Christianity and Non-violence

Christianity, like many major world religions, has a complex history that includes both nonviolent and violent expressions. While some Christian groups and traditions have emphasised nonviolence, such as the Quakers, Mennonites, and some early Christians, Christianity as a whole has been associated with violence throughout history. To understand why Christianity has not been widely accepted as a nonviolent religion and why it has often been historically violent, we can consider several factors:

1. Historical Context and Political Power

  • Constantine and the Roman Empire: The conversion of Constantine to Christianity in the early 4th century and the subsequent adoption of Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire marked a significant turning point. Once Christianity became intertwined with political power, it also became entangled with the interests of the state, which often involved warfare and violence. The shift from a persecuted minority faith to an imperial religion brought new dynamics, including the use of religion to justify political and military actions.
  • The Crusades: Beginning in the 11th century, the Crusades were a series of religious wars sanctioned by the Church, primarily aimed at reclaiming Jerusalem and other holy sites from Muslim rule. These wars were justified by the Church as a divine mandate, leading to widespread violence and conflict in the name of Christianity. The Crusades significantly shaped the perception of Christianity as a religion capable of great violence.
  • Inquisition and Religious Persecution: The Inquisition, particularly in medieval Europe, represents another period where Christianity was associated with violence. The Church sought to maintain doctrinal purity and control by prosecuting heretics and dissenters, often using torture and execution. This period illustrates how Christianity when wielded as a tool of political power, could be employed to justify violent repression.

2. Doctrinal Interpretations and Theological Justifications

  • Just War Theory: Developed by theologians like Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, the Just War Theory provided a framework for when war could be considered morally justifiable under Christian doctrine. While initially intended to limit the circumstances under which violence could be used, it ultimately provided a theological basis for Christians to engage in warfare, including defensive and even some offensive actions.
  • Interpretation of Scripture: Different interpretations of the Bible have also played a role in Christianity’s association with violence. Specific Old Testament passages, like those describing the wars of the Israelites or God’s commands to punish certain groups, have been used to justify violence. In the New Testament, while Jesus’ teachings generally emphasise peace and nonviolence, some passages, like Jesus saying, “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34), have been interpreted as justifying conflict.

3. Cultural and Social Factors

  • European Colonialism: During the Age of Exploration, European powers often used Christianity to justify their colonial ambitions. The Doctrine of Discovery and other religiously motivated doctrines were employed to legitimise the conquest and colonisation of non-Christian lands. This led to widespread oppression and violence against indigenous peoples across Africa, the Americas, and Asia.
  • Religious Wars in Europe: The Protestant Reformation in the 16th century led to significant religious conflicts in Europe, such as the Thirty Years’ War. These wars were often fuelled by a combination of religious, political, and economic factors, illustrating how Christian identity could be manipulated to serve broader agendas, resulting in widespread violence.

4. Institutional Authority and Control

  • Church-State Alliance: The close alliance between the Church and state authorities throughout much of Christian history often meant that the Church’s interests were closely aligned with those of political rulers. The Church’s support of, or involvement in, violent actions was frequently tied to the need to maintain political power and control, such as during the suppression of heresies or in the enforcement of orthodoxy.
  • Control Over Religious Practice: Throughout history, the institutional Church often sought to control religious practices and beliefs. This control sometimes manifested in violent actions against perceived threats to its authority, such as during the suppression of early Christian sects, the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars, or the execution of Protestant reformers.

5. Reformation and Counter-Reformation Dynamics

Confessional Conflicts: The fragmentation of Christianity during the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation led to intense religious conflicts, such as the French Wars of Religion and the Thirty Years’ War. These conflicts were not only about religious doctrine but also involved political power struggles, further entrenching the association of Christianity with violence.

6. Nonviolent Christian Traditions and Their Marginalization

  • Early Christian Pacifism: The early Christian Church was largely pacifist, with many Church Fathers advocating nonviolence and rejecting military service. However, as Christianity became institutionalised and aligned with state power, these pacifist traditions were marginalised or reinterpreted.
  • Anabaptists, Quakers, and Other Pacifist Movements: Throughout history, Christian groups have consistently advocated for nonviolence, such as the Anabaptists (including Mennonites and Amish), Quakers, and others. These groups emphasise Jesus’ teachings on love, peace, and turning the other cheek. However, they have often been persecuted by mainstream Christian institutions and states, leading them to be marginalised within the broader Christian tradition.

Conclusion

Christianity’s historical association with violence can be attributed to a complex interplay of factors, including its alignment with political power, doctrinal interpretations that justify violence, cultural and social contexts, and institutional efforts to control religious practice. While there are Christian groups that have consistently advocated for nonviolence, these voices have often been overshadowed by the broader historical trends of Christian involvement in political and military conflicts.

An integral approach to understanding Christianity’s relationship with violence involves recognising the tradition’s diverse expressions and how cultural, political, and historical contexts have shaped its development. It also requires acknowledging the nonviolent teachings of Jesus and the pacifist traditions that continue to advocate for peace and nonviolence, providing a basis for reimagining Christianity as a faith committed to nonviolence in the modern world.

It’s a good post. My apologies in advance, but the wording, organization and formatting look very Chatgpt-ish. (this is not a shot at your intelligence, for example. From what I’ve seen in posts that don’t seem like this, you’re very intelligent. And while I realize my asking is provocative, I shudder about a future where people will depend on AIs not just as resources but for nearly all of their expression and thinking. So, I am, I confess, paranoid, seeing ghosts in shadows. But, for good or ill, consciously and intentionally paranoid.)

First of all, thank you for attesting to my intelligence. So, I assume you would attest to the intelligent use of AI, especially in trying to take a balanced approach to the subject rather than just ranting. It is also helpful for someone like me whose everyday language, and much of my library, is German rather than English.

I assume you also use books that are regularly outdated and need to be checked before we write an authoritative text on a subject - which is not my purpose here - as I do with the use of AI. The implied statement that I have used AI in “almost all” of my expressions and thoughts is not a fact, but it is true that AI sometimes provides a usable outline as a quick reference, which I have used here.

Every statement in this post is corroborated by sources I have in my room, sources I have found online, and, indeed, by the history lessons I had at college. My intention is to make a proposition that will hopefully be challenged or confirmed by members of the forum, leading to further discussion. On the other hand, some might say that the matter is self-evident and needs no comment.

Perhaps in the future, I will state up front if AI has been used in any of my information or quotes (which is easy with Kindle), but then again, I don’t see many people citing sources here, mostly opinions, which are not as fact-checked as my offerings.

I think it would be great to do a review of the entire Bible, the recorded (not exhaustive) history, of God’s interaction with creation/us — some of which is either interpreted as violence, or interpreted as ending violence. What was the situation “into” which God “intervened”? Do we see anything like that happening around (or within) us in the world today? Also included in the review should be when humans asked him to be violent in ending violence (intervene) and he did not (in the way they asked)—but instead did something else. Something else that could also be seen as violence depending on how you look at it. (Is there a just violence?)

One example is the crucifixion which was very violent, but not the violence the Jews wanted (against the Romans) at the time. Except … at one point, they did. All the violence they wanted against the Romans was put on Jesus, ironically, and the crowd asked for it. There’s an ego (or groupthink) defense mechanism name for that. And it will happen again to his ungroup-thinking body.

You’re welcome.

Didn’t know that.

Bob, I never think I write an authoritative text on a subject. At least not in discussion forums. Not that you presented the options as rant vs. authoritative text, but I aim for somewhere in the middle, hopefully without the negative aspects of rant.

Apologies if it seemed I meant that, but no I was speaking about concerns related to the future and in relation to trends in general. I wouldn’t have said you seemed intelligent, since I would have no idea, if I thought most of your writing was AI generated. I’d assume I had no way to know.

1 Like

Someone can be very, very intelligent and yet not be very articulate. In the past such people would “use” ghost writers. “Using” AI is no different. We’re all AI.

#scaryghoststory

Genesis 4:10-12 “Then He said, “What have you done? Your brother’s blood cries out to Me from the ground! So now you are cursed, alienated, from the ground that opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood you have shed. If you work the ground, it will never again give you its yield. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.”

B & H Publishing Group. The Holy Bible: HCSB Digital Text Edition: Holman Christian Standard Bible Optimized for Digital Readers (p. 30). B&H Publishing. Kindle Edition.

Cain says, “You are banishing me today from the soil, and I must hide myself from Your presence and become a restless wanderer on the earth, whoever finds me will kill me.” (4:14)

I would interpret this as a universal outlawing of killing since humanity, and not just Cain, kills siblings (with Adam as the symbolic “first man”) and thereby alienates himself from “the soil.”

The connection between “blood” and “soil” in Genesis highlights the intertwined relationship between human actions, especially violence, and the natural world. It underscores the idea that moral and ethical behaviour directly affects human relationships and the land and environment. The earth is not just a passive backdrop but an active participant that responds to human sin and injustice. The passage thus conveys a profound message about the interconnectedness of life, morality, and the world, illustrating that the consequences of sin extend beyond personal guilt to impact the very ground upon which life depends.

“As a consequence of Cain’s sin, the fragile balance between ‘time’ and ‘space’ that characterized the Garden was further lost. On the one hand, Cain became even more vulnerable to the vicissitudes of cyclical time and the influences of “death.” On the other hand, he was forced to work even harder and to build increasingly powerful technologies to “stand artificially.””

Pageau, Matthieu. The Language of Creation: Cosmic Symbolism in Genesis (p. 234-5). Kindle Edition.

This stands at the beginning of the Bible and symbolically represents humanity. In the New Testament, we read (1 John 3:11-12): “For this is the message you have heard from the beginning: We should love one another, unlike Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother.”

This offers continuity, even if variations of the word “kill” alone appear 472 times between these entries. Fortunately, that word is outnumbered by the word “love,” which appears 500 times. The Epistle goes on to say (V.15): “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.” Once again, “brother” is for me both “neighbour” and “enemy,” whom Jesus calls us to love.

I am a bit confused about how you bring the crucifixion into this. However, it is a prime example of those in power killing the spiritual, which, as I mentioned in the OP, continued in the church once the church gained power. It was also every bit as horrific as the OT examples of genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Which really is the point. Christians who call on the OT to legitimise violence willfully ignore the implications of the Gospels and the Epistles, which, in their command to love, supersedes any idea that violence is legitimate. The only vehemence I could imagine is in defence of the defenceless, and even then, “Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give place unto the wrath of God: for it is written, Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the Lord.” (Romans 12:19)

Your reply makes it seem as though you think ai was used here to help with better wording, but is still expressing Bob’s ideas. Am I interpreting your words correctly? Do you think Bob told chat gpt what ideas he’d like to write, and chat gpt fixed his wording?

Why did you say “Once again”? I was thinking on this earlier today.

Are you thinking Bob is any more/less AI than I already said we all are?

You are cherrypicking them.

Until next time.

/out

I hate it when people talk about me as though I’m absent.

If you want to know, I wrote a piece I wasn’t really happy with because it was a rant. I chose to give that piece to AI and asked how I could formulate this in a more balanced way. The outcome was what I posted.

This is really typical of you. You are a lazy coward when it comes to talking about scripture.

I did go to the trouble to show you a continuity, but you dismiss it with literally nothing but “cherrypicking.”

cuz it is

not doing ur hmwrk 4u

I’m thinking Bob’s intelligence wasn’t used at all in that post.

You are doing it again @Flannel_Jesus . Either address me, or make your comments in a private message to @Ichthus77

1 Like

I was asking her to clarify her words from a post she made. That post just happened to be about something you posted. How should I address you, when I’m asking Ichthus a question about the words Ichthus wrote?

Often times, the intelligence of a person using a ghost writer isn’t relevant at all. A person can pay a ghost writer to do a project, and the ghost writer does the whole thing on their own. The person who’s putting their name on the finished piece frequently contributed nothing to final result other than the initial prompt.

Which is, I think, part of what’s troubling here. It’s impossible for anybody but Bob to know (hi Bob) which parts of the op are actually his. Has he just prompted the ai with “write 300 words on the relationship between violence and Christianity”? Or has he written the 300 words himself already and asked gpt to restructure it into something more readable?

Either could easily be the case, right? Maybe his (hi bob) intelligence wasn’t much involved at all.

Show us a religion or political ideology that has no violence in its history. There probably aren’t any, or even if there are they would be quite irrelevant.

Christianity has a very violent history. It forcibly colonized much of the entire world. There are people living today who believe in Christianity (and who still speak the language of the colonizers from hundreds of years ago) because Christians in the past invaded their lands and murdered everyone who didn’t convert.

Other than that, Christianity is pretty cool and does indeed have a strong non-violent bent to it.

Since you are going off topic here, perhaps you’d look at the post that Ichthus refuses to address, in which I quote the Bible (as she wanted) and an author who wrote about the symbolism of the OT. I was talking about Cain as the first murderer and his condemnation as a sign that non-violence is the norm. The last mention of Cain was in an Epistle said to have been written by John, in the context that love is the measure of christianity rather than violence.

That was also a text that I could have given to AI to analyse, but didn’t.