When did christianity stop being a pacifist religon

[Monash]

Roosie,
Again I refer you to the question as originaly posted - "When did christianity stop being a pacifist religon?" As I noted before if something has stopped being what it is it has changed it's basic state or nature and therefore cannot be that thing again unless it undergoes another transition. If Christianity stopped being pacifistic in nature then it is not pacifistic now. With regards to the examples you sight above most have underlying deep socio economic, political and racial factors as well. I will attempt to produce examples emphasising these points at a later date as I have to sign off now. Cheers

[Mirko R]

Since it was used as a tool to mobilize its believers en mass against non-believers for the achievement of a political objective, just like any other religion.

[Kansas Bear]

If Rooseveltrepub wanted a year, how about 1061c.

[Speedy]

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.

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.

[Wayfarer]

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.

Only Catholics would follow the said Pope. However, other sects of Christianity would have different popes/or none at all, i.e Orthodox Catholics from the Byzantine half of the Roman Empire have their own Pope, and Copts their own, and so on.

[Mihais]

Except they didn't followed the Patriarchs anywhere.They followed the Emperor,which is a wholly different thing.

[Jimbo]

To clear up what Speedy said. Catholics only believe that Pope infallibility applies to Church Dogma and only when the Pope is speaking in union with all of the bishops. In other words a Pope for instance saying we must attack and purify all Islamic nations does not meet either qualifier because one it isn't a dogmatic decree and I can guarantee you at least one bishop would be against it.

[ArmchairGeneral]

Careful people those ones.An investment needs to be protected.
Here's a question.Is Christianity worth fighting and dying for and under what circumstances?

Oldish post, but interesting question, and I prefer answering it to finishing this blasted final exam...

Dying for, yes. Fighting for...I don't know. I'm ambivalent about the morality of war at the best of times, because it seems incongruous with much I believe; fighting for Christianity, well, I'm not even sure what that means. God certainly doesn't need my defense. Going by the example of Stephen maybe martyrdom is preferable to resistance.

[Mihais]

Interesting answer.It makes me curious about what the holy fathers said at the time.I'll get back after I find out something,which will probably take a while.

[Kansas Bear]

If we are to assume that a Pope's call to "liberate" any land for Christianity as an indication of Christianity's militancy, then Alexander II's call in 1065 to free Spain did not garner much of a response.

Timing or target location of the crusade must have been the deciding factor, since in 1095 Urban II's call was more popular.

[Jimbo]

I think Target location. Don't think your typical English, French, or German was quite ready and willing to die in Spain, the holy land though would have been different.

As for Christianity I think a few things came together. First when it became the official religion of the Roman Empire, the view held by many Christians of we won't join the army but will pray for them wouldn't work in defending their homes from threats. The Christian world had to come up with another view. True Jesus said turn the other cheek when you're struck, but what about another who can't defend themselves? (Note not looking to get into a debate about this just the question that Christians face both then and now).

Second, outreach to the German tribes that really valued the warrior. Missionaries pointed out facets of the Christian faith that would appeal to that such as Joshua in the old testament, Samson, and certainly Jesus driving out the merchants out of the Temple.

Third, to the Christian world it was as if they were under assault by either pagan Germanic tribes and then Islam on all borders of the Christian world.

But probably the biggest reason was that as the religion grew, you get your weeds as well as your wheat. You had Christians who fell to the temptations and lust of power. Some may have been sincere and just confused about teachings, others may have just used the religion to maneuver themselves into more powerful positions.

But I would suggest if you want when it stopped being a pacifist religion, how about when Jesus drove the merchants out of the temple?

[ArmchairGeneral]

Interesting point about the Germanic tribes, hadn't considered that factor before.

[Roosveltrepub]

I think Target location. Don't think your typical English, French, or German was quite ready and willing to die in Spain, the holy land though would have been different.

As for Christianity I think a few things came together. First when it became the official religion of the Roman Empire, the view held by many Christians of we won't join the army but will pray for them wouldn't work in defending their homes from threats. The Christian world had to come up with another view. True Jesus said turn the other cheek when you're struck, but what about another who can't defend themselves? (Note not looking to get into a debate about this just the question that Christians face both then and now).

Second, outreach to the German tribes that really valued the warrior. Missionaries pointed out facets of the Christian faith that would appeal to that such as Joshua in the old testament, Samson, and certainly Jesus driving out the merchants out of the Temple.

Third, to the Christian world it was as if they were under assault by either pagan Germanic tribes and then Islam on all borders of the Christian world.

But probably the biggest reason was that as the religion grew, you get your weeds as well as your wheat. You had Christians who fell to the temptations and lust of power. Some may have been sincere and just confused about teachings, others may have just used the religion to maneuver themselves into more powerful positions.

But I would suggest if you want when it stopped being a pacifist religion, how about when Jesus drove the merchants out of the temple?

No in the third century its followers preferred martydom to fighting so there was substantial change when it became the state religon. With the exception of the franks and lster the visigoths I think the germanic tribes all converted rapidly but to what the church considered a dangerous heresy arianism and it was aggressively and eventually destroyed. I don't think it's a coincidence the franks and visigoths were the only ruling tribes to keep power in the west post 565

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.


I do believe the religon mostly reembraced it's peaceful traditions but for much of the past 1600 years it was aggressively in the persecution business. iconoclasts iconology, bogumils, paulicans, arianism, monphysites, orthodoxy after the schism, cartharism, crusades and pogroms then the reformation and counter reformation. The church sought to extingush dissent through violent suppression.

[Roosveltrepub]

Roosie,
Again I refer you to the question as originaly posted - "When did christianity stop being a pacifist religon?" As I noted before if something has stopped being what it is it has changed it's basic state or nature and therefore cannot be that thing again unless it undergoes another transition. If Christianity stopped being pacifistic in nature then it is not pacifistic now. With regards to the examples you sight above most have underlying deep socio economic, political and racial factors as well. I will attempt to produce examples emphasising these points at a later date as I have to sign off now. Cheers

I think the church when it was a universal church extingushing rival doctrines used scripture as justification in the same way in my life some sects used the bible as the reason they opposed inter racial marriage and desegragation. As you said with issues like the schism of 1061 there were social and ethnic reasons. The greeks still had an Emperor over the church while in the west the papacy had forced the empire to bend to it as described by Henry petitioning in the snow or however it went. Also in the west the practice of marriage of priests ended so as to protect church assets where in the east there was still a strong central goverment till the mid 12th century to protect them. Also the wests veneration of images as a connection to pull pagans in and the upheavels in the 8th then 9th century in the east as a reacton to Islams strict condemnation of graven images. All were changes based in socio economic challenges. other things like the arguments over leavened bread and the holy ghost or later the heychast controvery during the byzantine civil wars were over ridiculously small differences of doctrine.

[Jimbo]

No in the third century its followers preferred martydom to fighting so there was substantial change when it became the state religon. With the exception of the franks and lster the visigoths I think the germanic tribes all converted rapidly but to what the church considered a dangerous heresy arianism and it was aggressively and eventually destroyed. I don't think it's a coincidence the franks and visigoths were the only ruling tribes to keep power in the west post 565

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.


I do believe the religon mostly reembraced it's peaceful traditions but for much of the past 1600 years it was aggressively in the persecution business. iconoclasts iconology, bogumils, paulicans, arianism, monphysites, orthodoxy after the schism, cartharism, crusades and pogroms then the reformation and counter reformation. The church sought to extingush dissent through violent suppression.

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.