Is it really even fair to hold Christians accountable?

[Chesterton]

And notice that the Democratic Republic of North Korea is not a true democracy, either.

That means what they actually do and how they actually behave is the indicator of what they truly are, not the moniker they appropriate.

Okay, well I don't want to derail the fellow's thread onto what Marxism is and isn't. My original point was only that People's Temple was not a Christian church, which I assume you'd agree with. After all, how could it be Christian when its supporters included the likes of Jane Fonda, Jerry Brown, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, etc.?

 

[devin553344]

A lot of Anti-Theists who believe that religion is bad blame Christianity for wars, terror, and oppression. For example the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, Jones Town, Shooters, Hitler, Slavery, etc.

I read the Bible and Jesus never told us to kill in his name, oppress others. So is this even fair we are blamed for the atrocities along with our God being blamed as well? I don't even know where Hitler gets into this because he never declared himself as a Christian, and Jones Town was a cult and the source of the teachings didn't come from the Bible.

So all of a sudden because of these events Anti-Theist blame Christians, the Bible, and our God for everything, even though our God never commanded such things.

How is this fair? Is it even rational?

Interesting:

Leviticus 20:13 says:

{20:13} If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

Of course that's illegal for most countries to do that in this day it isn't for all countries.

 

[RDKirk]

Okay, well I don't want to derail the fellow's thread onto what Marxism is and isn't. My original point was only that People's Temple was not a Christian church, which I assume you'd agree with. After all, how could it be Christian when its supporters included the likes of Jane Fonda, Jerry Brown, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, etc.?

But where were the Christian leaders to denounce it as not Christian?

And that's my point. If someone claims to be Christian but behaves egregiously, yet Christians are not standing up in solid voice to say, at least, "Judged by his fruits, he is not Christian," then it's perfectly logical for atheists to present him as an example of Christianity.

 

[Chesterton]

But where were the Christian leaders to denounce it as not Christian?

Obviously, People's Temple was not on the Christian leaders' radar. Why would they have been? They were on the Left's radar because they were fellow Leftists.

 

[RDKirk]

Obviously, People's Temple was not on the Christian leaders' radar. Why would they have been? They were on the Left's radar because they were fellow Leftists.

It should have been on Christian's radar because they were claiming to be Christian. The People's Temple had been around since the 50s, had thousands of members in numerous locations, and they were in the news.

I knew about them.

 

[hedrick]

It should have been on Christian's radar because they were claiming to be Christian. The People's Temple had been around since the 50s, had thousands of members in numerous locations, and they were in the news.

I knew about them.

Wikipedia has a long article. If they're right, he seems to have been a nut, but probably an atheist who used Christianity to lure people into his world, which was in some sense Marxist (though I wouldn't blame Marxism for him either).

 

[RDKirk]

Wikipedia has a long article. If they're right, he seems to have been a nut, but probably an atheist who used Christianity to lure people into his world, which was in some sense Marxist (though I wouldn't blame Marxism for him either).

And yet, atheists can say, "What about that guy?" and Christians can't quite seem to bring themselves to disown him except to say "Marxist"--which is, actually, disowning the particular characteristics People's Temple shared with 1st century Christians and ignoring the actual "bad" parts.

And Christians continue to fail in "controlling our image." Atheists can point to atrocity after atrocity committed in the name of Christ, saying, "What about that incident? What about that guy?" and all Christians do is try to explain it rather than say unequivocally, "Not Christian."

We own atrocities and villains who have perpetrated evil in the name of Jesus, we fail to disavow them...so we allow atheists to characterize Christ by them.

 

[expos4ever]

No, there not, there from other counties posing as Americans to make Christians look bad. so they can kill us.

Do I have to be the one that says the obvious?

I guess so.

What a ridiculous claim.

 

[Chesterton]

It should have been on Christian's radar because they were claiming to be Christian. The People's Temple had been around since the 50s, had thousands of members in numerous locations, and they were in the news.

I knew about them.

I didn't know about them until they killed a Congressman and it made the news. You want Christian leaders to judge every sect and cult that calls itself Christian? What Christian leaders? The pope of Rome, or Jerry Falwell, or what? It's not like anyone would have cared to listen to them anyway.

 

[redleghunter]

A lot of Anti-Theists who believe that religion is bad blame Christianity for wars, terror, and oppression. For example the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, Jones Town, Shooters, Hitler, Slavery, etc.

I read the Bible and Jesus never told us to kill in his name, oppress others. So is this even fair we are blamed for the atrocities along with our God being blamed as well? I don't even know where Hitler gets into this because he never declared himself as a Christian, and Jones Town was a cult and the source of the teachings didn't come from the Bible.

So all of a sudden because of these events Anti-Theist blame Christians, the Bible, and our God for everything, even though our God never commanded such things.

How is this fair? Is it even rational?

They are most irrational considering the genocide, slavery and wars started by atheist and pagan regimes. Just look at the Soviet Union and Red China. You bring that up and they immediately say well that’s not atheism. They pretty much clam up after that or say well well Christians are supposed to be better.

Then tell them they are right and those regimes or empires or churches who acted violently and unjustly were just imitating their pagan forbears and not the example and commands of Christ.

Then watch their packaged and parroted polemic crumble into ad hominems.

 

[redleghunter]

Crusades? Have we actually abandoned the idea of spreading Christian culture by force? Mostly, but incidents do happen. The Crusades were sponsored by some of the popes, so they really were about Christianity. More recently, it's been Christian countries spreading their culture and influence. Not as overt, but it's still a danger.

Yes Popes called for secular kings in Christendom to fight the Crusades. But by the time Urban II in 1095 called for the first crusade, the Moslem hordes were already pressing in Christian lands.

The Crusades Were a Reasonable Response to Unchecked Islamic Aggression

The Crusades Were a Reasonable Response to Unchecked Islamic Aggression

 

[section9+1]

What non-theists say doesn't concern me since what else would they say? They are no supporters of theism anyway and I consider them to be theologically irrelevant. What is annoying is when Christians start complaining about all the wrongness that has taken place in the name of Christ. And a lot has, but just as I am supposed to put all my pre-Christ life behind me and look ahead, we as a Christian group need to put all the past wrongs behind us and look ahead. I refuse to cry about the past. It is the future that concerns me. We are to remember where we were in the past only so we can better appreciate our present. If there is no bad to compare with the good, then the good is unknowable.

 

[Petros2015]

It would appear that at least one of the Crusades probably failed to meet the definition of a just war and that is the Albigensian Crusade in France. That crusade ended with a horrific massacre of civilians.

Uh... how about this one?

Fourth Crusade - Wikipedia

They set out for Jerusalem and sacked the capital of the Byzantine (Christian) empire instead!

Speros Vryonis in Byzantium and Europe gives a vivid account of the sack:

The Latin soldiery subjected the greatest city in Europe to an indescribable sack. For three days they murdered, raped, looted and destroyed on a scale which even the ancient Vandals and Goths would have found unbelievable. Constantinople had become a veritable museum of ancient and Byzantine art, an emporium of such incredible wealth that the Latins were astounded at the riches they found. Though the Venetians had an appreciation for the art which they discovered (they were themselves semi-Byzantines) and saved much of it, the French and others destroyed indiscriminately, halting to refresh themselves with wine, violation of nuns, and murder of Orthodox clerics. The Crusaders vented their hatred for the Greeks most spectacularly in the desecration of the greatest Church in Christendom. They smashed the silver iconostasis, the icons and the holy books of Hagia Sophia, and seated upon the patriarchal throne a harlot who sang coarse songs as they drank wine from the Church's holy vessels. The estrangement of East and West, which had proceeded over the centuries, culminated in the horrible massacre that accompanied the conquest of Constantinople. The Greeks were convinced that even the Turks, had they taken the city, would not have been as cruel as the Latin Christians. The defeat of Byzantium, already in a state of decline, accelerated political degeneration so that the Byzantines eventually became an easy prey to the Turks. The Fourth Crusade and the crusading movement generally thus resulted, ultimately, in the victory of Islam, a result which was of course the exact opposite of its original intention.[50][51]

 

[Basil the Great]

Uh... how about this one?

Fourth Crusade - Wikipedia

They set out for Jerusalem and sacked the capital of the Byzantine (Christian) empire instead!

Speros Vryonis in Byzantium and Europe gives a vivid account of the sack:

The Latin soldiery subjected the greatest city in Europe to an indescribable sack. For three days they murdered, raped, looted and destroyed on a scale which even the ancient Vandals and Goths would have found unbelievable. Constantinople had become a veritable museum of ancient and Byzantine art, an emporium of such incredible wealth that the Latins were astounded at the riches they found. Though the Venetians had an appreciation for the art which they discovered (they were themselves semi-Byzantines) and saved much of it, the French and others destroyed indiscriminately, halting to refresh themselves with wine, violation of nuns, and murder of Orthodox clerics. The Crusaders vented their hatred for the Greeks most spectacularly in the desecration of the greatest Church in Christendom. They smashed the silver iconostasis, the icons and the holy books of Hagia Sophia, and seated upon the patriarchal throne a harlot who sang coarse songs as they drank wine from the Church's holy vessels. The estrangement of East and West, which had proceeded over the centuries, culminated in the horrible massacre that accompanied the conquest of Constantinople. The Greeks were convinced that even the Turks, had they taken the city, would not have been as cruel as the Latin Christians. The defeat of Byzantium, already in a state of decline, accelerated political degeneration so that the Byzantines eventually became an easy prey to the Turks. The Fourth Crusade and the crusading movement generally thus resulted, ultimately, in the victory of Islam, a result which was of course the exact opposite of its original intention.[50][51]

Rumor has it that this is when the Shroud of Turin, or one like the shroud which was formerly housed in Constantinople, was seized and brought back to Europe.

 

[Petros2015]

Rumor has it that this is when the Shroud of Turin, or one like the shroud which was formerly housed in Constantinople, was seized and brought back to Europe.

lol. How did much did THAT delivery cost?

 

[Basil the Great]

Yes Popes called for secular kings in Christendom to fight the Crusades. But by the time Urban II in 1095 called for the first crusade, the Moslem hordes were already pressing in Christian lands.

The Crusades Were a Reasonable Response to Unchecked Islamic Aggression

The Crusades Were a Reasonable Response to Unchecked Islamic Aggression

Perhaps... maybe... However, even if the Holy Land Crusades were justified by Augustine's Just War Doctrine, that still leaves the Albigensian Crusade in France. Can anyone justify that Crusade? The Albigensians were basically heretical Christians and I know of no evidence that they were a direct threat to the Catholic-Orthodox Church.

 

[redleghunter]

Perhaps... maybe... However, even if the Holy Land Crusades were justified by Augustine's Just War Doctrine, that still leaves the Albigensian Crusade in France. Can anyone justify that Crusade? The Albigensians were basically heretical Christians and I know of no evidence that they were a direct threat to the Catholic-Orthodox Church.

You are correct in bringing this up, but I was responding to the notion that the Christian crusades into Moslem lands was somehow an unprovoked adventure.

 

[redleghunter]

Rumor has it that this is when the Shroud of Turin, or one like the shroud which was formerly housed in Constantinople, was seized and brought back to Europe.

I've heard that. Very interesting. What sources can you recommend to look at this?

 

[redleghunter]

The Greeks were convinced that even the Turks, had they taken the city, would not have been as cruel as the Latin Christians.

How did that work out?

 

[Petros2015]

How did that work out?

About 200 years later... not so well I expect.

Fall of Constantinople - Wikipedia

Plundering phase
Mehmed II had promised to his soldiers three days to plunder the city, to which they were entitled.[18]:145[43] Soldiers fought over the possession of some of the spoils of war.[44]:283 According to the Venetian surgeon Nicolò Barbaro "all through the day the Turks made a great slaughter of Christians through the city". According to Philip Mansel, widespread persecution of the city's civilian inhabitants took place, resulting in thousands of murders and rapes and 30,000 civilians being enslaved or forcibly deported.[45]

The looting was extremely thorough in certain parts of the city. Weeks later on 2 June, the Sultan would find the city largely deserted and half in ruins; churches had been desecrated and stripped, houses were no longer habitable and stores and shops were emptied. He is famously reported to have been moved to tears by this, speaking "What a city we have given over to plunder and destruction."[18]:152