3 ms·

You are conflating Christianity the religion (in a theoretical context) with Christianity the actions of those professing to be Christian. In the context of "d

You are conflating Christianity the religion (in a theoretical context) with Christianity the actions of those professing to be Christian. In the context of "did Christ advocate for this" your answer may be valid (although biblical text has often been creatively warped to justify anything.) However this article is in the context of "how did people, professing to be Christian, influence and alter the government and culture of the Roman state. Clearly the collective beliefs of large religious groups permeate governments to this day. And yes the behaviour of some Christians causes profound embarrassments shame to the wider Christian body. Ultimately when some group of Christians behaves in an intolerant, hypocritical, self-serving, shameful way, and does it while claiming Christian principles, then all Christians are tarred with that brush. And while I can argue that its people, not Christ, that acts that way, that argument will fall on deaf ears. I'll conclude by pointing out thus is not limited to Christianity. Muslims suffer the same effect. Most in the west tar all Muslims based on the actions of a few. That's worth remembering when either you, or they, are lumped with extreme fundamentalists who profess the "same religion."

Podgajski 3y ago
I’m not confusing anything. I’m clarifying because statements like this article make it seem like Christianity is the problem and not the people. When Saint Francis was told by God to “rebuild the church“ the message was that the church was decaying from within. my point is that the article states that Christianity did so-and-so. My rebuke is that to say that it was Christianity was like saying that it was a teachings of Christ that led to the persecution. All I’m doing is adding clarification because the church right now has enough evil in it to go around and not focusing on the good but focusing on the evil only destroys the goodness of the church.
- bruce511 3y ago
  I didn't say confusing, I said conflating :) I do agree that saying "christianity" in the context of the headline is ambiguous. It could be taken to mean "the teachings of Christ", or "the actions of people who profess to follow Christ", or perhaps "the outcomes of the teaching of Christ, as interpreted by fallible, misguided, or manipulated flocks. " And I would suggest, as I think you are suggesting, that reconciling some of the behaviour of todays Christians, with the teachings of Christ, can be, well, challenging.
  - defrost 3y ago
    > reconciling some of the behaviour of todays Christians, with the teachings of Christ 'twas always so and ever will be. eg: the Albigensian Crusade of 1209–1229 saw followers of Christ slaughter followers of Christ in large numbers; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade which included the Massacre at Béziers that gave rise to that snappy quip Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius (aka: Kill them. The Lord knows those that are his own | Kill them all; let God sort them out) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_B%C3%A9ziers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_B%C3%A9ziers

Podgajski 3y ago

I’m not confusing anything. I’m clarifying because statements like this article make it seem like Christianity is the problem and not the people. When Saint Francis was told by God to “rebuild the church“ the message was that the church was decaying from within. my point is that the article states that Christianity did so-and-so. My rebuke is that to say that it was Christianity was like saying that it was a teachings of Christ that led to the persecution. All I’m doing is adding clarification because the church right now has enough evil in it to go around and not focusing on the good but focusing on the evil only destroys the goodness of the church.

bruce511 3y ago
I didn't say confusing, I said conflating :) I do agree that saying "christianity" in the context of the headline is ambiguous. It could be taken to mean "the teachings of Christ", or "the actions of people who profess to follow Christ", or perhaps "the outcomes of the teaching of Christ, as interpreted by fallible, misguided, or manipulated flocks. " And I would suggest, as I think you are suggesting, that reconciling some of the behaviour of todays Christians, with the teachings of Christ, can be, well, challenging.
- defrost 3y ago
  > reconciling some of the behaviour of todays Christians, with the teachings of Christ 'twas always so and ever will be. eg: the Albigensian Crusade of 1209–1229 saw followers of Christ slaughter followers of Christ in large numbers; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade which included the Massacre at Béziers that gave rise to that snappy quip Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius (aka: Kill them. The Lord knows those that are his own | Kill them all; let God sort them out) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_B%C3%A9ziers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_B%C3%A9ziers