Is Christianity Harmful?

(A Response to Pin
Valentine)
By Christian Anarchist

I was reading among the

internet one day and I came across
an article thanks to a fan of mine.
The article came from a blogger
named Pin Valentine. He wrote an
article in response to the Orland,
Florida shooting massacre that
happened recently. It was truly
tragic and I can understand where
religion would be mentioned. Islam

was certainly a good motivation for

the killers deed. However,
Christianity got mentioned and a
few statements of his caused me to
question why this would be brought
up in an article entitled The Man
Who Pulled The Trigger where
politics concerning the debate on
guns is not something I get into. I
may be pro-gun, however I lean
more left in the way that I want to
make sure that the risk of a violent
psychopath and new brand of killer
doesnt reach the media. I want to
tackle the statement he made on
religion since that is my specialty
and I noticed something quite
interesting.

In his blog, he states the

following in his concluding
paragraph: Lets talk about
religion. Christians are no better
than radical Muslims. Christianity
has been spread through violence,
massacres, torture, force,
genocide, infanticide, and slavery
since its inception (1). Now that is
quite a statement since he doesnt
even use an adjective to describe a
certain type of Christian, but rather
Christians in general, like myself,
are no better than Muslims like ISIS
and Boko Haram. He then says
Christianity has spread through the
same means that Islam has done in
the past. This may be true for
Roman Catholicism by means of

the Spanish Inquisition and The

Crusades (both events before the
Protestant Reformation). So these
werent done by your Protestant
Christians, but rather a Roman
Catholic Church. However, let us
discuss some of the things the
Protestants did. Riots, wars and
witch hunts were done under the
name of a certain individual who
was leading in a certain Protestant
movement. This however is MiddleAges Christianity with a corruption
in the Roman Catholic Church
obviously taking place and the
Reformers were still trying to get
their mess together. What about
Early Christian History? Surely, this
must matter to Pin if he wants to

establish his case more strongly to

say this is Christianity at its purest
in moral teachings.
However, when you look at early
church history, you do not see such
a case able to be made. This is only
meant to be a short essay so we
will cover two main topics that deal
with the morality aspect in the
debate: slavery and war.
Slavery
Let us first start with slavery,
seeing as we have historical
evidence against the claim that
since the beginning, Christians
promoted and endorsed slavery.
Lets go with a common sense

argument along with people like

Thomas Jefferson. He wanted to get
rid of slavery and abolish it, but at
the same time, even he owned
slaves. Why was this? Was it
because it was difficult for him to
simply abolish it or did he dabble
and actually endorse slavery? I
highly doubt any secularist would
agree that a humanist like Jefferson
was loving or pushing for slavery.
Now concerning the Early Church,
how did they view it in light of the
passages normally used from the
bible by atheists to claim the bible
supports Slavery? Lets look at
something that was observed by
Church Historian, Phillip Schaff:
Yet from the outset Christianity

has labored for this end

[slaverys]; not by impairing the
right of property, not by outward
violence, nor sudden revolution;
this, under the circumstances,
would only have made the evil
worse; but by its moral power, by
preaching the divine descent and
original unity of all men, their
common redemption through
Christ, the duty of brotherly love,
and the true freedom of the spirit.
It placed slaves and masters on the
same footing of dependence on
God and of freedom in God, the
Father, Redeemer, and Judge of
both. It conferred inward freedom
even under outward bondage, and
taught obedience to God and for

the sake of God, even in the

enjoyment of outward freedom
(2). So we have this written down
into history. However, what could
cause this? Is this another
apologetic dance around the bush
or is there any proof that the Early
Christians believed what Phillip
Schaff is claiming?
Now let us explore the Early
Church Fathers by exploring
Lactantius, an Early Church author
who was not only an advisor to the
Roman Emperor, Constantine I, but
also he was a tutor to his son. In
Lactantius Divine Institutes, he
explains the following concerning
the status of slaves in light of
Christianity: For as He distributes

to all alike His one light, sends

forth His fountains to all, supplies
food, and gives the most pleasant
rest of sleep; so He bestows on all
equity and virtue. In His sight no
one is a slave, no one a master; for
if all have the same Father, by an
equal right we are all children. No
one is poor in the sight of God, but
he who is without justice; no one is
rich, but he who is full of virtues;
no one, in short, is excellent, but
he who has been good and
innocent; no one is most
renowned, but he who has
abundantly performed works of
mercy; no one is most perfect, but
he who has filled all the steps of
virtue. Therefore neither the

Romans nor the Greeks could

possess justice, because they had
men differing from one another by
many degrees, from the poor to
the rich, from the humble to the
powerful; in short, from private
persons to the highest authorities
of kings. For where all are not
equally matched, there is not
equity; and inequality of itself
excludes justice, the whole force of
which consists in this, that it
makes those equal who have by an
equal lot arrived at the condition of
this life (3). This was an early
church father who may have been
later during the time of
Constantine, but what about before
that?

Clement of Rome was the Bishop

of Rome during the 1st century AD
and is actually mentioned in
Philippians 4:3 of the New
Testament. In his only genuine
epistle, he explains something
interesting about how Christians
would try to free slaves and help
others by submitting themselves
into the cruel system: To bring
forward some examples from
among the heathen: Many kings
and princes, in times of pestilence,
when they had been instructed by
an oracle, have given themselves
up to death, in order that by their
own blood they might deliver their
fellow-citizens [from destruction].
Many have gone forth from their

own cities, that so sedition might

be brought to an end within them.
We know many among
ourselves who have given
themselves up to bonds, in
order that they might ransom
others. Many, too, have
surrendered themselves to slavery,
that with the price which they
received for themselves, they
might provide food for others (4).
So we why would Clement, who
was around when the early church
was starting and even travelled
with the Apostle Paul to learn some
of the teachings of Christianity,
make a statement that his church
in Rome would be this humble? If
Pins statement is the case, then

we would see that since Clement

was around during the inception of
the Christian Church, he wouldnt
be for slavery. But fortunately, in
Clements surviving letter, he
addresses the issue of humility to
free slaves and feed others.
In one of the Pseudo-Ignatius
writings, we have something
known as the Apostolic
Constitutions which state the
following about slavery: Say unto
the people under you what
Solomon the wise says: Honour
the Lord out of your just labours,
and pay your first-fruits to Him out
of your fruits of righteousness, that
your garners may be filled with
fullness of wheat, and your presses

may burst out with wine

[Proverbs 3:9-10]. Therefore
maintain and clothe those that are
in want from the righteous labour
of the faithful. And such sums of
money as are collected from
them in the manner aforesaid,
appoint to be laid out in the
redemption of the saints, the
deliverance of slaves, and of
captives, and of prisoners, and
of those that have been
abused, and of those that have
been condemned by tyrants to
single combat and death on
account of the name of Christ.
For the Scripture says: Deliver
those that are led to death, and
redeem those that are ready to be

slain, do not spare [Proverbs

24:11] (5). Notice that in this
writing, which is defined as the
means of how the Christian Church
conducts itself on a daily basis, it
states that the funds from the
churches was actually used to buy
slaves to free them among other
types of people. So whoever it was
that wrote this, they were aware of
how the early church behaved.
War/Jihad/Killing
I appropriately called this
section the following because if the
claim that Christianity is similar to
Islam, then they would be

advocating or have history in this

same concept since its inception.
Before we dive in, let me make one
thing clear. I have noticed in the
news that there are people who
cheered after the slaughter of the
LGBT community. These people
were Christians I understand, but
they do not represent the doctrines
of historical and biblical
Christianity. It is time I make it
clear and will continue to defend
this position. I will also defend my
position further now with more
quotes of the Church Fathers.
Ignatius of Antioch was a bishop
of Antioch as well as a student of
the Apostle John. Ignatius surely
had his experience to learn from

one of Jesus disciples as well as

being made a leader of a church. In
his letter to the Ephesians, he
makes the following exhortation to
the Christians there: Take heed,
then, often to come together to
give thanks to God, and show forth
His praise. For when you assemble
frequently in the same place, the
powers of Satan are destroyed,
and the destruction at which he
aims is prevented by the unity of
your faith. Nothing is more
precious than peace, by which
all war, both in heaven and
earth, is brought to an end
(6). In Ignatius exhortation, he
says that when we fellowship in the
church, we are at peace, which is

precious. Why does he find this to

be the case and not the idea of
committing executions of others
who are heretics or sinners? He
would certainly have the authority
to do so as a bishop of the church
of Antioch.
Hippolytus was a bishop of
unknown locations, but is
considered an antipope by Roman
Catholics for his criticism of other
bishops in Rome during his time. In
his Apostolic Tradition written in
215 AD, he helped to keep early 2nd
century Christian practices written
down. In this, he writes the
following: A soldier of the civil
authority must be taught not to kill
men and to refuse to do so if he is

commanded, and to refuse to take

an oath; if he is unwilling to
comply, he must be rejected (7).
He certainly showed no love to the
idea of a soldier of the government
killing people. He even went as far
as to say if somebody went on
killing under the oath of a
government as a Christian,
implying that there is a sense of
rejection or excommunication
being implied toward the end, that
they were to be rejected from the
church. Why would this be if the
theory is that since its inception,
the church would be into things
such as crusades? Ill answer that
after this last quote.

Justin Martyr was an Early

Christian who is known as the first
apologist in Christianity. He was
certainly a well-educated man and
he had to deal with misconceptions
about the faith. He wrote his
famous work that goes by the
name, First Apology of Justin
Martyr, was aimed at the Roman
Emperor Antoninus Pius concerning
rumors about Christians. There
were stories in Rome about how
they were atheists who practiced
cannibalism and incest to name a
few rumors of their time. This letter
was meant to address and relieve
any worries to the Romans.
Especially since Christians were
blamed for the Great Fire of Rome

in 64 AD. In his 39th chapter, he

states the following: For from
Jerusalem there went out into the
world, men, twelve in number, and
these illiterate, of no ability in
speaking: but by the power of God
they proclaimed to every race of
men that they were sent by Christ
to teach to all the word of God;
and we who formerly used to
murder one another do not
only now refrain from making
war upon our enemies, but
also, that we may not lie nor
deceive our examiners, willingly
die confessing Christ (8). So Justin
Martyr knew people would observe
him and other Christians, but his
church also knew. So the conduct

they displayed while being seen by

everyone is that they used to kill,
but now refrain from doing so.
Where do you think this pacifist
teaching came from according to
his work?
Conclusions
Based on what you have read
and what Pins theory states in his
blog post, you can imagine where I
would have a problem not just
biblically, but also historically as
well. So in short, I wish that for Mr.
Valentine to examine much more
closer to Church History within the
Apostlic Age to the Ante-Nicene

period at least in order to see if he

can defend his claims about
Christians in general not being so
different from those who adhere to
Islam.

Sources and Citations

(Bold/Brackets are mine)

1. (The Man Who Pulled the

Trigger." Christian Reflection. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 17 June 2016.)
2. (Schaff, Philip, and David S.
Schaff. History of the Christian
Church. Vol. 2. New York: C.

Scribner's, 1907. Print. 97 The

Church and Slavery.)
3. (Divine Institutes, Book V,
Chapter 15.)
4. (1 Clement 55)
5. (Apostolic Constitutions 9)
6. (Ignatius Epistle to the
Ephesians, Chapter 13)
7. (Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus
16:9)

8. (First Apology of Justin Martyr,

Chapter 39)