It’s worth considering that people who believe in Very Bad Future Outcomes have been working to prevent those outcomes for thousands of years, and have stumbled upon formidable techniques for doing so.
Judaism has a formidable technique. If someone tries to get you to worship another god, “thou shalt surely kill him, thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death.” D’varim 13:6-10
Christianity has a formidable technique. Jesus said: “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before Me.” Luke 19:27
Islam has a formidable technique. Regarding non-Muslims, “kill them wherever ye find them.” 4:89.
Violence is a time tested and true means of persuasion and religion makes use of it.
Uh, I don’t know about the others, but that Jesus quote is taken way out of context. It comes from a parable that goes like this:
While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’ “But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’ “He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it. “The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’ “‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’ “The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’ “His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’ “Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’ “His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’ “Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’ “‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’ “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”
As you can see, it’s not Jesus saying to kill actual people in front of him as the quote taken out of context makes it sound like, but rather he is describing what the king in the story is saying. It’s part of a parable, and probably meant to be a metaphor for Jesus/God eventually judging non-believers or demons and sending them to Hell.
You could maybe argue that the threat of Hell is like a threat of violence, but it’s not the same as suggesting that Jesus wanted to have his enemies killed in front of him.
We agree for the context of the story and the threat it implies. But for it to be only a metaphor (about future violence) one must ignore what Jesus said. Jesus said: “he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one” (Luke 22:36) and “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34).
Regarding the “buy a sword” quote, he said that to his disciples, and then later says to them that two swords are enough. The most common interpretation of this is that he needed to fulfill a prophecy, and also so as to get him arrested by the authorities for “leading a rebellion”. Two swords are obviously not enough to win a rebellion, so it seems like the purpose of this wasn’t to convert people through violence. There is a scene later where Peter famously cuts off one of the ears of the people sent to arrest Jesus, and then Jesus goes “enough of that!” and promptly heals the ear, and allows himself to be taken into custody peacefully.
So there’s at least as many quotes from Jesus to support an argument for pacifism as there are to suggest otherwise. And arguably as those more pacifist quotes come from his core teachings like the Sermon on the Mount, it is more suggestive of his actual positions.
In the context of his overall ministry, and the fact that the Christian martyrs in general were known for their pacifism and willingness to sacrifice their own lives for what they believed in, I would argue that early Christianity spread more because of its non-violent tendencies, and the violence that its opponents inflicted on them. Of course, after Constantine’s conversion and the politicization of the Church, things changed, and you could argue that Christianity became just another state religion that was spread by the sword in the same way all state religions arguably are. The Crusades also come to mind as an example of where Christianity was “spread by the sword”, though one can make an argument that the Crusades were actually political actions disguised with religious rhetoric.
But I think you’re trying too hard to find evidence that Jesus himself advocated physical violence, when most of the evidence is that he advocated a kind of pacifism, as well as an ideological revolution.
That’s one of the worst strawmen imaginable… Sure, many popular religions advocate violence in certain circumstances, but by no means all, and probably none use it as a main way of proselytizing.
Both Christianity and Islam spread, to some extent, by fire and the sword while they were small. They renounced violence—more or less—when they became top dogs. It could be worth considering whether this is a useful pattern for small movements to follow.
Muhammad also didn’t threaten his first few followers with death. So the pattern could be a little more complex:
Start friendly, gather believers among nice people. You would lose all violent battles, which is why you don’t even try them, and instead rely on your image of a nice person attacked by assholes.
At some moment you are strong enough to try a violent coup. (If your estimate was wrong, bad luck, you become a very short lesson in history.) Invent a plausible story about why you have to kill the infidels for greater good. You can use the fact that your enemies are perceived as assholes and your friends as nice people, as a leverage. Go and kill, kill, kill!
At another moment you have to slow down because you are already too big. You have to focus on developing internal bureaucracy to prevent the whole system falling apart. Your original story of nice people “proactively defending” against the powerful assholes starts seeming less plausible. You have to focus on fighting internal competitors, which leaves less energy for fighting outside enemies. Also it becomes in your interest to preserve the status quo.
Christianity didn’t become the official religion of the Roman empire through a violent coup.
On the other hand once Christianity did become the official religions the barbarians came and destroyed the Roman empire. Somehow those Barbarians did take Christianity back home. That’s the dark ages.
They renounced violence—more or less—when they became top dogs.
No, they didn’t renounce violence, they just no longer needed to go to war against already conquered and captive populations. But violence was used to keep them on top, and stomp out the competition. That’s been on the decline in Western Christian countries for centuries, at least in terms of enforcing generally recognized Christianity.
Judaism has a formidable technique. If someone tries to get you to worship another god, “thou shalt surely kill him, thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death.” D’varim 13:6-10
Christianity has a formidable technique. Jesus said: “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before Me.” Luke 19:27
Islam has a formidable technique. Regarding non-Muslims, “kill them wherever ye find them.” 4:89.
Violence is a time tested and true means of persuasion and religion makes use of it.
Uh, I don’t know about the others, but that Jesus quote is taken way out of context. It comes from a parable that goes like this:
As you can see, it’s not Jesus saying to kill actual people in front of him as the quote taken out of context makes it sound like, but rather he is describing what the king in the story is saying. It’s part of a parable, and probably meant to be a metaphor for Jesus/God eventually judging non-believers or demons and sending them to Hell.
You could maybe argue that the threat of Hell is like a threat of violence, but it’s not the same as suggesting that Jesus wanted to have his enemies killed in front of him.
We agree for the context of the story and the threat it implies. But for it to be only a metaphor (about future violence) one must ignore what Jesus said. Jesus said: “he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one” (Luke 22:36) and “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34).
Regarding the “buy a sword” quote, he said that to his disciples, and then later says to them that two swords are enough. The most common interpretation of this is that he needed to fulfill a prophecy, and also so as to get him arrested by the authorities for “leading a rebellion”. Two swords are obviously not enough to win a rebellion, so it seems like the purpose of this wasn’t to convert people through violence. There is a scene later where Peter famously cuts off one of the ears of the people sent to arrest Jesus, and then Jesus goes “enough of that!” and promptly heals the ear, and allows himself to be taken into custody peacefully.
Regarding the “not peace but a sword” quote, it’s arguable that this is an obvious metaphor for ideological conflict.
Again, taken out of context, these verses can sound a lot more aggressive than the context would suggest.
Jesus also said things like “Those who live by the sword, die by the sword,” “Turn the other cheek,” and “Love your enemies”.
So there’s at least as many quotes from Jesus to support an argument for pacifism as there are to suggest otherwise. And arguably as those more pacifist quotes come from his core teachings like the Sermon on the Mount, it is more suggestive of his actual positions.
In the context of his overall ministry, and the fact that the Christian martyrs in general were known for their pacifism and willingness to sacrifice their own lives for what they believed in, I would argue that early Christianity spread more because of its non-violent tendencies, and the violence that its opponents inflicted on them. Of course, after Constantine’s conversion and the politicization of the Church, things changed, and you could argue that Christianity became just another state religion that was spread by the sword in the same way all state religions arguably are. The Crusades also come to mind as an example of where Christianity was “spread by the sword”, though one can make an argument that the Crusades were actually political actions disguised with religious rhetoric.
But I think you’re trying too hard to find evidence that Jesus himself advocated physical violence, when most of the evidence is that he advocated a kind of pacifism, as well as an ideological revolution.
For me to say more would be a movement too far away from the original post, and so I will close by saying thank you for your criticism.
That’s one of the worst strawmen imaginable… Sure, many popular religions advocate violence in certain circumstances, but by no means all, and probably none use it as a main way of proselytizing.
Both Christianity and Islam spread, to some extent, by fire and the sword while they were small. They renounced violence—more or less—when they became top dogs. It could be worth considering whether this is a useful pattern for small movements to follow.
While Christianity was small it was mostly a minority religion. Do you really think it spread by the sword in 250 AD?
Muhammad also didn’t threaten his first few followers with death. So the pattern could be a little more complex:
Start friendly, gather believers among nice people. You would lose all violent battles, which is why you don’t even try them, and instead rely on your image of a nice person attacked by assholes.
At some moment you are strong enough to try a violent coup. (If your estimate was wrong, bad luck, you become a very short lesson in history.) Invent a plausible story about why you have to kill the infidels for greater good. You can use the fact that your enemies are perceived as assholes and your friends as nice people, as a leverage. Go and kill, kill, kill!
At another moment you have to slow down because you are already too big. You have to focus on developing internal bureaucracy to prevent the whole system falling apart. Your original story of nice people “proactively defending” against the powerful assholes starts seeming less plausible. You have to focus on fighting internal competitors, which leaves less energy for fighting outside enemies. Also it becomes in your interest to preserve the status quo.
Christianity didn’t become the official religion of the Roman empire through a violent coup.
On the other hand once Christianity did become the official religions the barbarians came and destroyed the Roman empire. Somehow those Barbarians did take Christianity back home. That’s the dark ages.
No, they didn’t renounce violence, they just no longer needed to go to war against already conquered and captive populations. But violence was used to keep them on top, and stomp out the competition. That’s been on the decline in Western Christian countries for centuries, at least in terms of enforcing generally recognized Christianity.
It was, but then times changed, and the practice largely died out. If it still worked, then religions that still use it would spread more.