When did christianity stop being a pacifist religon

**Roosveltrepub** · 26 Jun 11,, 00:32

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Yes when it came to Roman persecution they preferred martyrdom, but they also viewed the empire as a whole as the civilized world and felt it needed protecting from the "barbarians". They wouldn't join the army outright, but they would pray for the soldiers. This mindset had to change when suddenly the state religion became Christianity. This is what I was referring to.

As for the Islamic incursions. The internal strife did hurt but also that the Byzantine(Christian) and Persian(Zoroastrian I believe) Empires had been fighting each other extensively lead to both being in a weakened state and exchanging territory. Don't forget too that when the Catholic Church came closest to decreeing war to be a holy act, during the Crusades, there was the prior Islamic invasion of Spain and incursion into France. So all in all I would say yes the Islamic expansion weighed on the psyche of a European Christian.

As for the Germanic tribes, yes some did convert to an Arianism such as the Goths and Vandals, but others converted to Catholic/Orthodox such as the Lombards and the Franks. Also how do you think the following of Arianism was destroyed? All through bloodletting or perhaps through Catholic/Orthodox missionary work? Conversion of the Germanic tribes ranged from 300 AD to 1100 AD depending on tribe and geographical location.

The important thing to consider though is the Christian missionaries targeted the leaders of the tribes for conversion. Typically the leader was a warrior and so the missionaries had to appeal to this warrior leader to convert. This resulted in the warrior tradition surviving and you have an influx of large numbers of Germanic Tribes into the fold with this warrior tradition. Again I think this is an influence to the church as a whole.

In my view the Christian Church did begin as very peaceful but then through the factors I listed above came very close to considering violence a moral good during the crusades and has been trending back to a more balanced view since. It is a pendulum though.

I pretty much agree. Heraclius sailing from Carthage and embarking on a campaign to Cteshipon (sp) in part to regain the true cross I have read referred to as the first crusade and imo would make a great movie it really was an epic undertaking and between that and Constantinople holding off I think the Avars is a big part of the reason there is a christian Europe. Even exhausted the great walled cities could of held out if they had the will.
Also the 4th crusade an obstensibly "holy" war against schismatic greeks for $ led to centuries of Turkish domination of the balkans as well as the end of christian asia minor. Given the competency of the Lacaris then Michael Paelogi and the destruction of the seljuk state by the mongols and the shared emnity of the Mameluks held by the empire and the mongols might of seen a recovery of at least the asia minor if not the syrian coast. All conjecture but not outrageous. I think the greatest weapon the islamic expansion had was christian persecution of sects deemed heretical. Christian violence of christians made the speed of it possible. Way off on a tangent but I think a lot of people don't understand how much the arab then turkish expansions were set up by christian intolerance.

**Roosveltrepub** · 26 Jun 11,, 00:46

Originally Posted by Mihais

Everything I read about the crusades said the emperor Alexius asked for help.The state and the church in the orthodox tradition(read the Byzantine tradition )are closely intertwined,but they are still separate,with the state coming first and the church second in all secular affairs.The church is independent in internal organization and spiritual matters,those strictly related to its mission(salvation of the souls and combating the devil).The Patriarch could not have called for military forces,nor he was able or willing to decide anything in foreign affairs.

Seeking some mercenaries was not seeking a crusade. The Pope used the request to justify the call for a crusade and solidify the Papacies temporal position as head of western christiandom. The greeks were terrifid of the crusader forces. It had only been a few years earlier the Norman crusaders had marched across the Via egnata seeking to conquer the empire. Alexius admitted the leadership into Constantinople a few at a time and forced oaths to return or rule lands as fuedal underlings which had previously been the empires to ferry them across the Bosporus.

**Mihais** · 26 Jun 11,, 13:23

With the exception of Alexius being scared of the crusaders,true.He was prudent and also wanted to make their junior status clear.

**Roosveltrepub** · 26 Jun 11,, 14:47

Originally Posted by Mihais

With the exception of Alexius being scared of the crusaders,true.He was prudent and also wanted to make their junior status clear.

He was brilliant and handled what could of been a disaster brilliantly and recovered vast areas of Asia minor and eventually his grandson made the Normans come to heel on those oarhs of fealty. If you haven't read the John Julius Norwhich three volume set on Byzantinium it's light reading and entertaining and draws heavily on Anna Comenii for that period of history which is great because I found her book and the secret histories etc too tedius to enjoy reading.

**snapper** · 27 Jun 11,, 12:42

Quakers are still pacifists.

**Kansas Bear** · 27 Jun 11,, 17:37

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

I also think you are wrong about islam encroaching. It was more like the monophysites a persecuted heretical sect of christians siding with the invaders against the orthodox authorities because the moslems were more tolerant of monophysite christians and jews than the empire. If not for the christian religous strife in the 6th and 7th centuries I can't see how a small force with no real experience in siege warfare would of swamped all those walled cities so fast and think the fact only the greek speaking portions survived the invasion because they atually resisted it strongly.

There are numerous factors as to why Egypt and the Levant fell so easily. One of which was the 25+ yr war between the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires, in which Jerusalem and Egypt were under Sassanid control for some time.

It wasn't the help of a "heretical" sect that gave impetus to two sieges of Constantinople(674-678 & 717-718).

**Monash** · 16 Aug 11,, 12:16

Originally Posted by Speedy

I never had much in the way of a religous education so correct me if I am wrong.

It was my understanding that the Pope is God's representative on Earth and his pronouncements are effectively the same as the words of God and thus it in effect becomes Christian dogma. So therefore as the Pope actively promoted many of the incidents RR mention that could be considered evidence of Christian dogma promoting violence.

Sorry,
Haven’t visited this topic in a while but the principal you are referring to is Papal Infallibility. I have texts on the subject available for research (we are talking really dry dogma here, on a par with Tax Law) but in summary my understanding is that the principal only applies in situations where the Pope is "presiding" over an issue of religious doctrine being debated before the College of Cardinals after a process of extensive debate and research. As such the number of occasions when a Pope might be said to be speaking in terms of "infallible" doctrine" is strictly limited. (Experts can help me out here but historically I think we a talking about perhaps once or twice in a Popes "life time" and recently not even that often. The principal was applied more often historically than it is has been recently. From memory I think Pope John Paul "may' have done applied the principal on one occasion. I am not sure if the current Pope has done it at all.

In any case the situation is analogous to that of a Justice of the Supreme Court handing down a decision on a case. When speaking or acting in an "official” capacity is word his effectively "law". If that same person was to then express a personal opinion that say "all personal property should be confiscated" he would be expressing a personal opinion. If he were to pick up a gun and shoot someone he would (subject to the circumstances) be subject to the same legal penalties as anyone else who committed such an act. So the issue of the Popes who were actively involved in promoting wars is in effect a historical aside to the issue at hand. None of them were "speaking from the throne" so to speak when they promoted acts of aggression. They were acting in their capacity as heads of the Vatican state (a temporal power) or for other base Political reasons.

**Monash** · 16 Aug 11,, 12:29

Originally Posted by JAD_333

RR:

You didn't answer Monash's request for proof that Christian dogma ever promoted violence. What you did, with some accuracy, was cite the violence perpetrated over the centuries by men who called themselves Christians.

It is impossible to understand how this violence came about without realizing that at the height of the church's influence everyone who aspired to power, fame, and riches found it impossible to succeed without being affiliated with the church in some way. A goof deal of the violence you speak of was committed by these ambitious men for motives apart from saving souls. The church establishment, of course, was not innocent of violence. The Crusades and the Inquisition were church initiated, but for political, not dogmatic reasons.

Jad, good response. I couldn’t have summed up my view on the topic more succinctly. Criticising the Church for the corrupt activities of some of its members is akin to criticising the principal of Democracy on the basis of the corrupt dealings of certain politicians.