Religious freedom?

[Tsukiyumi]

Nope - Matthew 10:34-36

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.

Sure enough. You even seem to be quoting the same version I own. I'll admit I glossed over the New Testament a bit each time I read the Bible.

I'd say that statement proves that Christians misinterpreted Jesus all along. He wasn't a hippie carpenter who tried to weaken humanity with submissive doctrine. Clearly, his real message was swallowed by the "turn the other cheek" crap that modern Christians cling to.

...Thanks for setting me straight on that one.

[Captain Picard's Hair]

Hell, regardless of what Jesus said and preached, Christianity as a major world force can be said to have begun with the military successes of Emperor Constantine under the banner of Christianity. Since then there's been no shortage of warfare waged under the banner of the cross...

[Captain Seafort]

I'd say that statement proves that Christians misinterpreted Jesus all along. He wasn't a hippie carpenter who tried to weaken humanity with submissive doctrine. Clearly, his real message was swallowed by the "turn the other cheek" crap that modern Christians cling to.

This is a bloke who responded to a perceived slight by charging into the Temple and upending tables, associated with individuals who routinely carried swords and weren't reticent about using them, and deliberately picked a fight with the most powerful individuals in the province. Anyone who thinks he was all sweetness and light is either deluding themselves or hasn't read much of the New Testament.

[Tsukiyumi]

We're definitely on the same page on this one.

[sunnyside]

Nope - Matthew 10:34-36

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.

Unfortunitly for Christians of that era, in this and another similar quote about family members handing family members over for death, it's the Christians on the recieving end. He's just being straightforward about the reaction much of the world would have to his followers because they wouldn't be following the old religeons.

That said Jesus wasn't a total hippie pacifist. While he speaks about loving your enemies he understands the need to appear dangerous to avoid conflict and might be advocating self defense in cases when ones life is on the line when telling disciples to get and carry swords in their travels. And of course he delivers a whupping to some in his fathers house.

In any case the driving charge is clearly for conversion. I think the general Christian stance on conflict is best summed up in Romans.

"If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone"

[Coalition]

Christianity as written is pacifistic and big on peaceful conversion...

Oh, you must mean the New Testament.

Actually, there is a noticeable difference in attitude of the Old Testament god, and new Testament god. Can anyone guess what happened to change his mind?

he got laid

[Sonic Glitch]

Christianity as written is pacifistic and big on peaceful conversion...

Oh, you must mean the New Testament.

Actually, there is a noticeable difference in attitude of the Old Testament god, and new Testament god. Can anyone guess what happened to change his mind?

he got laid

God became a grandfather? In storybook impressions it always seems to be the grandparents who are responsible for spoiling the kids rotten. The parents (Jesus) provide discipline and the grandparents (God) are easier on them.

[Nutso]

Nope - Matthew 10:34-36

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.

Jesus was just talking about forming a Rebel Alliance against the Empire. That's all.

[Captain Seafort]

Jesus was just talking about forming a Rebel Alliance against the Empire. That's all.

Maybe. In refuting sunny's description of Christianity as pacifistic it's irrelevant why he was promising violence (and acting violently), simply that he was.

[Nutso]

Jesus was just talking about forming a Rebel Alliance against the Empire. That's all.

Maybe. In refuting sunny's description of Christianity as pacifistic it's irrelevant why he was promising violence (and acting violently), simply that he was.

I got that you were responding to peaceful Jesus. It's just personally, I interpreted that passage as we should be rebellious of our masters.

The translation I have been used to comes from the Gospel of Luke (King James) -

49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? 50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! 51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. 53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.