesus found in Matthew 7?

Or if you think that Christianity is in fact a pacifistic religion, what do you make of all the gun toting and war mongering?

Christianity isn't about judging action but the reason for the actions. it does you shall not murder, but it does not say you shall not kill. The action in both murder and killing as it pertains to the law is the taking of human life. But to murder is to take a life on your own accord having your own reasons.. Killing is the taking of a human's life within the social frame work of a given society. So it is ok to take a life so long as the reason jives with the social law.

So make sure you are setting the correct children on fire. Gotcha.

[vorlon13]

Ejaculating into a child's rectum doesn't seem very pacifistic to me either.

[Minimalist]

Now Dripshit is pretending that his ridiculous godboy was a lawyer.

[Angrboda]

I'm not talking about "in practice." Fundamentalists like to brandish their guns. The religious right commonly supports whatever war a Republican president gets us involved in. Historically speaking, there are no shortage of bloody wars waged in the name of Christianity. It is obvious that Christians (by and large) regard pacifism with little esteem.

You really have to separate things here. Can you even name an even moderately serious war that was not mainly about politics, power, or resources?

Oh look, Wikipedia even has an entry for it.

The European wars of religion were a series of religious wars waged in 16th and 17th century Europe, devastating the continent and killing over 10 million people. The wars were fought in the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation (1517), which disrupted the religious order in the Catholic countries of Europe. However, religion was not the only cause of the wars, which also included revolts, territorial ambitions, and Great Power conflicts. By the end of the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648), Catholic France was allied with the Protestant countries against the Catholic Habsburg monarchy. The wars were largely ended by the Peace of Westphalia (1648), establishing a new political order that is now known as Westphalian sovereignty.

The conflicts began with the Knights' Revolt (1522), a minor war in the Holy Roman Empire. Warfare intensified after the Catholic Church began the Counter-Reformation in 1545 to counter the growth of Protestantism. The conflicts culminated in the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648), which devastated Germany and killed one-third of its population. The Peace of Westphalia (1648) put an end to the war by recognising three separate Christian traditions in the Holy Roman Empire: Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism. Although many European leaders were 'sickened' by the religious bloodshed by 1648, religious wars continued to be waged in the post-Westphalian period until the 1710s.

Wikipedia || European wars of religion

It's true that the Thirty Years' War took on a life of its own, but there's no denying that religion was the catalyst that got the ball rolling.

And Wikipedia has this to say about a major factor in the European wars of religion:

The Counter-Reformation (Latin: Contrareformatio), also called the Catholic Reformation (Latin: Reformatio Catholica) or the Catholic Revival, was the period of Catholic resurgence initiated in response to the Protestant Reformation, beginning with the Council of Trent (1545–1563) and ending at the close of the Thirty Years' War (1648). Initiated to preserve the power, influence and material wealth enjoyed by the Catholic Church and to present a theological and material challenge to Reformation, the Counter-Reformation was a comprehensive effort composed of five major elements:

1. Reactionary defense of Catholic sacramental practice
   
2. Ecclesiastical or structural reconfiguration
   
3. Religious orders
   
4. Spiritual movements
   
5. Political dimensions

Such reforms included the foundation of seminaries for the proper training of priests in the spiritual life and the theological traditions of the church, the reform of religious life by returning orders to their spiritual foundations, and new spiritual movements focusing on the devotional life and a personal relationship with Christ, including the Spanish mystics and the French school of spirituality.

It also involved political activities that included the Roman Inquisition. One primary emphasis of the Counter-Reformation was a mission to reach parts of the world that had been colonized as predominantly Catholic and also try to reconvert areas such as Sweden and England that were at one time Catholic, but had been Protestantized during the Reformation.

Various Counter-Reformation theologians focused only on defending doctrinal positions such as the sacraments and pious practices that were attacked by the Protestant reformers, up to the Second Vatican Council in 1962–1965. One of the "most dramatic moments" at that council was the intervention of Belgian Bishop Emiel-Jozef de Smedt (fr; it; nl; pl) when, during the debate on the nature of the church, he called for an end to the "triumphalism, clericalism, and legalism" that had typified the church in the previous centuries.[4]

Key events of the period include: the Council of Trent (1545–1563); the excommunication of Elizabeth I (1570) and the Battle of Lepanto (1571), both occurring during the pontificate of Pius V; the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar and the Jesuit China mission of Matteo Ricci under Pope Gregory XIII; the French Wars of Religion; the Long Turkish War and the execution of Giordano Bruno in 1600, under Pope Clement VIII; the trial against Galileo Galilei; the final phases of the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648) during the pontificates of Urban VIII and Innocent X; and the formation of the last Holy League by Innocent XI during the Great Turkish War.

Wikipedia || Counter-Reformation [emphasis mine]

Oh, and there's the little problem of the crusades. Really, Steve, seriously?

[Drich]

Christianity isn't about judging action but the reason for the actions. it does you shall not murder, but it does not say you shall not kill. The action in both murder and killing as it pertains to the law is the taking of human life. But to murder is to take a life on your own accord having your own reasons.. Killing is the taking of a human's life within the social frame work of a given society. So it is ok to take a life so long as the reason jives with the social law.

So, for all your huffing and puffing about "pop morality", God -- the source of all moral good and the giver of divine commands regarding how we ought to live -- prohibits murder (which is a moral truism, since it contains within itself the concept of wrongdoing) but gives a pass to killing that is in accordance with "social law" -- i.e., pop morality.

Lol, ok.

now take it one more step back (which pulls us one step away from pop morality) is we can find atonement even if we commit murder, that our righteousness is not based on the law.

The law... that is for you guys who are unsaved to push you towards atonement, where the law ceases to be a measure of any kind.

What replaces the law? Agape'/love. Love for God love for your neighbor.

[SteveII]

You really have to separate things here. Can you even name an even moderately serious war that was not mainly about politics, power, or resources?

Oh look, Wikipedia even has an entry for it.

The European wars of religion were a series of religious wars waged in 16th and 17th century Europe, devastating the continent and killing over 10 million people. The wars were fought in the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation (1517), which disrupted the religious order in the Catholic countries of Europe. However, religion was not the only cause of the wars, which also included revolts, territorial ambitions, and Great Power conflicts. By the end of the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648), Catholic France was allied with the Protestant countries against the Catholic Habsburg monarchy. The wars were largely ended by the Peace of Westphalia (1648), establishing a new political order that is now known as Westphalian sovereignty.

The conflicts began with the Knights' Revolt (1522), a minor war in the Holy Roman Empire. Warfare intensified after the Catholic Church began the Counter-Reformation in 1545 to counter the growth of Protestantism. The conflicts culminated in the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648), which devastated Germany and killed one-third of its population. The Peace of Westphalia (1648) put an end to the war by recognising three separate Christian traditions in the Holy Roman Empire: Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism. Although many European leaders were 'sickened' by the religious bloodshed by 1648, religious wars continued to be waged in the post-Westphalian period until the 1710s.

Wikipedia || European wars of religion

It's true that the Thirty Years' War took on a life of its own, but there's no denying that religion was the catalyst that got the ball rolling.

And Wikipedia has this to say about a major factor in the European wars of religion:

The Counter-Reformation (Latin: Contrareformatio), also called the Catholic Reformation (Latin: Reformatio Catholica) or the Catholic Revival, was the period of Catholic resurgence initiated in response to the Protestant Reformation, beginning with the Council of Trent (1545–1563) and ending at the close of the Thirty Years' War (1648). Initiated to preserve the power, influence and material wealth enjoyed by the Catholic Church and to present a theological and material challenge to Reformation, the Counter-Reformation was a comprehensive effort composed of five major elements:

1. Reactionary defense of Catholic sacramental practice
   
2. Ecclesiastical or structural reconfiguration
   
3. Religious orders
   
4. Spiritual movements
   
5. Political dimensions
   

Such reforms included the foundation of seminaries for the proper training of priests in the spiritual life and the theological traditions of the church, the reform of religious life by returning orders to their spiritual foundations, and new spiritual movements focusing on the devotional life and a personal relationship with Christ, including the Spanish mystics and the French school of spirituality.

It also involved political activities that included the Roman Inquisition. One primary emphasis of the Counter-Reformation was a mission to reach parts of the world that had been colonized as predominantly Catholic and also try to reconvert areas such as Sweden and England that were at one time Catholic, but had been Protestantized during the Reformation.

Various Counter-Reformation theologians focused only on defending doctrinal positions such as the sacraments and pious practices that were attacked by the Protestant reformers, up to the Second Vatican Council in 1962–1965. One of the "most dramatic moments" at that council was the intervention of Belgian Bishop Emiel-Jozef de Smedt (fr; it; nl; pl) when, during the debate on the nature of the church, he called for an end to the "triumphalism, clericalism, and legalism" that had typified the church in the previous centuries.[4]

Key events of the period include: the Council of Trent (1545–1563); the excommunication of Elizabeth I (1570) and the Battle of Lepanto (1571), both occurring during the pontificate of Pius V; the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar and the Jesuit China mission of Matteo Ricci under Pope Gregory XIII; the French Wars of Religion; the Long Turkish War and the execution of Giordano Bruno in 1600, under Pope Clement VIII; the trial against Galileo Galilei; the final phases of the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648) during the pontificates of Urban VIII and Innocent X; and the formation of the last Holy League by Innocent XI during the Great Turkish War.

Wikipedia || Counter-Reformation [emphasis mine]

Oh, and there's the little problem of the crusades.  Really, Steve, seriously?

My point to Vulcan was that while he implied that Christians have this long history of connection to war, that is really not the case. Religions might be a factor, but hardly any war EVER, especially in Europe was about religion in any primary way. It is always about way more than that. There are very good pragmatic reasons to put a religious face on a war that the leaders know is about something else (popular support, whipping up the troops, financing etc.). It's not hard to figure out the real reasons. See my original post with the links.  I think my post said like 7% had religion as a primary reason and half of them were Islamic wars. Seems to me it is only echo chamber atheist propaganda that Christianity is responsible for so many wars.

[Neo-Scholastic]

For everything there is a season.  A time for war, and a time for peace.

I don’t think that this passage, is saying, that you have to be a pacifist in every situation. But that temperance is a virtue. I think that perhaps a more biblical outlook, might be, not to seek revenge, rather than total pacifism.

Okay. Fine. But what about someone who sees pacifism as one of the ways they obey Christ? Would you say they have the wrong idea? Or would you see a commitment to pacifism as something that is perfectly in line with Christ's teachings?

My ancestors were Quakers and as such were pacifists. They left England because they refused to fight in the English civil wall and persecuted for that stance. They didn't participate in the revolutionary war and cared for the wounded of both sides without prejudice. As abolitionists living in the South Carolina, they avoided participating in the American Civil War by moving to Illinois. I try not to judge the difficult decisions of people in the distant past, particularly decisions on a scale I've never had to face. Nevertheless, letting evil persist and spread seems like shirking an important duty. So personally, despite their noble convictions, I think they got this one wrong. IMO the verses about "turning the other cheek" speak more about actively reaching out and confronting those who are against you with generosity (giving them your second coat, etc) rather than letting yourself be victimized and walking away.

[Angrboda]

My point to Vulcan was that while he implied that Christians have this long history of connection to war, that is really not the case. Religions might be a factor, but hardly any war EVER, especially in Europe was about religion in any primary way. It is always about way more than that. There are very good pragmatic reasons to put a religious face on a war that the leaders know is about something else (popular support, whipping up the troops, financing etc.). It's not hard to figure out the real reasons. See my original post with the links.  I think my post said like 7% had religion as a primary reason and half of them were Islamic wars. Seems to me it is only echo chamber atheist propaganda that Christianity is responsible for so many wars.

A friend shared the image above from a Facebook page called WHY?Outreach. I thought the statistic was interesting, so I followed the links they cited for their claim in the caption text.

In one of them, an article at CARM, which I despise and link under protest, Robin Schumacher makes the following claim, which is cited verbatim in the meme:

An interesting source of truth on the matter is Philip and Axelrod’s three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars, which chronicles some 1,763 wars that have been waged over the course of human history. Of those wars, the authors categorize 123 as being religious in nature,2 which is an astonishingly low 6.98% of all wars. However, when one subtracts out those waged in the name of Islam (66), the percentage is cut by more than half to 3.23%.

Footnote 2 is a broken link, but it’s supposed to take readers to a Google Books preview of a book called The Irrational Atheist in which author Vox Day adds up “all the wars that the authors of the Encyclopedia of Wars saw fit to categorize as religious wars for one reason or another.” Day includes several caveats, like some wars being lumped together, but is generally satisfied with his work. At the risk of another dead link like the one suffered by CARM, I include a link to the book preview here.

The claims that (1) there have been 1,763 wars in human history, and (2) only 123 of them are a result of religious causes, appear explicitly nowhere in Encyclopedia of Wars. Those numbers were tallied up by Vox Day using data from Encyclopedia of Wars. Sort of.

Wikipedia’s article on religious war previously included the number as well, citing 3 sources: a Huffington Post article which made the claim but failed to support it, a book called An Atheist Defends Religion which also made the claim but failed to support it or even footnote Vox Day’s work, and finally, Vox Day’s book, pages 104-106. Vox Day’s book, as best I can tell, appears to be the original source of the number (allegedly derived from Encyclopedia of Wars).

While I was tracking down the original source, I learned something about the Encyclopedia of Wars: It’s freakishly expensive. Like $400 expensive. So how the heck did Vox Day get hold of a copy?

Answer: He probably didn’t.

PDF copies of everything seem to live on the internet, however, and an expensive reference book like Encyclopedia of Wars is apparently a prime target. I found a PDF. (The link may have stopped working by the time you get to it; there’s another one on Scribd. If those don’t work, Google is amazing and there may still be a copy floating around.)

In case there isn’t, I have a few observations:

1. The Encyclopedia of Wars doesn’t categorize wars as religious or non-religious. I searched the PDF for “religion.” It appeared 201 times. “Religious” appeared 216 times. There is no section of the book where Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod explicitly “categorize” wars as religious or non-religious.

I suspect Vox Day did a word search of a PDF copy of Encyclopedia of Wars, noting which of the entries mentioned religion, and counting up all the other wars. In any event, Robin Schumacher’s claim that “the authors categorize 123 as being religious in nature” and Vox Day’s claim that “the authors of the Encyclopedia of Wars saw fit to categorize as religious” any wars at all are both false. Some entries mention religion, some don’t. The catch here is that to make this claim, Vox Day ignores something critically important:

2. In the introduction to Encyclopedia of Wars on page xxii, the authors note the following:

Wars have always arisen, and arise today, from territorial disputes, military rivalries, conflicts of ethnicity, and strivings for commercial and economic advantage, and they have always depended on, and depend on today, pride, prejudice, coercion, envy, cupidity, competitiveness, and a sense of injustice. But for much of the world before the 17th century, these “reasons” for war were explained and justified, at least for the participants, by religion. Then, around the middle of the 17th century, Europeans began to conceive of war as a legitimate means of furthering the interests of individual sovereigns. (Emphasis mine).

So. Have most of our wars been about religion? According to the authors of Encyclopedia of Religion, for the people who started them, mostly not. For the people fighting them, they mostly have been.

My friend, who was researching with me, un-shared the image when we realized most of the sources… weren’t.

Fact Check: Religious Wars: Only 123 of 1763?

In case you are wondering, as I was, who the Richard Deem that is referenced in the footnote to this Wikipedia claim is, he appears to be associated with the web site http://www.godandscience.org. It's unclear where he got the claim from as he cites both the encyclopedia as well as the work by Vox Day, here. I'm not calling Mr. Deem a liar, but the facts surrounding the matter seem rather suspicious. This would hardly be the first time a Christian source has passed off a secondary source's claim as original to the primary source. Particularly among creationists.

[vulcanlogician]

My point to Vulcan was that while he implied that Christians have this long history of connection to war, that is really not the case. Religions might be a factor, but hardly any war EVER, especially in Europe was about religion in any primary way. It is always about way more than that. There are very good pragmatic reasons to put a religious face on a war that the leaders know is about something else (popular support, whipping up the troops, financing etc.). It's not hard to figure out the real reasons. See my original post with the links.  I think my post said like 7% had religion as a primary reason and half of them were Islamic wars. Seems to me it is only echo chamber atheist propaganda that Christianity is responsible for so many wars.

But you missed my point which was not to say that Christianity caused wars. I made a claim right out of the gate- Christianity is not pacifist in practice. What evidence do I have that supports this claim? Religious wars. Boom. Claim supported.

The only other part of my post where I brought up war-mongering again was just in case any Christians agreed that Christianity is supposed to be pacifist. None of you do, so moot point.

I can understand why you might have hopped to the defense you did because I have on multiple occasions railed against religion for its propensity to cause divisions between people that can (and do) lead to war.

But this time, it was a mere case-and-point to the claim that Christianity is not pacifistic in practice. It's a rather uncontroversial claim.

Thanks for responding to the question and, I will respond in more detail to your earlier post soon.