General Discussion

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)

3. Prior to Constantine, the early Christian church was a religion of peace.

Sat Nov 22, 2014, 07:37 AM

Nov 2014

That's simply history. There was some possibly violent punishment within the Christian community as told in Acts of the Apostles, but if you know of violence of any relevant frequency or importance by Christians prior to Constantine, please post a link to a discussion of that history.

Very early Christians were mostly lower class including slaves and some middle class people. In fact, one of the first, if not the first, non-Jewish convert to the Christian religion according to the Bible was a eunuch slave. The early Christians were the victims of religious and other persecution in the Roman Empire.

Constantine changed that.

That is why it is OK to speak of the Christian church as one of peace. That was its original nature and teaching.

In contrast, Mohammed actually led his followers into military battle.

Today, of course, those differences are history. Since Constantine, and since Mohammed, Christians are also militarily aggressive at times.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

251 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I hate seeing "the religion of peace" bullshit here. [View all] cali Nov 2014 OP

Agree 110% n/t Violet_Crumble Nov 2014 #1

Have to agree, characterizations like you suggest are racist, religist and bad. Shrike47 Nov 2014 #2

Splinter groups? That's one way to minimize the arthritisR_US Nov 2014 #6

No One Expects Mbrow Nov 2014 #67

Lamest apology ever. Feral Child Nov 2014 #177

Prior to Constantine, the early Christian church was a religion of peace. JDPriestly Nov 2014 #3

the early christians had no power shaayecanaan Nov 2014 #5

"Muhammeds successful military conquests" -- "the early Christians had no power" JDPriestly Nov 2014 #8

It can't be done. The divisions, the hatreds, the rules and punishments are coded into the texts. RadiationTherapy Nov 2014 #19

"there is no historical record that Jesus or his disciples led and armed action" Thor_MN Nov 2014 #51

there is a bible! DeadEyeDyck Nov 2014 #82

Which is not a historical record. Thor_MN Nov 2014 #84

Bullcrap, bullcrap and more bullcrap. Drahthaardogs Nov 2014 #139

Tacitus an Josephus wrote decades after Jesus edhopper Nov 2014 #193

The claim was "No historical record" that was secular. Drahthaardogs Nov 2014 #197

Okay edhopper Nov 2014 #200

"There is no historical record that Jesus existed"... awoke_in_2003 Nov 2014 #143

There is a compelling coincidence in the riot at the temple bhikkhu Nov 2014 #97

From everything I have read and heard, there is no evidence in the historical record Thor_MN Nov 2014 #107

True enough, but that's from the bible bhikkhu Nov 2014 #115

I don't get your meaning. Unless what you are saying is that your previous "Riot at the Temple" post Thor_MN Nov 2014 #116

the bible is a compilation of various accounts bhikkhu Nov 2014 #146

The Bible is no sort of historical record. It is a compilation of stories, many borrowed, all retold Thor_MN Nov 2014 #149

There weren't many historical records of that time at all. JDPriestly Nov 2014 #121

Yes, the idea of a "historical record" is relatively modern bhikkhu Nov 2014 #147

Even if you assume without a historical record that Jesus' death was the result of some JDPriestly Nov 2014 #119

You apparently missed my point. Thor_MN Nov 2014 #125

Then let's assume that the Gospels are simply mythology. JDPriestly Nov 2014 #131

Don't believe the hype Drahthaardogs Nov 2014 #140

I don't disagree with you, but even if people do not believe in the historical Jesus, the JDPriestly Nov 2014 #144

I understand Drahthaardogs Nov 2014 #145

"mythical jesus...is almost universally rejected"... truebrit71 Nov 2014 #151

and we have a WINNER! Drahthaardogs Nov 2014 #171

Ah, so one dude changes his mind, and it's all over? truebrit71 Nov 2014 #181

Not just "one dude" but "THE DUDE" Drahthaardogs Nov 2014 #182

I don't disagree with you. Early Christians existed. We know that. Thor_MN Nov 2014 #150

Did you read my post #119? JDPriestly Nov 2014 #155

Have you read any of my posts? Thor_MN Nov 2014 #156

Some believe that he was mentioned in a historical text, but you may be right. JDPriestly Nov 2014 #118

Oh fuck, not the Jesus Myther bullshit. Odin2005 Nov 2014 #166

Oh shit, not that "The bible tells me so" pablum. Thor_MN Nov 2014 #173

Lets see what actual historians say: Odin2005 Nov 2014 #192

Agreed. Any more than there is a Feral Child Nov 2014 #178

self defense rogerashton Nov 2014 #59

Can you elaborate on this please woolldog Nov 2014 #76

Elaborate? rogerashton Nov 2014 #117

That the very early, pre-Constantine Christians were drawn from the slave and maybe middle JDPriestly Nov 2014 #123

See my post #119. You might find it interesting with regard to what the early Christians JDPriestly Nov 2014 #122

Please see my post #119. I do not disagree with you but explain why Christians did not JDPriestly Nov 2014 #120

And when was Constantine's conversion? 312 AD When was the first council of Nicea? 325 AD - When was Douglas Carpenter Nov 2014 #46

True, but although we have other books and a historical record of the existence of Christian JDPriestly Nov 2014 #124

A Catholic would disagree Drahthaardogs Nov 2014 #141

I would argue that the Christianity we know today was an invention of Constintine Exultant Democracy Nov 2014 #126

And I would agree. JDPriestly Nov 2014 #130

"Here" as in here on DU? nxylas Nov 2014 #4

Ya, I can see how spouting critical thinking as arthritisR_US Nov 2014 #7

you and I clearly have different definitions of "critical thinking". cali Nov 2014 #9

From what I see in this thread, ya we do. nt arthritisR_US Nov 2014 #18

Is Dawkins Athiest or Anti-theist? Cosmic Kitten Nov 2014 #11

The stupid "fundamentalist" label bvf Nov 2014 #24

Why pigeonhole? He defends pedophilia!!!! Cosmic Kitten Nov 2014 #43

I studied psychology in the late 1970 at Temple University fasttense Nov 2014 #63

Nearly a laugh, really a cry! Cosmic Kitten Nov 2014 #71

He's not defending pedophilia. bvf Nov 2014 #249

The bigoted, fanatical "New Atheist" idiots make me ashamed of being an Atheist. Odin2005 Nov 2014 #167

Aslan can use all the religious imagery he wants when describing atheists, since RadiationTherapy Nov 2014 #29

What's the difference between Atheism and anti-theism? Cosmic Kitten Nov 2014 #47

I think that atheism is to not believe in the supernatural. RadiationTherapy Nov 2014 #49

OK, that makes sense Cosmic Kitten Nov 2014 #54

It seems to me the word "supernatural" has an inherent claim of being beyond RadiationTherapy Nov 2014 #56

OK ;~) Cosmic Kitten Nov 2014 #61

You've just cut to the chase bvf Nov 2014 #250

I define supernatural as an occult intelligence somewhere AngryAmish Nov 2014 #129

It's couched in the language of anti-theism nxylas Nov 2014 #73

Yeah, makes sense ;~) Cosmic Kitten Nov 2014 #78

Good luck man AnalystInParadise Nov 2014 #224

I know and unfortunately I'm seeing more and arthritisR_US Nov 2014 #225

No hate to say that some dogma provide more cover for pro-violent fundamentalists than others. ancianita Nov 2014 #10

Are Theocracy and Free-Will mutually exclusive? Cosmic Kitten Nov 2014 #13

Yes, of course they are. You can't have "free will" if you believe in hell. RadiationTherapy Nov 2014 #25

Is theocracy is antithetical to freedom? Cosmic Kitten Nov 2014 #48

Well, "freedom" is a funny word that seems difficult to define, but RadiationTherapy Nov 2014 #50

IS following a Religion similar to voluntary Theocracy? Cosmic Kitten Nov 2014 #55

Every religion is, I think, inherently theocratic within its own hierarchy. RadiationTherapy Nov 2014 #58

That sounds like "religion" as politics rather than as spiritual liberation Cosmic Kitten Nov 2014 #64

That is, to me, religion as religion, since religions seem inherently political. RadiationTherapy Nov 2014 #65

So it's about semantics? Cosmic Kitten Nov 2014 #70

Since it exists without any empirical evidence, religion is largely semantic, yes. RadiationTherapy Nov 2014 #72

Where is the empirical evidence of "dreaming" Cosmic Kitten Nov 2014 #80

Dreams are verifiable via CT scan imaging. RadiationTherapy Nov 2014 #87

CT scans a very recent technology in human history Cosmic Kitten Nov 2014 #99

Only when theocracy teaches that all are created with free will, while systematically bending ancianita Nov 2014 #53

Yes, they are mutually exclusive. Cosmic Kitten Nov 2014 #60

Theocracy is, specifically, a government based on a religion. RadiationTherapy Nov 2014 #75

Not necessarily. Cosmic Kitten Nov 2014 #83

I don't understand what you are saying here. RadiationTherapy Nov 2014 #88

Define divinity, because it has meaningful implications Cosmic Kitten Nov 2014 #91

Poetry is fine, yes. Lovely. But to claim divinity is being anthropomorphized RadiationTherapy Nov 2014 #94

You brough Divinity into the discussion, so define divinity Cosmic Kitten Nov 2014 #100

A supernatural source of morals and ethics. RadiationTherapy Nov 2014 #103

Um, yeah? Seems like adding that to the discussion is a non-sequiter Cosmic Kitten Nov 2014 #104

I see. But I disagree. If a group of people want to believe something, as long as they don't impose ancianita Nov 2014 #86

"The No-Ego ego trip is the biggest ego trip of them all." Robert Anton Wilson RadiationTherapy Nov 2014 #92

Yeah, there's a lot of hipster fakery around no-ego, for sure. But the ordinariness of doing good ancianita Nov 2014 #93

Knowing the difference of what? RadiationTherapy Nov 2014 #95

Between your quote's claim of no-ego being the biggest ego of all, and the realness of no ego. ancianita Nov 2014 #96

Hm. I am currently under the impression there is no difference. RadiationTherapy Nov 2014 #98

There is such a thing as no ego. But one has to get to that by letting go of an ego, first. Buddha ancianita Nov 2014 #113

The premise of "believe what you want but don't impose it" seems implausible? Cosmic Kitten Nov 2014 #102

Agreed. And in the context of hierarchal religions, it's a hard way to be without being persecuted. ancianita Nov 2014 #114

I must be missing your point or your context Recursion Nov 2014 #12

it's about context. some people use it sneeringly to slam Islam cali Nov 2014 #16

Oh oh oh got it. Yes, you're right. Recursion Nov 2014 #22

Well, the idea that islam is "peaceful" or that to be jewish is to be "chosen" are absurd RadiationTherapy Nov 2014 #23

you don't get it. deliberately or not. cali Nov 2014 #34

I do not agree with your OP, no. Religion needs critics. RadiationTherapy Nov 2014 #36

that freepfuck crap is not criticism. of course religion needs criticism. there is scarcely a human cali Nov 2014 #42

um, yes. oooooooo-k. RadiationTherapy Nov 2014 #45

You seem angry that their self descriptions have turned into PEJORATIVES? Cosmic Kitten Nov 2014 #66

I don't respect religion or religious thinking. I don't respect faith or the faithful. RadiationTherapy Nov 2014 #14

I don't respect generalizations that are tantamount to rank and ugly bigotry, dear. cali Nov 2014 #17

Which generalizations would that be? RadiationTherapy Nov 2014 #20

OK. no more "dear" for you. cali Nov 2014 #31

I didn't use any generalizations in that post that I don't feel capable of defending. RadiationTherapy Nov 2014 #35

In many cases religious people are tolerable only in spite of, not because of, their religions. Silent3 Nov 2014 #101

Oh, give us a break. Arugula Latte Nov 2014 #110

Religion needs hate to exist. bvf Nov 2014 #15

I couldn't disagree more. The purpose of religion is to quash individuality. RadiationTherapy Nov 2014 #21

another ridiculous generalization, but even if I agreed with your simplistic nonsense cali Nov 2014 #27

Well, I at least take the time to articulate my thoughts. RadiationTherapy Nov 2014 #33

lol. You seem to have a heavily inflated view of the nonsense you're spewing. cali Nov 2014 #40

You seem to lack an aversion for communication without insult, but I can take it. RadiationTherapy Nov 2014 #44

LOL. bvf Nov 2014 #69

At the root, it's a conflict between the rational and irrational mind with each individual Cosmic Kitten Nov 2014 #77

Most of it is based on mythology, stories, and falsehoods, though. Arugula Latte Nov 2014 #246

Point taken. bvf Nov 2014 #37

One of the meanings of the word "islam" is submission. RadiationTherapy Nov 2014 #41

So what's your excuse? nt Union Scribe Nov 2014 #106

Bullshit, Buddhism needs hate to exist? Odin2005 Nov 2014 #165

Allow me to clarify that. bvf Nov 2014 #248

LOL...I missed it but people here are saying "religion of peace" Cali_Democrat Nov 2014 #26

it happens on a regular basis. and yes, exactly as the freepfucks use it. cali Nov 2014 #28

Are you bigoted against freepers? nt ZombieHorde Nov 2014 #157

Well, I have personally never used the term "religion of peace" to describe any monotheism. RadiationTherapy Nov 2014 #39

well obviously I agree - this place loaded with Pamella Gellar lite posts - it is horrifying Douglas Carpenter Nov 2014 #30

yep. this thread is testimony to that. cali Nov 2014 #32

Judge individuals by their UglyGreed Nov 2014 #38

Fully agree. LeftishBrit Nov 2014 #52

I completely zgree. We have a few one note posters who sole purpose is to say Islam is violent. hrmjustin Nov 2014 #57

And here I always thought Iamthetruth Nov 2014 #62

I think it's fair when someone commits violence in the name of a Islam. aikoaiko Nov 2014 #68

If you look at history, NO religion can be called the "religion of peace" hobbit709 Nov 2014 #74

Wicca Prophet 451 Nov 2014 #233

Ancient Egypt, Greece, pre-Christian Rome, Hindus, Babylon, the Hittites, the Aztecs, etc. hobbit709 Nov 2014 #236

Shifting goalposts Prophet 451 Nov 2014 #237

And you're changing definitions. hobbit709 Nov 2014 #238

How did I change definitions? Prophet 451 Nov 2014 #239

Anti-Muslim bigotry is surprisingly accepted here, and it's disgusting Chathamization Nov 2014 #79

That is not true. ZombieHorde Nov 2014 #158

Point me to the moderate groups of Scientologists who oppose the Church of Scientology. Chathamization Nov 2014 #172

So religious bigotry is ok, if you don't like the religious demographic? nt ZombieHorde Nov 2014 #183

No, smearing someone for something they didn't do and are opposed to do just because they happen to Chathamization Nov 2014 #185

OK, but shouldn't that apply to Scientologists too? nt ZombieHorde Nov 2014 #187

As I said, point me to the moderate Scientologists who oppose the Church of Scientology Chathamization Nov 2014 #189

The Church of Scientology doesn't condone violence against the general population. ZombieHorde Nov 2014 #194

Violence of individual members? No. But I haven't seen Scientology attacked for the violence of Chathamization Nov 2014 #196

I'm exploring the religious bigotry I percieve in you. ZombieHorde Nov 2014 #198

For the third time - where is the group of moderate Scientologists who condemn the Church of Chathamization Nov 2014 #199

That is not my argument at all. ZombieHorde Nov 2014 #202

Can you provide any evidence that people attack the Church of Scientology because of their beliefs? Chathamization Nov 2014 #203

I've seen it in the Religion Group. ZombieHorde Nov 2014 #204

Well, yes, I don't agree with those saying it's not a real religion. The fact is, any religion is Chathamization Nov 2014 #206

As well as Mormons Scootaloo Nov 2014 #226

Religion and peace don't go together.nt newfie11 Nov 2014 #81

++++++++++++++++++++++++++ still_one Nov 2014 #85

Truth. ^ Lex Nov 2014 #108

Really? Prophet 451 Nov 2014 #232

For the most part (although not exclusively) it's the same 2 assholes trolls doing it. One of whom Guy Whitey Corngood Nov 2014 #89

This message was self-deleted by its author Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #90

Ironically, religious wars are fought to "protect" omnipotent deities. Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2014 #105

Right. Pay no attention to mass slaughter, disease, famine, natural disasters, and so on. Arugula Latte Nov 2014 #245

Thank you. Comrade Grumpy Nov 2014 #109

I agree, and hope you distinguish between bigoted statements like that tritsofme Nov 2014 #111

Sam Harris and Bill Maher are bigots CrawlingChaos Nov 2014 #134

+1,000,000 cpwm17 Nov 2014 #137

Which race(s) are hated by Maher and Harris? nt ZombieHorde Nov 2014 #159

When they condemn Islam they are really condemning all people in the "Islamic World" cpwm17 Nov 2014 #174

That isn't racism. ZombieHorde Nov 2014 #184

Absolute bollocks. truebrit71 Nov 2014 #154

They sometimes speak hard truths. tritsofme Nov 2014 #207

That is not a "hard truth". It is bigoted garbage straight from the piehole of Sam Harris CrawlingChaos Nov 2014 #208

Can you dispute what he said? tritsofme Nov 2014 #209

Yes, I dispute it CrawlingChaos Nov 2014 #212

Someone like Molly Norris doesn't have the luxury to dispute it. tritsofme Nov 2014 #214

Oh jeez, here we go with that crap again CrawlingChaos Nov 2014 #215

"New Atheism" is a Neo-Con front movement. Odin2005 Nov 2014 #168

Well, no; did you ever read what Dawkins said about Iraq? muriel_volestrangler Nov 2014 #169

Ah well, that was a good many years ago! CrawlingChaos Nov 2014 #210

What has that got to do with neo-cons or even capitalism? muriel_volestrangler Nov 2014 #211

It's extremely useful to neo-con goals CrawlingChaos Nov 2014 #213

Those wars of conquest that Dawkins speaks out about? muriel_volestrangler Nov 2014 #216

Let's put it this way CrawlingChaos Nov 2014 #218

OK, that interview was in April 2009, when the University of Antwerp gave him an honorary doctorate muriel_volestrangler Nov 2014 #219

I never said he was a neo-con CrawlingChaos Nov 2014 #220

So Islam can never be criticised, because that would be useful to neo-cons? muriel_volestrangler Nov 2014 #221

I, too, harbor the suspicion that New Atheism is a neo-con front movement CrawlingChaos Nov 2014 #223

I agree Prophet 451 Nov 2014 #112

I continue to wonder why progressives are so protective of Islam bluestateguy Nov 2014 #127

"The Bible falls short of the things progressives believe in". CJCRANE Nov 2014 #128

"Islam falls well short of the things progressives believe in." nomorenomore08 Nov 2014 #152

Do you feel the same about Republicans? ZombieHorde Nov 2014 #160

While I'm probably as guilty of assuming "Republican" = "asshole" as anyone, I try to give nomorenomore08 Nov 2014 #163

The Hadiths are where Islam's issues arise. joshcryer Nov 2014 #170

"Islam" is not one monolithic group of people YoungDemCA Nov 2014 #190

Muslims are people. Scootaloo Nov 2014 #227

Judaism, Christianity, Islam different sects of the same bloody religion. Exultant Democracy Nov 2014 #132

Depends on what you mean by "recognize" jberryhill Nov 2014 #136

Here are some excerpts from Wikipedia about Jesus in Islam and Judaism: CJCRANE Nov 2014 #138

Jesus isn't some rabbi in Islam he is haled as a chief profit second to only Mohammad. Exultant Democracy Nov 2014 #229

But here's the rub: There's the religion, and then you have the people sakabatou Nov 2014 #133

Exactly. Think what you will about the tenets of the faith, but its followers possess the same nomorenomore08 Nov 2014 #153

Thank you for this thread CrawlingChaos Nov 2014 #135

You are really on a roll today Cali! Texasgal Nov 2014 #142

GOD, protect me from your followers! yortsed snacilbuper Nov 2014 #148

You don't seem to mind insults. ZombieHorde Nov 2014 #161

That's what I'm wondering. Quantess Nov 2014 #188

In those "heady," days after 9/11 nilesobek Nov 2014 #162

Yes, which is why people saying they put down Christianity too is like Freepers saying they Chathamization Nov 2014 #175

+1. Power dynamics/inequalities absolutely matter YoungDemCA Nov 2014 #191

Islamophobia should be grounds for tombstoning Odin2005 Nov 2014 #164

Personally I think we should be bashing all religion, often and loudly. bowens43 Nov 2014 #176

Every religious nutter should be told to shut up. AngryAmish Nov 2014 #179

And subjected to stiff fines for every utterance. 2banon Nov 2014 #244

Agree with this, completely. n/t 2banon Nov 2014 #243

Yep. Religion is just an excuse to abandon reason. Bonx Nov 2014 #247

I wonder often what modern day extreme Christians would do to nonbelievers, gays, et al Voice for Peace Nov 2014 #180

Only likely? Look at Sabra and Shatila or the Bosnian War. For what extremist atheists would do, Chathamization Nov 2014 #186

I was thinking specifically of good old American extremists. Voice for Peace Nov 2014 #205

They'd be burning us before the day was out Prophet 451 Nov 2014 #231

I'm afraid you're right. Voice for Peace Nov 2014 #240

Really though, I think those are excuses Prophet 451 Nov 2014 #241

Yes. The habit of blaming everyone, anyone else, for one's own unhappiness. Voice for Peace Nov 2014 #242

There's no such Thing as a "Religion of Peace".. ALL RELIGIONS provoke Division/Violence/War 2banon Nov 2014 #195

Really? Prophet 451 Nov 2014 #230

depends on how it's used , how about when christians claim to be about life JI7 Nov 2014 #201

We are Better Than "That". fascisthunter Nov 2014 #217

Never thought about the parallel with "the chosen people" slander. Ash_F Nov 2014 #222

Not sure what the context is here. MADem Nov 2014 #228

Thanks for this thread Prophet 451 Nov 2014 #234

Great OP Union Scribe Nov 2014 #235

How about just peace, without religion!? Can we just be in a state of peace? Please!? Dont call me Shirley Nov 2014 #251