| Part ofa series on |
| Christianity |
|---|
 |
| This article is of a series on |
| Criticism of religion |
|---|
By religious figure |
Bibliographies |
Criticism of Christianity has a long history which stretches back to the initial formation of the religion in theRoman Empire. Critics have challenged Christian beliefs and teachings as well as actions taken in name of the faith, from theCrusades tomodern terrorism. The arguments against Christianity include the suppositions that it is a faith ofviolence,corruption,superstition,polytheism,homophobia,bigotry,pontification,abuses of women's rights andsectarianism.
In theearly years of Christianity, theNeoplatonic philosopherPorphyry emerged as one of the major critics with his bookAgainst the Christians, along with other writers likeCelsus andJulian. Porphyry argued that Christianity was based on false prophecies that had not yet materialized.[1] Following the adoption ofChristianity under the Roman Empire, dissenting religious voices were gradually suppressed by both governments and ecclesiastical authorities;[2] however Christianity did face theological criticisms from otherAbrahamic religions likeJudaism andIslam in the meantime, such asMaimonides who argued that it wasidolatry.[3] A millennium later, theProtestant Reformation led to a fundamental split in European Christianity and rekindled critical voices about the Christian faith, both internally and externally. In the 18th century, Deist philosophers such asVoltaire andJean-Jacques Rousseau were critical of Christianity as a revealed religion.[4] With theAge of Enlightenment, Christianity was criticized by major thinkers and philosophers, such asVoltaire,David Hume,Thomas Paine, and theBaron d'Holbach.[5] The central theme of these critiques sought to negate thehistorical accuracy of the Christian Bible and focused on the perceived corruption of Christian religious authorities.[5] Other thinkers, likeImmanuel Kant, offered critiques of traditional arguments for theexistence of God, while professing to defend Christian theology on novel grounds.[6]
In modern times, Christianity has faced substantial criticism from a wide array of political movements and ideologies. In the late eighteenth century, theFrench Revolution saw a number of politicians and philosophers criticizing traditional Christian doctrines, precipitating a wave ofsecularism in which hundreds of churches were closed down and thousands of priests were deported or killed.[7] Following the French Revolution, prominent philosophers ofliberalism andcommunism, such asJohn Stuart Mill andKarl Marx, criticized Christian doctrine on the grounds that it was conservative and anti-democratic.Friedrich Nietzsche wrote that Christianity fosters a kind of slave morality which suppresses the desires which are contained in the human will.[8] TheRussian Revolution, theChinese Revolution, and several other modern revolutionary movements have also led to the criticism of Christian ideas.
The formal response of Christians to such criticisms is described asChristian apologetics. Philosophers likeAugustine of Hippo andThomas Aquinas have been some of the most prominent defenders of the Christian religion since its foundation.
Biblical criticism, in particular higher criticism, covers a variety of methods which have been used since theEnlightenment in the early 18th century as scholars began to apply the same methods and perspectives which had already been applied to other literary and philosophical texts to biblical documents.[9] It is an umbrella term which covers various techniques which are mainly used by mainline and liberal Christian theologians to study the meaning of biblical passages. It uses general historical principles, and it is primarily based on reason rather than revelation or faith. There are four primary types of biblical criticism:[10]
Within the abundance of biblical manuscripts exist a number of textual variants. The vast majority of these textual variants are the inconsequential misspelling of words, word order variations[12] and the mistranscription of abbreviations.[13] Text critics such asBart D. Ehrman have proposed that some of these textual variants and interpolations were theologically motivated.[14] Ehrman's conclusions and textual variant choices have been challenged by some conservative evangelical reviewers, includingDaniel B. Wallace,Craig Blomberg, and Thomas Howe.[15]
In attempting to determine the original text of the New Testament books, some modern textual critics have identified sections as probably not original. In modern translations of the Bible, the results of textual criticism have led to certain verses being left out or marked as not original. These possible later additions include the following:[16][17]
InThe Text of the New Testament,Kurt andBarbara Aland compare the total number of variant-free verses, and the number of variants per page (excludingorthographic errors), among the seven major editions of the Greek NT (Tischendorf,Westcott-Hort,von Soden, Vogels, Merk, Bover andNestle-Aland) concluding 62.9%, or 4999/7947, agreement.[19] They concluded,[19]
Thus in nearly two-thirds of the New Testament text, the seven editions of the Greek New Testament which we have reviewed are in complete accord, with no differences other than in orthographical details (e.g., the spelling of names, etc.). Verses in which any one of the seven editions differs by a single word are not counted. This result is quite amazing, demonstrating a far greater agreement among the Greek texts of the New Testament during the past century thantextual scholars would have suspected... In theGospels,Acts, andRevelation the agreement is less, while in theletters it is much greater.
The discovery of the Hebrew Bible texts among theDead Sea Scrolls has been taken to demonstrate a high degree of accuracy in the transmission ofOld Testament texts:[20]
Thebiblical scrolls are significant because they disclose the manner in which ancient scribes and copyists transmitted theBible from generation to generation. These scrolls also provide us with confidence that ourOld Testament has been preserved with a high degree of accuracy...[21]
Inconsistencies have been pointed out by critics and skeptics,[22] presenting as difficulties the different numbers and names for the same feature and different sequences for what is supposed to be the same event. Responses to these criticisms include the moderndocumentary hypothesis,two-source hypothesis (in various guises), and assertions that thePastoral Epistles are pseudonymous. Contrasting with these critical stances are positions supported by traditionalists, considering the texts to be consistent, with theTorah written by a single source,[23][24] but the Gospels by four independent witnesses,[25] and all of the Pauline Epistles, except possibly theHebrews, as having been written byPaul the Apostle.
While consideration of the context is necessary when studying the Bible, some find the accounts of theResurrection of Jesus within thefour Gospels ofMatthew,Mark,Luke andJohn, difficult to reconcile.E. P. Sanders concludes that the inconsistencies make the possibility of a deliberate fraud unlikely: "A plot to foster belief in the Resurrection would probably have resulted in a more consistent story. Instead, there seems to have been a competition: 'I saw him,' 'So did I,' 'The women saw him first,' 'No, I did; they didn't see him at all,' and so on."[26]
Harold Lindsell points out that it is a "gross distortion" to state that people who believe inbiblical inerrancy suppose every statement made in the Bible is true (opposed to accurate).[27] He indicates there are expressly false statements in the Bible which are reported accurately[27] (for example, Satan is a liar whose lies are accurately reported as to what he actually said).[27] Proponents of biblical inerrancy generally do not teach that the Bible was dictated directly by God, but that God used the "distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers" of scripture and thatGod's inspiration guided them to flawlessly project his message through their own language and personality.[28]: Art. VIII
Those who believe in theinspiration of scripture teach that it isinfallible (or inerrant), that is, free from error in the truths it expresses by its character as the word of God.[29] However, the scope of what this encompasses is disputed, as the term includes 'faith and practice' positions, with some denominations holding that the historical or scientific details, which may be irrelevant to matters of faith and Christian practice, may contain errors.[30] Other scholars take stronger views,[31] but for a few verses these positions require more exegetical work, leading to dispute (compare the serious debate over the related issue ofperspicuity, attracting biblical and philosophical discussion).
Infallibility refers to the original texts of the Bible, and all mainstream scholars acknowledge the potential for human error in transmission and translation; yet, through use oftextual criticism modern (critical) copies are considered to "faithfully represent the original",[28]: Art. X and our understanding of the original language sufficiently well for accurate translation. The opposing view is that there is too much corruption, or translation too difficult, to agree with modern texts.
Hundreds of years before the time of Jesus, Jewish prophets promised that amessiah would come.Judaism claims that Jesus did not fulfill these prophecies. Other skeptics usually claim that the prophecies are either vague or unfulfilled,[32] or that the Old Testament writings influenced the composition of New Testament narratives.[33]Christian apologists claim that Jesus fulfilled theseprophecies, which they argue are nearly impossible to fulfill by chance.[34] Many Christians anticipate theSecond Coming of Jesus, when he will fulfill the rest ofMessianic prophecy, such as theLast Judgment, thegeneral resurrection, establishment of theKingdom of God, and theMessianic Age (see the article onPreterism for contrasting Christian views).
TheNew Testament traces Jesus' line to that of David; however, according toStephen L. Harris:[35]
Jesus did not accomplish what Israel's prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do: He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace (cf. Isa.9:6–7;11:7–12:16, etc.). Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God's ancient promises—for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing—Jesus died a "shameful" death, defeated by the very political powers the Messiah was prophesied to overcome. Indeed, the Hebrew prophets did not foresee that Israel's savior would be executed as a common criminal by Gentiles, making Jesus' crucifixion a "stumbling block" to scripturally literate Jews. (1 Cor.1:23)
Christian preachers reply to this argument by stating that these prophecies will be fulfilled by Jesus in theMillennial Reign after theGreat Tribulation, according to New Testament prophecies, especially in theBook of Revelation.[citation needed]
The 16th-century Jewish theologianIsaac ben Abraham, who lived inTrakai, Lithuania, penned a work calledChizzuk Emunah (Faith Strengthened) that attempted to refute the ideas thatJesus was theMessiah prophesied in theOld Testament and that Christianity was the "New Covenant" ofGod. He systematically identified a number of inconsistencies he perceived in the New Testament, contradictions between the New Testament and the Old Testament, and Old Testament prophesies which remained unfulfilled in Jesus' lifetime. In addition, he questioned a number of Christian practices, such asSunday Sabbath.[36] Written originally forJews to persuade them not to convert toChristianity,[37] the work was eventually read by Christians. While the well-known Christian HebraistJohann Christoph Wagenseil attempted an elaborate refutation of Abraham's arguments, Wagenseil'sLatin translation of it only increased interest in the work and inspired later Christianfreethinkers.Chizzuk Emunah was praised as a masterpiece byVoltaire.[36]
On the other hand,Blaise Pascal believed that "[t]he prophecies are the strongest proof of Jesus Christ". He wrote that Jesus was foretold, and that the prophecies came from a succession of people over a span of four thousand years.[38] ApologistJosh McDowell defends the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy as supporting Christianity, arguing that prophecies fulfilled by Christ include ones relating to his ancestral line, birthplace, virgin birth, miracles, manner of death, and resurrection. He says that even the timing of the Messiah in years and in relation to events is predicted, and that the JewishTalmud (not accepting Jesus as the Messiah, see alsoRejection of Jesus) laments that the Messiah had not appeared despite the scepter being taken away from Judah.[39]
Another allegation concerns the reference to theNazarene inMatthew 2:23: "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." The website forJews for Judaism claims that "Since a Nazarene is a resident of the city of Nazareth and this city did not exist during the time period of the Jewish Bible, it is impossible to find this quotation in the Hebrew Scriptures. It was fabricated." However, Professor Ken Dark of The University of Arizona states that the combined evidence of three archaeological sites indicates that, "The settlement clearly did exist in the early first century," probably from "the Late Hellenistic period onward, as a Jewish community."[40][41]
There is also the common suggestion that the New Testament verse is based on a passage relating toNazirites, either because this was a misunderstanding common at the time, or through deliberate re-reading of the term by the early Christians. Another suggestion is "that Matthew was playing on the similarity of the Hebrew wordnezer (translated 'Branch' or 'shoot' inIsaiah 11:1 andJeremiah 23:5) with the Greeknazoraios, here translated 'Nazarene.'" Christians also suggest that by using an indirect quotation and the plural term prophets, "Matthew was only saying that by living in Nazareth, Jesus was fulfilling the many Old Testament prophecies that He would be despised and rejected." The background for this is illustrated by Philip's initial response inJohn 1:46 to the idea that Jesus might be the Messiah: "Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?"
A fundamental principle of the Christian faith is that Jesus was born of Mary, a virgin.[42] Both Matthew and Luke trace the genealogy of Joseph back to David. According to Jewish tradition, the Messiah must be a descendant of David, but if Jesus was born of a virgin, he cannot be a descendant of David through Joseph.[43]Michael Martin asserts that Mary's virginity is a later addition to Christianity as indicated through Paul's letters.[44] Further, Martin notes that early Christian communities did not seem to have widely believed in the virgin birth. The confusion surrounding the virginity of Mary may result fromSeptuagint translation of bothHebrew:עַלְמָה,romanized: almah "young girl" andHebrew:בְּתוּלָה,romanized: bethulah, "virgin" intoGreek:παρθένος,romanized: parthenos, which usually means virgin. Relying on this translation, Matthew tried to show that Jesus's virgin birth was foretold in Isaiah 7:14—which refers to analmah in Hebrew.[45][46][47]
Critics argue that the selective invocation of portions of the Old Testament is hypocritical, particularly when those portions endorse hostility towards women and homosexuals, when other portions are considered obsolete, such as dietary prohibitions. The entire Mosaic Law is described inGalatians 3:24–25 as a tutor which is no longer necessary, according to some interpretations, see alsoAntinomianism in the New Testament.
On the other hand, many of theOld Testament laws are seen as specifically abrogated by theNew Testament, such ascircumcision,[48] though this may simply be a parallel to JewishNoahide Laws. See alsoSplit of early Christianity and Judaism. On the other hand, other passages are pro-Law, such as Romans 3:31: "Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law." See alsoPauline passages opposing antinomianism.
Translation has given rise to a number of issues, as the original languages are often quite different in grammar as well as word meaning. While theChicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy[28] states thatinerrancy applies only to the originallanguages, some believers trust their own translation to be the accurate one. One such group of believers is known as theKing James Only movement. For readability, clarity, or other reasons, translators may choose different wording or sentence structure, and some translations may choose to paraphrase passages. Because some of the words in the original language have ambiguous or difficult to translate meanings, debates over the correct interpretation occur.
Criticisms are also sometimes raised because of inconsistencies arising between different English translations of the Hebrew or Greek text. Some Christian interpretations are criticized for reflecting specific doctrinal bias[49] or a variant reading between the Masoretic Hebrew and Septuagint Greek manuscripts often quoted in the New Testament.
Certain interpretations of some moral decisions in the Bible are consideredethically questionable byhuman rights activists and scholars,historians, andcritics of religion. Some of the passages most commonly criticized includecolonialism, thesubjugation of women,religious intolerance,condemnation of homosexuality andtransgender identity, andsupport for the institution of slavery in both Old and New Testaments.
Christianity and colonialism are often closely associated because Catholicism and Protestantism were the religions of the European colonial powers[50] and acted in many ways as the "religious arm" of those powers.[51] Historian Edward E. Andrews argues that although Christian missionaries were initially portrayed as "visible saints, exemplars of ideal piety in a sea of persistent savagery", by the time the colonial era drew to a close in the last half of the twentieth century missionaries became viewed as "ideological shock troops for colonial invasion whose zealotry blinded them."[52]
Christianity is targeted by critics of colonialism because the tenets of the religion were used to justify the actions of the colonists.[53] For example, Michael Wood asserts that the indigenous peoples were not considered to be human beings and that the colonisers were shaped by "centuries of Ethnocentrism, and Christian monotheism, which espoused one truth, one time and version of reality."[54]
Early Christian perspectives of slavery were formed in the contexts ofChristianity's roots in Judaism, and as part of the wider culture ofslavery in the Roman Empire. Slavery was widespread in theRoman Empire, including at the time ofAugustus whenJesus was born. Both theOld andNew Testaments recognize that the institution of slavery existed, with the former sanctioning it within certain limits (Leviticus 25:39–46, Exodus 21:2–21).
Saint Paul the Apostle in addressing slavery inEphesians 6:5–8[55] tells slaves to "obey your earthly masters" and "render service with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not to men and women." Defenders of Christianity argue that nothing in the passage affirms slavery as a naturally valid or divinely mandated institution. Rather, Paul's discussion of the duties of Christian slaves and the responsibilities of Christian masters transforms the institution, even if it falls short of calling for outright abolition.St. Augustine thought slavery was a result of sin, but was part of the fallen world and so should be tolerated. However, others opposed it:John Chrysostom explicitly argued that slavery itself was a sin, but he did not advocate for its abolition;Origen called for the practice ofmanumission after six years as found in the Old Testament; others, such asGregory of Nyssa,Acacius of Amida, andSt. Patrick, called for the complete abolition of slavery.[56]
On the other hand, critics claim that Orthodox Christianity justified slavery on the ground that it was part of the divinely ordained hierarchical order. Slaves are enjoined to be submissive in theEphesians passage above as well as other parts of the Bible, such as in Paul'sEpistle to the Colossians: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters [kyrioi] according to the flesh in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord [kyrios]".[57] In addition, John Chrysostom wrote "The slave should be resigned to his lot, in obeying his master he is obeying God" while St. Augustine wrote: "...slavery is now penal in character and planned by that law which commands the preservation of the natural order and forbids disturbance".[58]
According to one view, today and from a human rights perspective, it is difficult to understand why early Christians did not object to the social institution of slavery. It is uncertain whether one can go so far as to criticise Early Christians, including Paul and other authors of Biblical texts, for their active or passive acceptance of slavery.[59] Peter Gruszka attributed the view of early Christian Fathers on slavery to their social environment. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries, the most prominent fathers such asClement,Tertullian,Cyprian,Origen and others emerged in Africa and Egypt, where slavery did not exist on a large scale. Different was the social environment in Eastern Mediterranean, Syria, Palestine and especially Asia Minor, where slavery was a strong presence and therefore attracted the attention of theCappadocian fathers of the 4th century.[60]
According toJennifer Glancy, sexual exploitation of slaves in the Roman Empire was helped by Christian morality. Jesus urged his followers to act like slaves, implementing aslave morality. The early Christian theologians were unconcerned about slave morals.[61] In theEastern Roman Empire (Byzantine), a shift in the view of slavery is noticed, which by the 10th century transformed gradually a slave-object into a slave-subject.[62]
Since the Middle Ages, the Christian understanding of slavery has been subjected to significant internal conflict and has endured dramatic change. Nearly all Christian leaders before the late 17th century recognised slavery, within specific biblical limitations, as consistent with Christiantheology. The key verse used to justify slavery was Genesis 9:25–27: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem." which was interpreted to mean that Africans were the descendants ofHam, cursed with "the mark of Ham" to be servants to the descendants ofJapheth (Europeans) andShem (Asians).[63] In 1452,Pope Nicholas V instituted the hereditary slavery of capturedMuslims and pagans, regarding all non-Christians as "enemies of Christ".[64]
The "Curse of Ham" along with Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians 6:5–7 helped American slave owners to balance their beliefs with slavery. TheSouthern Baptist Convention separated from theTriennial Convention in order to support slavery, which the southern churches regarded as "an institution of heaven".[65][66] The New Testament was ignored except in reminding that Jesus never condemned slavery and theEpistle to Philemon in which a runaway slave was returned to his owner,[67] although Paul urges the owner to treat him "no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother".[68]
Rodney Stark makes the argument inFor the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery,[69] that Christianity helped to end slavery worldwide, as doesLamin Sanneh inAbolitionists Abroad.[70] These authors point out that Christians who viewed slavery as wrong on the basis of their religious convictions spearheadedabolitionism, and many of the early campaigners for the abolition of slavery were driven by their Christian faith and a desire to realize their view that all people are equal under God.[71] In the late 17th century,Anabaptists began to criticize slavery. Criticisms from theSociety of Friends,Mennonites, and theAmish followed suit. Prominent among these Christian abolitionists wereWilliam Wilberforce andJohn Woolman.Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote her famous book,Uncle Tom's Cabin, according to her Christian beliefs in 1852. Earlier, in Britain and America,Quakers were active in abolitionism. A group of Quakers founded the first English abolitionist organization in 1783,[citation needed] and a Quaker petition brought the issue before government that same year. The Quakers continued to be influential throughout the lifetime of the movement, in many ways leading the way for the campaign.John Wesley, the founder ofMethodism, was instrumental in starting abolitionism as a popular movement.[72]
Many modernChristians are united in the condemnation ofslavery as wrong and contrary toGod's will. Only peripheral groups such as theKu Klux Klan and other so-called Christianhate groups on the racist fringes of theChristian Reconstructionist andChristian Identity movements advocate the reinstitution of slavery.[63] Full adherents to reconstructionism are few and marginalized amongconservativeChristians.[73][74][75] With these exceptions, Christian faith groups now condemn slavery, and see the practice as incompatible with basic Christian principles.[63][76]
In addition to aiding abolitionism, many Christians made further efforts toward establishing racial equality, contributing to theCivil Rights Movement.[77]The African American Review notes the important role Christianrevivalism in theblack church played in the Civil Rights Movement.[78]Martin Luther King Jr., an ordainedBaptist minister, was a leader of the American civil rights movement and president of theSouthern Christian Leadership Conference, a Christian Civil Rights organization.[79]
Manyfeminists have accused notions such as a male God, male prophets, and the man-centered stories in the Bible of contributing to apatriarchy.[80] Though many women disciples and servants are recorded in thePauline epistles, there have been occasions in which women have been denigrated and forced into a second-class status.[81] For example, women were told to keep silent in the churches for "it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church".[82]SuffragistElizabeth Cady Stanton said inThe Woman's Bible that "the Bible in its teachings degrades women from Genesis to Revelation".[83]
Elizabeth Clark cites early Christian writings by authors such asTertullian,Augustine, andJohn Chrysostom as being exemplary of the negative view of women that has been perpetuated in church tradition.[84] Until the latter part of the 20th century, only the names of very few women who contributed to the formation of Christianity in its earliest years were widely known:Mary, the mother of Jesus;[85]Mary Magdalene, disciple of Jesus and the first witness to the resurrection; andMary andMartha, the sisters who offered him hospitality in Bethany.[86]
Harvard scholarKaren King writes that more of the many women who contributed to the formation of Christianity in its earliest years are becoming known. Further, she concludes that for centuries inWestern Christianity, Mary Magdalene has been wrongly identified as the adulteress and repentant prostitute presented inJohn 8—a connection supposed by tradition but nowhere claimed in the New Testament. According to King, theGospel of Mary shows that she was an influential figure, a prominent disciple and leader of one wing of the early Christian movement that promoted women's leadership.
King claims that every sect withinearly Christianity which had advocated women's prominence in ancient Christianity was eventually declaredheretical, and evidence of women's early leadership roles was erased or suppressed.[86]
ClassicistEvelyn Stagg andNew Testament scholarFrank Stagg in their jointly authored book,Woman in the World of Jesus, document very unfavorable attitudes toward women that prevailed in the world into which Jesus came. They assert that there is no recorded instance where Jesus disgraces, belittles, reproaches, or stereotypes a woman. They interpret the recorded treatment and attitude Jesus showed to women as evidence that the Founder of Christianity treated women with great dignity and respect.[87] Various theologians have concluded that the canonical examples of the manner of Jesus are instructive for inferring his attitudes toward women. They are seen as showing repeatedly and consistently how he liberated and affirmed women.[88] However,Schalom Ben-Chorin argues that Jesus' reply to his mother inJohn 2:4 during thewedding at Cana amounted to a blatant violation of the commandment to honor one's parent.[89][90]
Many critics of Christianity have cited the violent acts of Christian nations as a reason to denounce the religion. Thescience fiction writerArthur C. Clarke said that he could not forgive religions because they endorsed atrocities and wars over time.[91]Richard Dawkins makes a similar case in his book,The God Delusion. In the counterargument bookThe Dawkins Delusion?,Alister McGrath responds to Dawkins by suggesting that, far from endorsing "out-group hostility",Jesus commanded an ethic of "out-group affirmation". McGrath agrees that it is necessary to critique religion, but he says that Dawkins seems to be unaware that it possesses internal means of reform and renewal. While Christians may certainly be accused of failing to live up to Jesus' standard of acceptance, it lies at the heart of the Christian ethic.[92]
Peace, compassion and forgiveness of wrongs done by others are key elements of Christian teaching.[93] However, Christians have struggled since the days of theChurch fathers with the question of when the use of force is justified.[94] Such debates have led to concepts such asjust war theory. Throughout history, biblical passages have been used to justify the use of force against heretics,[95] sinners[96] and external enemies.[97] Heitman and Hagan identify theInquisitions,Crusades, wars of religion andantisemitism as being "among the most notorious examples of Christian violence".[98] To this list, J. Denny Weaver adds, "warrior popes, support forcapital punishment,corporal punishment under the guise of 'spare the rod and spoil the child', justifications of slavery, world-wide colonialism in the name of conversion to Christianity, the systemic violence of women subjected to men". Weaver employs a broader definition of violence that extends the meaning of the word to cover "harm or damage", not just physical violence per se. Thus, under his definition, Christian violence includes "forms of systemic violence such as poverty, racism, and sexism".[99]
Christians have also engaged in violence against those who they consider heretics and non-believers. InLetter to a Christian Nation, critic of religionSam Harris writes that "...faith inspires violence in at least two ways. First, people often kill other human beings because they believe that the creator of the universe wants them to do it... Second, far greater numbers of people fall into conflict with one another because they define their moral community on the basis of their religious affiliation..."[100]
Christian theologians point to a strongdoctrinal and historical imperative against violence which exists within Christianity, particularly Jesus'Sermon on the Mount, which taught nonviolence and love of enemies. Weaver says that Jesus'pacifism was "preserved in thejustifiable war doctrine which declares that all war is sin even when it is occasionally declared to be a necessary evil, and it was also preserved in the prohibition of fighting by monastics and clergy as well as in a persistent tradition ofChristian pacifism".[101][unreliable source?] Others point out sayings and acts of Jesus that do not fit this description: the absence of any censure of the soldier who asks Jesus to heal his servant, his overturning the tables and chasing the moneychangers from the temple with a rope in his hand, and through his Apostles, baptising a Roman Centurion who is never asked to first give up arms.[102][unreliable source?]
Historically, prohibitions on fighting by monastics and clerics have often been discarded; the notion of military monasticism emerged in the 12th century, in large part because of the advocacy ofBernard of Clairvaux. Bernard—and, once the papacy gave sanction to the idea, the entire Roman Catholic Church—believed that existing Christian methods of serving the Church's ends in war were inadequate, and that a group of dedicated warrior monks could achieve spiritual merit by waging war, rather than despite it. In this view, war against heretics justified means of waging war that fell outside the bounds ofjust war; for example, theTeutonic Order, which received papal sanction, made frequent use of massacres andviolence to compel conversion during theBaltic Crusades.[103]
During the 19th century an interpretive model of the relationship between religion and science known today as theconflict theory developed, according to which interaction between religion and science almost inevitably leads to hostility and conflict. A popular example was the misconception that people from theMiddle Ages believed that theEarth was flat, and that only science, freed from religious dogma, had shown that it was spherical. This thesis was a popularhistoriographical approach during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but most contemporaryhistorians of science now reject it.[104][105][106]
The notion of a war between science and religion remained common in the historiography of science during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.[107] Most of today's historians of science consider that the conflict thesis has been superseded by subsequent historical research.[108] The framing of the relationship between Christianity and science as being predominantly one of conflict is still prevalent inpopular culture.[109]
The astronomerCarl Sagan mentioned the dispute between the astronomical systems ofPtolemy (who thought that the Sun and planets revolved around the Earth) andCopernicus (who thought the Earth and planets revolved around the Sun). He states inCosmos: A Personal Voyage thatPtolemy's belief was "supported by the church through the Dark Ages... [It] effectively prevented the advance of astronomy for 1,500 years."[110]Ted Peters inEncyclopedia of Religion writes that although there is some truth in this story, it has been exaggerated and has become "a modern myth perpetuated by those wishing to see warfare between science and religion who were allegedly persecuted by an atavistic and dogma-bound ecclesiastical authority".[111] In 1992, the Catholic Church's seeming vindication of Galileo attracted muchcomment in the media.[112][113]
ThephilosopherFriedrich Nietzsche was a notable critic of the ethics of Christianity.
Jesus is the central figure ofChristianity. Since the time in which he lived, a number of noted individuals have criticised Jesus. Objects of criticism include the morality of the life of Jesus, in both his public and private lives, such as Jesus' mental health, morality of his teachings etc.
Early critics of Jesus and Christianity includedCelsus in the second century andPorphyry in the third.[114][115] In the 19th century,Friedrich Nietzsche was highly critical of Jesus, whose teachings he considered to be "anti-nature" in their treatment of topics such as sexuality. More contemporary notable critics of Jesus includeAyn Rand,Hector Avalos,Sita Ram Goel,Christopher Hitchens,Bertrand Russell, andDayananda Saraswati.
The ethics of the Bible have been criticized by some who call some of its teachingsimmoral.Slavery,genocide,supersessionism, thedeath penalty,violence,patriarchy, sexual intolerance,colonialism, and theproblem of evil and a good God, are examples of criticisms of ethics in the Bible.
The ethics in the Bible have been criticized, such as the passages in the Old Testament in which God commands theIsraelites to commitgenocide against enemy peoples, and His command that no one among those same enemy peoples should be spared.[116] The existence of evil has been argued as evidence of noomnipotent, omnibenevolent being, however skeptical theism suggests that humans do not have the understanding of the big picture to make an adequate assessment. However, a counter argument by Stephen Maitzen suggests that the ethical inconsistency in the Bible that is not followed by most Christians or Jews today, such as the execution of homosexuals, blasphemers, disobedient children, or the punishment for mixinglinen and cloth, ultimately undermines the skeptical theism argument.[117] Christian ethics have also been criticized for breeding intolerance (such as antisemitic views), and for having a repressive nature. Criticism has also been aimed at the threat ofHell.[118]
Someleftists andlibertarians, including Christians who disavow theReligious Right, use the termChristian fascism orChristofascism to describe what some see as an emergingneoconservative proto-fascist orEvangelical nationalist and possiblytheocratic sentiment in the United States.[119]
Conservative Christians are often accused of being intolerant bysecular humanists andprogressive Christians, who claim that they oppose science which seems to contradict their scriptural interpretation (creationism, use ofbirth control,climate change denial,abortion, research intoembryonic stem cells, etc.),liberal democracy (separation of church and state), and progressive social policies (rights of people of other races and religions, of women, and of people with different sexual orientations).[120][121][122][123]
Gallup polling shows that within the US, trust in organized religion has declined since the 1970s.[124] Phil Zuckerman, a sociology professor, argues that political campaigning againstsame-sex marriage in churches "is turning off so many people from Christianity", and it is responsible for a decline in the number of Christians in the United States.[125]
David Kinnaman, president of theBarna Institute, and Gabe Lyons of the Fermi Project published a study of the attitudes of 16- to 29-year-old Americans towards Christianity. They found that about 38% of all of those who were not regular churchgoers had negative impressions of Christianity, especially evangelical Christianity, which they associated with conservative political activism, hypocrisy,anti-homosexuality,authoritarianism, and judgmentalism.[126] About 17% had "very bad" perceptions of Christianity.[127][128][129]
There are three major viewpoints within modern Christianity over the role of women. They are respectively known asChristian feminism,Christian egalitarianism andcomplementarianism.
Some Christians argue that the belief that God is a man is not based on gender, instead, they argue that the belief that God is a man is based on the tradition which existed in the dominant Patriarchal society of the time in which men acted as the leaders and caretakers of their Families.[134] Thus, the idea of God being "The Father" is with regards to his relationship with what are "his children", Christians.
Most mainline Christians claim that the doctrine of the Trinity implies that God should be called Father rather than Mother, in the same way that Jesus was a man rather than a woman.[135] Jesus tells His followers to address God as Father.[136] He tells his disciples to be merciful as their heavenly Father is merciful.[137] He says the Father will give the Holy Spirit to those who ask[138] and that the Spirit of their Father will speak through them in times of persecution.[139] On Easter Sunday, he directs Mary Magdalene to tell the other disciples, "I am going to my Father and your Father...."[140] Mark Brumley points out that behind New Testament language of Divine Adoption and regeneration is the idea that God is our Father because He is the "source" or "origin" of our new life in Christ. He has saved us through Christ and sanctified us in the Spirit. Brumley claims this is clearly more than a metaphor; the analogy with earthly fatherhood is obvious. God is not merely like a father for Christ's followers; he is really their Father. Among Christians who hold to this idea, there is a distinct sense that Jesus' treatment of women should imply their equality in leadership and marital roles every bit as strongly as the definite male gender of Jesus should imply a name of Father for God. Instead of characterizing alternative naming asantifeminist, they characterize it as unnecessary and unsupported by the words which are found in the Bible.[135]
In 2000, theSouthern Baptist Convention voted to revise its "Baptist Faith and Message" (Statement of Faith),[141] opposing women as pastors. While this decision is not binding and would not prevent women from serving as pastors, the revision itself has been criticized by some from within the convention. In the same document, the Southern Baptist Convention took a strong position of the subordinating view of woman in marriage: "A wife is to submit herselfgraciously to the servant leadership of her husband. She has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation."[141] (Emphasis added)
TheEastern Orthodox Church does not allow the ordination of female clergy. On the other hand, theChaldean Catholic Church continues to maintain a large number of deaconesses who serve alongside male deacons during mass.[142] In some evangelical churches, it is forbidden for women to become pastors, deacons or church elders. In support of such prohibitions, the verse1 Timothy 2:12 is often cited:[143]
PhilosopherDavid Hume argued against the plausibility of miracles:[144]
1) A miracle is a violation of the known laws of nature;
2) We know these laws through repeated and constant experience;
3) The testimony of those who report miracles contradicts the operation of known scientific laws;
4) Consequently no one can rationally believe in miracles.
The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church reject Hume's argument against miracles outright with the teachings ofSt. Gregory Palamas, who postulated that Reason alone was not sufficient to understand God's energies (activities such as miracles) and essence, but faith was.[145]
Miraculous healings through prayers, often involving the "laying on of hands", have been reported. However, reliance onfaith healing alone can indirectly contribute to serious harm and even death.[146]Christian apologists includingC.S. Lewis,Norman Geisler andWilliam Lane Craig have argued thatmiracles are reasonable and plausible.[147][148][149]
Celsus found it hard to reconcile the Christian human God who was born and matured with the Jewish God who was supposed to be one and unchanging. He asked "if God wanted to reform humanity, why did he choose to descend and live on earth? How his brief presence in Jerusalem could benefit all the millions of people who lived elsewhere in the world or who had lived and died before his incarnation?"[150]
One classical response isLewis's trilemma, asyllogism popularised byC. S. Lewis that intended to demonstrate the logical inconsistency of both holdingJesus of Nazareth to be a "great moral teacher" while also denying his divinity. The logical soundness of this trilemma has been widely questioned.[151]
_by_Anonymous_16th_Century_1_of_2_(582x800).jpg)
Christianity has been criticized as seeking to persuade people into accepting its authority through simple fear of punishment or, conversely, through hope of reward after death, rather than through rational argumentation orempirical evidence.[152] Traditional Christian doctrine dictates that, without faith in Jesus Christ or in the Christian faith in general, one is subject toeternal damnation inHell.[153]
Critics regard the eternal punishment of those who fail to adopt Christian faith as morally objectionable, and consider it an abhorrent picture of the nature of the world. On a similar theme objections are made against the perceived injustice of punishing a person for all eternity for a temporal crime. Some Christians agree (seeAnnihilationism andChristian Universalism). These beliefs have been considered especially repugnant[154] when the claimed omniscient and omnipotent God makes, or allows a person to come into existence, with a nature that desires that which God finds objectionable.[155]
In the Abrahamic religions, Hell has traditionally been regarded as apunishment for wrongdoing orsin in this life, as a manifestation of divine justice. As in theproblem of evil, some apologists argue that the torments of Hell are attributable not to a defect in God's benevolence, but in humanfree will. Although a benevolent God would prefer to see everyone saved, he would also allow humans to control their own destinies. This view opens the possibility of seeing Hell not as retributive punishment, but rather as an option that God allows, so that people who do not wish to be with God are not forced to be.C. S. Lewis most famously proposed this view in his bookThe Great Divorce, saying: "There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'"
Hell is not seen as strictly a matter of retributive justice even by the more traditionalist churches. For example, theEastern Orthodox see it as a condition brought about by, and the natural consequence of, free rejection of God's love.[156]TheRoman Catholic Church teaches that hell is a place of punishment[157] brought about by a person's self-exclusion from communion with God.[158] In some ancient Eastern Orthodox traditions, Hell and Heaven are distinguished not spatially, but by the relation of a person to God's love.
Some modern critics of the doctrine of Hell (such asMarilyn McCord Adams) claim that, even if Hell is seen as a choice rather than as punishment, it would be unreasonable for God to give such flawed and ignorant creatures as humans the awesome responsibility of their eternal destinies.[159]Jonathan Kvanvig, in his book,The Problem of Hell, agrees that God would not allow one to be eternally damned by a decision made under the wrong circumstances. For instance, one should not always honor the choices of human beings, even when they are full adults, if, for instance, the choice is made whiledepressed orcareless. On Kvanvig's view, God will abandon no person until they have made a settled, final decision, under favorable circumstances, to reject God, but God will respect a choice made under the right circumstances. Once a person finally and competently chooses to reject God, out of respect for the person's autonomy, God allows them to be annihilated.[160]
Christians have sometimes been accused of idolatry, especially with regard to theiconoclastic controversy.[161] However, Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics forbid the worship oficons andrelics as divine in and of themselves, while honouring those represented by them is accepted and philosophically justified by theSecond Council of Constantinople.Jewish theologians often considered Christianity to be a form of idolatry due to its doctrines of theTrinity (which teaches that God is more than oneperson) and theincarnation (which teaches that God became man); notably, the famous medieval Jewish writerMaimonides considered Christianity to be a form of polytheism.[3]
The Roman Catholic Church teaches thatbaptism is a necessity for salvation. In the 5th century,Augustine of Hippoconcluded that infants who die without baptism were consigned to hell.[162] By the 13th century, theologians referred to the "limbo of infants" as a place where unbaptized babies were deprived of the vision of God, but did not suffer because they did not know of that which they were deprived, and moreover enjoyed perfect natural happiness. The1983 Code of Canon Law (1183 §2) specifies that"Children whose parents had intended to have them baptized but who died before baptism, may be allowed church funeral rites by the local ordinary".[163] In 2007, the 30-member International Theological Commission revisited the concept of limbo.[164][165] However, the commission also said that hopefulness was not the same as certainty about the destiny of such infants.[164] Rather, as stated in theCatechism of the Catholic Church, 1257, "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments."[166] Hope in the mercy of God is not the same as certainty through the sacraments, but it is not without result, as demonstrated in Jesus' statement to the thief on the cross inLuke 23:42–43.
The concept of limbo is not accepted by theOrthodox Church or byProtestants.[167]
The idea ofatonement forsin is criticized byRichard Dawkins on the grounds that the image of God as requiring the suffering and death of Jesus to effect reconciliation with humankind is immoral. The view is summarized by Dawkins: "if God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them? Who is God trying to impress?"[168] Oxford theologian Alister McGrath maintains that Dawkins is "ignorant" ofChristian theology, and therefore unable to engage religion and faith intelligently. He goes on to say that the atonement was necessary because of our flawed human nature, which made it impossible for humans to save themselves, and that it expresses God's love for mankind by removing the sin that stands in the way of human reconciliation with God.[169] Responding to the criticism that he is "ignorant" of theology, Dawkins asks, "Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving inleprechauns?"[170] and "[y]es, I have, of course, met this point before. It sounds superficially fair. But it presupposes that there is something in Christian theology to be ignorant about. The entire thrust of my position is that Christian theology is a non-subject."[171]Dinesh D'Souza says that Dawkins' criticism "only makes sense if you assume Christians made the whole thing up." He goes on to say that Christians view it as a beautiful sacrifice, and that "through the extremity ofGolgotha, Christ reconciles divine justice and divine mercy."[172] Andrew Wilson argues that Dawkins misses the point of the atonement, which has nothing to do with masochism, but is based on the concepts of holiness, sin and grace.[173]
Robert Green Ingersoll suggests that the concept of the atonement is simply an extension of the Mosaic tradition of blood sacrifice and "is the enemy of morality".[174][175] The death of Jesus Christ represents the blood sacrifice to end all blood sacrifices; the resulting mechanism of atonement by proxy through that final sacrifice has appeal as a more convenient and much less costly approach to redemption than repeated animal sacrifice—a common sense solution to the problem of reinterpreting ancient religious approaches based on sacrifice.
The prominent Christian apologistJosh McDowell, inMore Than A Carpenter, addresses the issue through an analogy of a real-life judge in California who was forced to fine his daughter $100 for speeding, but then came down, took off his robe, and paid the fine for her from his billfold,[176] though as in this and other cases, illustrations are only cautiously intended to describe certain aspects of the atonement and not in its entirety.[177]
Several verses in theNew Testament containJesus' predictions that theSecond Coming would take place within a century following his death.[original research?][178] Jesus appears to promise for his followers the second coming to happen before the generation he is preaching to vanishes.[according to whom?] This is seen as an essential failure in the teachings of Christ by many critics such asBertrand Russell.[179]
However,Preterists argue that Jesus did not mean his second coming[180] but speaks about demonstrations of his might, formulating this as "coming in his kingdom", especially the destruction of theSecond Temple in theSiege of Jerusalem in 70 AD, which he foretold, and by which time not all of his disciples were still living.[181] According to this viewMatthew 10:23 should be understood in the same way.[182]
Most Christian traditions teach belief in life after death as a central and indispensable tenet of their faith. Critics argue that the Christian conception of the afterlife is inconsistent with that of the Hebrew Bible.George E. Mendenhall believes there is no concept of immortality or life after death in the Hebrew Bible.[183] The presumption is that the deceased are inert, lifeless, and engaging in no activity.[183]
The concept ofSheol (Hebrew:שְׁאוֹל), or a state of nothingness, was shared amongBabylonian and Israelite beliefs. "Sheol, as it was called by the ancient Israelites, is the land of no return, lying below the cosmic ocean, to which all, the mighty and the weak, travel in the ghostly form they assume after death, known asRephaim. There the dead have no experience of either joy or pain, perceiving no light, feeling no movement."[184] Obayashi concludes that the Israelites were satisfied with such a shadowy realm of afterlife because they were more deeply concerned with survival.[184]
Before the early Christian split from mainstream Judaism in the 1st century, the belief in an afterlife was already prevalent inJewish thinking[note 1] among thePharisees[185][note 2] andEssenes[note 3]. The themes of unity andSheol, which largely shaped the ancient tradition of Judaism, had been undermined when only the most pious of Jews were massacred during theMaccabean revolt.
Gaudium et spes claims that the example of Christians may be a contributory factor toatheism, writing, "...believers can have more than a little to do with the birth of atheism. To the extent that they neglect their own training in the faith, or teach erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion."[186]
Secular and religious critics have accused many Christians of being hypocritical.[187] Tom Whiteman, a Philadelphia psychologist found that the primary reasons for Christian divorce include adultery, abuse (including substance, physical and verbal abuse), and abandonment whereas the number one reason cited for divorce in the general population was incompatibility.[188]
Some have argued that Christianity is undermined by the inability of Christians to agree on matters of faith and church governance, and the tendency for the content of their faith to be determined by regional or political factors.Schopenhauer sarcastically suggested:[189]
Certain Christians respond thatecumenism has helped bring together such communities, where in the past mistranslations of Christological Greek terms may have resulted in seemingly different views.Non-denominational Christianity represents another approach towards reducing the divisions within Christianity, although many Christian groups claiming to be non-denominational wind up with similar problems.
Individuals and groups throughout history have been persecuted by certain Christians (and Christian groups) based upon sex, sexual orientation, race, and religion (even within the bounds of Christianity itself). Many of the persecutors attempted to justify their actions with particular scriptural interpretations. DuringLate Antiquity and theMiddle Ages, important Christian theologians advocatedreligious persecution to varying degrees.[citation needed] However,early modern Europe witnessed a turning point in the Christian debate on persecution and toleration. Nowadays all significantChristian denominations embracereligious toleration, and "look back on centuries of persecution with a mixture of revulsion and incomprehension".[190]
Early Christianity was a minority religion in theRoman Empire andthe early Christians were themselves persecuted during that time. AfterConstantine I converted to Christianity, it became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire. Already under the reign of Constantine I, Christian heretics had been persecuted; beginning in the late 4th century AD also theancient pagan religions were actively suppressed. In the view of many historians, theConstantinian shift turned Christianity from a persecuted into a persecuting religion.[191]
After thedecline of the Roman Empire, the furtherChristianization of Europe was to a large extent peaceful.[192] However, encounters betweenChristians and Pagans were sometimes confrontational, and some Christiankings (Charlemagne,Olaf I of Norway) were known for their violence against pagans. In the late Middle Ages, the appearance of theCathars andBogomils in Europe laid the stage for the laterwitch hunts. These (probablygnostic-influenced) sects were seen asheretics by the Roman Catholic Church, and theInquisition was established to counter them. In the case of the Cathars, theAlbigensian Crusade violently suppressed them. In the Baltic countries,pagans were killed, subjugated or forcibly baptized.
From the start of Christian rule in Europe, Jews were increasingly discriminated against, at times rising to outright persecution. This sometimes took the form of events like theRhineland massacres, and theblood libel was often the source (claiming Jews ritually murdered Christian children). Jews were also expelled from a number of countries, including fromEngland and laterSpain. In the latter case, if converted they could remain. However, as most did so only under duress, Judaism continued to bepracticed in secret by many. As a result, theSpanish Inquisition was formed to root them out, along with thesecret Muslims there. In theFirst Crusade, after theSiege of Jerusalem, all Jews and Muslims within the city were massacred by the Crusaders.[citation needed]
After theProtestant Reformation, the devastation caused by the partly religiously motivated wars (Thirty Years' War,English Civil War,French Wars of Religion) in Europe in the 17th century gave rise to the ideas ofreligious toleration,freedom of religion andreligious pluralism.
Adolf Hitler's 1920Nazi Party Platform promotedPositive Christianity—which mixed ideas of racial purity and Nazi ideology with elements of Christianity and removed "Jewish" elements.[193][194]
Nazism aimed to transform the subjective consciousness of the German people—their attitudes, values and mentalities—into a single-minded, obedient "national community". The Nazis believed they would therefore have to replace class, religious and regional allegiances.[195] Under theGleichschaltung process, Hitler attempted to create a unifiedProtestant Reich Church from Germany's 28 existing Protestant churches. The plan failed, and was resisted by theConfessing Church.Persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany followed the Nazi takeover. Hitler moved quickly to eliminatepolitical catholicism. Amid harassment of the Church, theReich concordat treaty with the Vatican was signed in 1933, and promised to respect Church autonomy. Hitler routinely disregarded the Concordat, closing all Catholic institutions whose functions were not strictly religious. Clergy, nuns, and lay leaders were targeted, with thousands of arrests over the ensuing years.[196]
Hitler was supportive of Christianity in public, yet hostile to it in private. Anti-clericalists likeJoseph Goebbels andMartin Bormann saw the conflict with the Churches as a priority concern, and anti-church and anti-clerical sentiments were strong among grassroots party activists.[197] Hitler was born to a practising Roman Catholic mother and ananticlerical father, but after leaving home Hitler never again attendedMass or received thesacraments. According to biographer Alan Bullock, Hitler retained some regard for the organisational power of Catholicism but held private contempt for its central teachings, which he said, if taken to their conclusion, "would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."[198]
Joseph Goebbels, theReich Minister of Propaganda, used his position to widely publicise trials of clergy and nuns in his propaganda campaigns, showing the cases in the worst possible light. In 1928, soon after his election to the Reichstag, Goebbels wrote in his diary that National Socialism was a "religion" that needed a genius to uproot "outmoded religious practices" and put new ones in their place: "One day soon National Socialism will be the religion of all Germans. My Party is my church, and I believe I serve the Lord best if I do his will, and liberate my oppressed people from the fetters of slavery. That is my gospel."[199] As the war progressed, on the "Church Question", he wrote "after the war it has to be generally solved... There is, namely, an insoluble opposition between the Christian and a heroic-German world view".[197]
Hitler's chosen deputy and private secretary,Martin Bormann, was a rigid guardian of National Socialist orthodoxy and saw Christianity and Nazism as "incompatible" (mainly because of its Jewish origins),[196][200] as did the official Nazi philosopher,Alfred Rosenberg. In his "Myth of the Twentieth Century" (1930), Rosenberg wrote that the main enemies of the Germans were the "Russian Tartars" and "Semites"—with "Semites" including Christians, especially the Roman Catholic Church.[201]
According toBullock, Hitler considered the Protestant clergy to be "insignificant" and "submissive" and lacking in a religion to be taken seriously.[202] Hitler attempted to create a unifiedProtestant Reich Church from 28 separate regional churches throughGleichschaltung. His bid to create a unified Reich Church ultimately failed, and Hitler became disinterested in supporting the so-called "German Christians" Nazi aligned movement. Hitler initially lent support toLudwig Müller, a Nazi and former naval chaplain, to serve as Reich Bishop, but his heretical views against Paul the Apostle and the Semitic origins of Christ and the Bible (seePositive Christianity) quickly alienated sections of the Protestant church. Lutheran PastorMartin Niemöller created theConfessing Church movement to oppose the Nazification of Protestant churches.[203] Neimoller was arrested by theGestapo in 1937, and sent to the concentration camps.[204] The Confessing Church seminary was prohibited that same year.[205]
Christian persecution complex is the notion that Christian values and Christians are being oppressed by social groups and governments.[206] According toElizabeth Castelli, some set the starting point in the middle of the 20th century while others point to the 1990s. After theSeptember 11 attacks, it accelerated.[207] The concept that Christianity is being oppressed is popular among conservative politicians in contemporary politics in the United States, and they utilize this idea to address issues concerningLGBT people or theACA's Contraceptives Mandate, which they perceive as an attack on Christianity.[208]
Others (like professorCandida Moss and lecturer Paul Cavill) point out that this mentality of being persecuted roots back to the earliest times.[209] It appeared during the era ofearly Christianity due to internal Christian identity politics.[210][211] Cavill claims that theNew Testament teaches that persecutions are inherent to Christianity.[212]
Ram Mohan Roy criticized Christian doctrines, and asserted that they are "unreasonable" and "self-contradictory".[213] He further adds that people (even from India) were embracing Christianity due to the economic hardship and weakness, just like European Jews were pressured to embrace Christianity by both encouragement and force.[214]
Vivekananda regarded Christianity as "collection of little bits of Indian thought. Ours is the religion of which Buddhism with all its greatness is a rebel child, and of which Christianity is a very patchy imitation."[215]
PhilosopherDayanand Saraswati, regarded Christianity as "barbarous religion, and a 'false religion' religion believed only by fools and by the people in a state of barbarism,"[216] he included that Bible contains many stories and precepts that are immoral, praising cruelty, deceit and encouraging sin.[217]
In 1956 theNiyogi Committee Report On Christian Missionary Activities was published by the Government ofMadhya Pradesh. This influential report on controversial missionary activities in India recommended that suitable controls on conversions brought about through illegal means should be implemented.[218] Also in the 1950s,K.M. Panikkar's work "Asia and Western Dominance" was published and was one of the first post-Independence Indian critiques of Christian missions. It argued that the attempt to convert Asia has definitely failed, and that this failure was due to the missionaries' claim of a monopoly of truth which was alien to the Asian mind, their association with imperialism and the attitude of moral andracial superiority of theChristian West.[218]
The Indian writer and philosopherRam Swarup was "most responsible for reviving and re-popularizing" theHindu critique ofChristian missionary practices in the 1980s.[219] He insisted that monotheistic religions like Christianity "nurtured among their adherents a lack of respect for other religions".[219] Other important writers who criticized Christianity from an Indian and Hindu perspective includeSita Ram Goel and Arun Shourie.[220][219]Arun Shourie urged Hindus to be "alert to the fact that missionaries have but one goal—that of harvesting us for the church"; and he wrote that they have "developed a very well-knit, powerful, extremely well-endowed organizational framework" for attaining that goal.[220] In his "widely read and cited" bookMissionaries in India, Shourie tried to build a case that Christian evangelistic methods were cynically calculating and materialistic, and to Shourie, missionary strategizing "sounded more like thePlanning Commission, if not the Pentagon, than like Jesus".[219][221]
Indian philosopherSarvepalli Radhakrishnan wrote:
Unfortunately Christian religion inherited the Semitic creed of the 'jealous God' in the view of Christ as 'the only begotten son of God' so could not brook any rival near the throne. When Europe accepted the Christian religion, in spite of its own broad humanism, it accepted the fierce intolerance which is the natural result of belief in 'the truth once for all delivered to the saints.'[222]
Shlomo ben Aderet called Christianity a lesser form of monotheism that lacks the unified deity of Judaism.[223] Also in the Middle Ages,Maimonides considered Christianity to be a prime example of idolatrous heresy.[3]
David Flusser viewed Christianity as "cheaper Judaism" and highlyanti-Jewish. He also regarded the "failure of Christianity to convert the Jewish people to the new message" as "precisely the reason for the strong anti-Jewish trend in Christianity."[224]
Stephen Samuel Wise criticized the Christian community for its failure to rescue Jews from Europe during Nazi rule. He wrote that:
A Christian world that will permit millions of Jews to be slain without moving heaven by prayer and earth in every human way to save its Jews has lost its capacity for moral and spiritual survival.[225]
Muslim scholars have criticized Christianity, usually for itstrinity concept. They argue that this doctrine is an invention, distortion of the idea about God, and presentation of the idea that there are three gods, a form ofshirk, or polytheism.[226] According toQu'ran 9:31, Christians should follow one God, but they have made multiple.
They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One God.[227]
In modern times, some Muslim scholars have continued to critique Christianity. For example, in his workChristian Ethics: A Historical and Systematic Analysis of Its Dominant Ideas (1967), the lateIsma'il Raji al-Faruqi, who was a professor atTemple University, argued that Christianity has incorporated various influences that diverge from Jesus' original teachings. This critique emphasizes what he saw as the need for a rational and coherent ethical framework, contrasting Christian concepts likepeccatism (inherent human sinfulness) and saviorism (belief in Jesus as the redeemer) with Islamic views.[228][229] This perspective includes a critique of Christian theological paradoxes and advocates for what al-Faruqi considered a rational and coherent ethical framework.[230]
91 abbreviations.
Did Jesus of Nazareth live and die without the teaching about the righteous Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53 having exerted any significant influence on his ministry? Is it probable that this text exerted no significant influence upon Jesus' understanding of the plan of God to save the nations that the prophet Isaiah sets forth?" —Two questions addressed in a conference on "Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins" at Baylor University in the fall of 1995, the principal papers of which are available in "Jesus and the Suffering Servant.
Of all religions, Christianity has been most associated with colonialism because several of its forms (Catholicism and Protestantism) were the religions of the European powers engaged in colonial enterprise on a global scale.
The modern missionary era was in many ways the 'religious arm' of colonialism, whether Portuguese and Spanish colonialism in the sixteenth Century, or British, French, German, Belgian or American colonialism in the nineteenth. This was not all bad — oftentimes missionaries were heroic defenders of the rights of indigenous peoples
Historians have traditionally looked at Christian missionaries in one of two ways. The first church historians to catalogue missionary history provided hagiographic descriptions of their trials, successes, and sometimes even martyrdom. Missionaries were thus visible saints, exemplars of ideal piety in a sea of persistent savagery. However, by the middle of the twentieth century, an era marked by civil rights movements, anti-colonialism, and growing secularization, missionaries were viewed quite differently. Instead of godly martyrs, historians now described missionaries as arrogant and rapacious imperialists. Christianity became not a saving grace but a monolithic and aggressive force that missionaries imposed upon defiant natives. Indeed, missionaries were now understood as important agents in the ever-expanding nation-state, or "ideological shock troops for colonial invasion whose zealotry blinded them.
According to Jake Meador, "some Christians have tried to make sense of post-colonial Christianity by renouncing practically everything about the Christianity of the colonizers. They reason that if the colonialists' understanding of Christianity could be used to justify rape, murder, theft, and empire then their understanding of Christianity is completely wrong.
Founders of the new organization claimed that, according to the Bible, slavery was an institution of heaven. They pushed the idea that Black people were descended from the Biblical figure Ham, Noah's cursed son, and that their subjugation was therefore divinely ordained
"[3rd paragraph] I am using broad definitions of the terms "violence" and "nonviolence." "Violence" means harm or damage, which obviously includes the direct violence of killing – in war, capital punishment, murder – but also covers the range of forms of systemic violence such as poverty, racism, and sexism. "Nonviolence" also covers a spectrum of attitudes and actions, from the classic Mennonite idea of passive nonresistance through active nonviolence and nonviolent resistance that would include various kinds of social action, confrontations and posing of alternatives that do not do bodily harm or injury.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link){{cite book}}:|work= ignored (help){{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
