Then what's the point of all the proselytizing?
That's a different kingdom we're recruiting for.
But I'm not. Show me Christ in scripture that counters it, since that's what I spoke to. You won't manage it, but it might do you good to try.
I think one of the main goals of Christianity is to make everyone a Christian
Of course. Reconciling men to God, putting them in relation with our creator is job one. But that doesn't have to have anything to do with secular power.
Which attracts and enables people who want to control and abuse other people.
Now you're back to talking about what some people do and especially what they do within power structures. We agree on that part.
Then why is it Christianity and Islam that are always so violent and abusive of others?
Christianity was violent and abusive when secular and religious realms overlapped. When men used it as a means to power. As I've said, one of the best things to happen to the Body was the secularization of government. It takes a great deal of the draw out of religious life outside of religious purposes.
Why doesn't Hinduism, or Buddhism, or even Judaism have the same bloody inclinations and history?
Buddhism's cultural context was vastly different. Judaism was extraordinarily violent through much of its history. Hindus are a broad tent lot and if you study them you'll find a few fairly violent streaks.
I think the real difference is the admonishment to judge and condemn the 'non-believers'.
Give me the scripture you're speaking to so we can look at it together.
Only Christianity and Islam do that, because only they believe they are the one and only "right" pathway to God. Jews do not believe this, and so they do not proselytize, or judge non-Jews by the values of Jewish ideology. Hindus do not believe this, and so they also do not proselytize or judge non-Hindus by the values of Hindu ideology.
I think you're getting a lot wrong in that. And why is the exclusion of living right, which Judaism certainly adheres to, less bothersome to you? And if you look at Judaism historically they haven't been particularly easy on competing religious ideas. Hindus, again, are from a broad tent and much of that tent isn't accurately described by you, though a great deal is.
Nor do Buddhists proselytize, or judge non-Buddhists by the values of Buddhist ideology.
Buddhism can't, really, given its core, though again it teaches a path that is fairly clear and a standard of behavior that is equally clear and demanding. So we're mostly talking about degrees.
It's only the Christians and the Muslims that are constantly holding the rest of humanity to their own moral and ideological standards, and then trying to make anyone who doesn't measure up, comply.
Not really. You just seem to know more about those two. And Christendom isn't in the making business. We're in the saving business, the asking business and the outreach business when we're minding our business.
It's the elitist assumption of singular righteousness that sets Christianity and Islam apart from those other religions,
Now you're just being elitist and judgmental.
And possessing a first rate education can be called elitist when most of the world is ignorant. It doesn't follow that ignorance is preferable or in any part actually bliss.
and that ratifies the desire among their adherents to make other people comply that is the source of their excessive violence and abuse over the centuries.
I don't think your charges hold up for the most part. I think even with the unfortunate coupling of secular and religious power more good came than not and since we learned that lesson (and because, unlike Islam, our religion wasn't inherently joined to institutions of government) it's been an overwhelmingly beneficial influence even outside of the argument regarding salvation.
Look at the behavior of those people in Texas!
Why? What do you think that has to do with any teaching of Christ? Anyway, while it wasn't a church sponsored event, I've been fairly clear in my opposition, in my open questioning as to whether it is Christian or even responsible citizenship to attempt to move those with poor impulse control to violence. I don't think that sort of thing is defensible and it's certainly no defense of liberty, only an example of how we are permitted to misuse the right to do a thing.
No Jew, Hindu, or Buddhists would EVER consider such behavior reasonable. But plenty of Christians do.
You might want to go back and look over Jewish history again. I don't know where you get this vaguely pacifistic notion of them from but it isn't really the case where they had power. And then take a look at what Hindus and Muslims did to one another as India broke into India and Pakistan. You'll likely be surprised.
