Replies

Actually, it depends on what you mean by "new testament" and "Christian." If you are talking about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, then what you have said is correct. However, there are are an enormous number of people who call themselves "Christians," but who would be more accurately called "Tarsusians," or "Paulines" [after Saul of Tarsus, or Paul, or whatever you want to call him]. I get in arguments with them all the time here at FR, and, while I try to make the standard points as a matter of duty, I've come to realize that, in general, it's just a big waste of time to try to talk any sense into them.

I make no distinction between the four cannonical gospels and the other cannonical books of the NT, including those authored by Paul. I stand by my assertion that you will not find in ANY of these a command that genuine followers of and believers in Jesus Christ are to employ force for the purposes of propagating their religion. In fact, the ONLY justification found there for ANYONE to employ ANY force is with regard to legitimate governmental authorities in fulfillment to protect the innocent, preserve the peace, and maintain a just social order.

If you think that you have found verses that prove otherwise, I invite you to share them with us.

I stand by my assertion that you will not find in ANY of these a command that genuine followers of and believers in Jesus Christ are to employ force for the purposes of propagating their religion.

Certainly there are no commandments in any part of the New Testament which bear any resemblance to Mohammed's commandment to seize them and kill them wheresoever ye find them [Medina Suras, Chapter of Women]. However, there are some passages in the post-Christian books of the New Testament that are, for all intents and purposes, Marxist in their approach to private property rights [and I've often wondered whether this is why so many Catholics vote Socialist].