Historically Christianity has been the most bloodthirsy religion. Is killing a necessary part of the faith?

Question

Eg the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the KKK, witch burnings etc

Bloodthirsty

Answer 1

wrong...
You need to read some history.
Political movements that espouse Christiany or that correspond with religious movements are not the same as "Christianity being bloodthirsty." It is a Political and Emperial thirst for power that has led to so much death and life loss, not Christianity.

Sounds like you have some issues to deal with internally... are you willing to talk about it?

edit:
good points Pretorian

Answer 2

I kind of agree with you. While it is fact that Christianity has a rather sordid past, that includes oppression, book burning, the inquisition, etc., I feel that it is most certainly not fair to bring this up without reflecting on the current state of affairs.

You mention the Crusades, for example. While I would not attempt to deny the events that took place during the crusades, I'd like to point out that there was another side in those battles; Islam.

Now, if you want to focus on the crusades, past and present, you can see how Christianity has come A LONG WAY from those times and actions. Islam, on the other hand, not so much. The vast majority of Christians today practice peace and love, peace and tolerance. When events occure that insult Christians, for the most part, it's taken in stride. However, with Muslims, this is not always the case. Just look at the consequences of the Danish Cartoon Incident (riots, people being killed, embassies being burned), or what happened to 4 private security personell in 2003 (abducted, savagely murdered, bodies dragged through the streets, remains hung from bridges) or the consequences of the FALSE story of interogators placing the Quran in a toilet (riots, people being killed, building and cars being burned) or the consequences of the Abu Ghrab photos (riots, people being killed, buildings being attacked) or the incident of ALLEGED abuse in Gitmo (riots, people being killed...).....

Are you seeing what I'm getting at? To call Christianity "blood thirsty" is neither fair nor responsible. You fail to look at the present day situation and refuse to seperate past from present. At the very least, you must concede that it is BY FAR much less violent than Islam, which advocates either "killing or converting infidels."

So, while historically Christianity has some blemishes, it is far from what you claim it to be today. Other religions STILL advocate barbaric actions such as "honor killings," "stoning," "female circumsition," the oppresion of woman and sympathize with terrorists.

To wholly condem Christianity based on past deeds is to wholly condem anyone who has committed transgressions in their past. I stole a candy bar when I was a young boy, that does not make me a thief today. I'm sure you've commited some acts that are less than desirable in your past, they do not define you as a person today though, do they?

Answer 3

There are some Christians whose reading of the Old Testament would allow them to justify killing of their enemies, e.g. the passages where the people of Israel were ordered to massacre whole tribes, retributive justice demanding the killing of the guilty. The use of the OT in this way is, of course, misguided and careful exegesis based on Jesus' teachings should have warned them. But unfortunately many Christian leaders found it expedient at certain times to ignore this and use the OT to their own ends. There is no justification in the teachings of Jesus to use violence against another person for any reason. Not even to defend another person. This is a very hard teaching and many Christians will vehemently oppose it. Christ is the Prince of Peace and he stopped Peter from using violence to defend him. If only Christians have followed his teachings. Killing is not and never part of faith in Christ. The OT should be read as background material for understanding the NT, and not as a source of proof-texts for doctrine.

Answer 4

500 years ago, maybe. But then again life was cheap in those days. Most of the world has moved on. Its only Islam that is stuck 500 years in the past.

By the way. The KKK is not a religion. Its a political movement.

{EDIT} Hmmmm got a lot of ignorance here. Sure, Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades and witch burnings had nothing to do with Christianity. BUT, it was done in the name of Christianity. Just like all the cold blooded murder committed by these ignorant lame backward terrorists are done in the name of Islam. It is possible to draw a parallel here. The problem is that some aspects of Islam are still a very backward religion stuck in the dark ages of ignorance.

Answer 5

Wrong, Christianity is not the most bloodthirsty religion, historically or not. Islam blatantly says infidels (non-believers) should be killed. Christianity never had any such requirement, or anything even close. It's nice to twist something from hundreds of years ago and blame the religion.

Answer 6

I used to think you were right.

I've come to the conclusion that no religion, or people, or political movement is really in the end any less bloodthirsty, when pushed to the wall or put under the control of a bloodthirst leader.

It's the human condition. We'll either evolve past war or we will end our tenure on earth.

Those are the only real choices.

Answer 7

You're erroneously confusing catholicism with Christianity. Apples and oranges in the case of the inquisition and crusades. The KKK hides behind the guise of christianity, but it's followers are not Christian, any more than the Christian Identity movement is Christian.

Answer 8

Read history, The Crusades were in response to the Muslin invasions of Europe. Not that christianity has its dark times. Last time I checked all 19 members of 9-11 were Muslims. Who sends thier children out to be terrorists? Muslins in Gaza. Just some thoughts

Answer 9

The inquisition, crusades, KKK and witch burning had little to do with Christianity and a lot to do with human greed.

Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao between them killed more people than all who had met violent deaths in the previous 2,000 years. They all claimed to be atheists.

Answer 10

No, you are wrong. Evil people have been some of the most bloodthirsty individuals who killed falsely in the name of Christianity.

Answer 11

I dont even agree with the question. In no part of Christianity is murder justified. Killing can be (they are different) in either defence or (in the far distant past) in furtherance of the faith (cf Islam today).
If you wish to consider other 'religions' & extend the definition to concepts such as 20th century communism et al you will see that Mao is believed to have caused 30 million deaths in the 'Great Leap Forward' & 'Cultural Revolutions', Stalin over 25 million in the forced labours & the wholesale banishment of ethnic groups such as Chetchens. Then dont forget Pol Pot who killed 1/3 of the entire population of Cambodia!