Originally posted by whodey
The teachings reflect a greater truth which is that we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against spiritual wickedness that control people.
Also, God's kingdom is not of this world, therefore, he gives no mandate to conquer for an earthly kingdom.
This is a far cry from Mo who joined religion and politics into one.
All I can tell you is th ...[text shortened]... y of the sole representative to Christianity to that of Islam, then talking to you is fruitless.
What the teachings reflect is debatable.
Jesus did not preach in favour of war, although he will have lived alongside the advocates of Jewish rebellion. In fact, rebellion won out among the Jews at least of Palestine - if not the Jews in other parts of the Roman empire - and led to intense violence and eventual defeat at the hands of the Romans, accompanied by loyal Jews like Josephus. It has never been difficult to find grounds for violence in the Old Testament.
Paul worked hard to persuade the Roman authorities that Christians would not be like the violent and disloyal Jews. But he did not ditch the Old Testament. He did not really convince the authorities either.
It was three centuries later that Christians found in Constantine an emperor willing to accommodate them and give them the benefits of official recognition - including tax benefits and a role in secular administration, but also of course endorsement of the violently oppressive and plutocratic Empire and its armies. Constantine rapidly hit the reality that there were a whole zoology of different religious groups that wanted to claim the benefits of this official toleration and when he convened the first Council of Nicea, he forced the leading "Christians" to pin down and specify the defining beliefs of that faith, which in turn of course defined many alternative views as heretical. All subsequent Christians are by definition associated with that official and definitive religion but even so, it has splintered into many variants under that umbrella. From the outset, the persecution of heretics and the obsessive work to define correct belief has been integrally connected with material benefits. There was no truthful religious need to get so violent over obscure doctrinal disputes but every political reason.
The Christian religion has never been non political. Jesus might have appeared to be, but being non political was a political position in Palestine at that time - it entailed negation of the Jewish rebels and acceptance of the Roman empire's jurisdiction - and in any event, Jesus was and remained a Jew and never invented a rival religion - the Jewish religion of that time was completely wrapped up in violent politics as it is today and Christianity has always been so ever since its invention by Paul. The non violent, apolitical strands in each faith have always been just one strand of an ongoing political debate and not always - or even usually - representative. Naturally, they claim to be the ones who are right - that is how religious debate has always been conducted. "I am always right and virtuous. You are always wrong and damned. God agrees with ME. "
Maybe like the mediaeval Church authorities, you just prefer to hand over the violent outcome of your deliberations to the secular authorities and so wash your hands.
State Department said what ISIS needs are jobs
19 Feb '15 14:51
Back to Top