how do I answer this?

[Tooty]

How do I respond (kindly please) to this statement :

"more people have been killed in the name of God (or religion) than for any other reason"

I think this must be false, but I don't have any specifics. Please help. Thanks!

[ShilohRose]

Definitely false. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the not-so-well-known Armenian genocide of WWI, et al. killed more people than were killed in all the religious wars combined. Most of the genocidal crew were atheists. It always makes me angry to hear this question because it derives from disinformation sown by the enemy!

[Tooty]

That's what I thought too.

If anyone has links with facts/figures to illustrate this, please let me know. I will see if an answer like the above post is sufficient, but past experience makes me think it might be best to have some numbers when they try to insist that they are correct. I think the Spanish inquisition and crusades are favorite counter arguments.

[ShilohRose]

You'd think that all they'd have to do is logically deduce that there were far fewer people involved in the Crusades and the Inquisition than in anything in the 20th Century. The world didn't have near as many people. It's just ridiculous.

I have edited this post because the more I looked at the first link, the more I suspected the numbers were off.



http://www.newscholars.com/papers/Ki...%20Atheism.pdf Here is a link to a very interesting article that debunks the myth.

[Tooty]

I think the problem is that they really want what they are saying to be true, and I have heard this soooooo many times from so many people. It's like an urban legend.

Thank you so much :)

[readytogo]

That's what I thought too.

If anyone has links with facts/figures to illustrate this, please let me know. I will see if an answer like the above post is sufficient, but past experience makes me think it might be best to have some numbers when they try to insist that they are correct. I think the Spanish inquisition and crusades are favorite counter arguments.

Myself, I'd turn it around. If the above answer doesn't suffice, ask them how many people were actually killed during the Inquisition and during the Crusades. Let them do the math. Everything that I've read points to about 2,000 people killed over 500 years for the Inquisition and about 10,000 killed during the Crusades. Neither of these events were carried on with sophisticated weapons by huge masses of people. Then have them look to see how many people were killed by WWII alone. I don't think that anyone would seriously try to argue that WWII was a "religious" war.

(BTW, many times I counter the question by saying that those people were killed "in the name of God"--this doesn't mean that God was behind the killing. "If Hitler had said that he had done what he did in YOUR name, would that make it true?" If they reply that Hitler didn't even know them, I would say that these people didn't know God either.)

[ShilohRose]

I think you're right, that they want it to be true. Anything is better to them than admitting what wretched creatures we are without Jesus!

[Robert]

Myself, I'd turn it around. If the above answer doesn't suffice, ask them how many people were actually killed during the Inquisition and during the Crusades. Let them do the math. Everything that I've read points to about 2,000 people killed over 500 years for the Inquisition and about 10,000 killed during the Crusades. Neither of these events were carried on with sophisticated weapons by huge masses of people. Then have them look to see how many people were killed by WWII alone. I don't think that anyone would seriously try to argue that WWII was a "religious" war.

(BTW, many times I counter the question by saying that those people were killed "in the name of God"--this doesn't mean that God was behind the killing. "If Hitler had said that he had done what he did in YOUR name, would that make it true?" If they reply that Hitler didn't even know them, I would say that these people didn't know God either.)

Excellent point, Karen. Just because something is done in someone's name does NOT mean that they sanctioned it. And God never sanctioned those actions.

But now to head off a potential question "at the pass": "what about those people that God specifically ordered the Israelites to kill in the OT?"

Well, lets look at them: the Canaanites, for one thing, were vile and cruel. Their worship was so horrific that they sacrificed babies to Moloch on a heated altar, and their worship and sexual practices were downright disgusting! Yet God gave them more than 400 years to repent (while Israel was in captivity in Egypt), as He told Abraham:


"“As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you will be buried at a good old age. “Then in the fourth generation they will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete.” " (Genesis 15:15-16, NASB)

In order to protect his chosen nation (through whom the Messiah, Jesus Christ, would come), God had to protect his people. In the instance where Israel had to wipe out races that God commanded them to, this was a special, specific order from the Lord that was NOT the norm, and had to be done.

Once Christ died on the cross, however, it was a completely new situation: grace was now freely available to any and all who were willing to come to the Lord in repentant faith. The age of the Law was set aside so that Grace could flow freely. This is why the Israelites' situation was different from those later on who murdered millions: they were instructed to do so on a VERY limited circumstance by God himself, while the latter groups and individuals had no such instructions and presumed that God wanted them to do so.

[mattfivefour]

All good points. But let us also recognize that biblical Christianity is not a religion. Religion is man using his own wisdom to try to reach God. Christianity is God reaching down to man. Only the latter can work. Many men may have fought wars to promote their religion. No true Christian has ever fought a war to promote biblical Christianity.

[Meg]

How do I respond (kindly please) to this statement :

"more people have been killed in the name of God (or religion) than for any other reason"

I think this must be false, but I don't have any specifics. Please help. Thanks!

I have a good reply for you to use freely. Rather than serving God, many people, particularly in the medieval period, but definitely in all the centuries and decades since the advent of Christianity, have used the Name Of The Lord to serve themselves. They painted the Cross on their false fronts and exploited God in deepest blasphemy, rather than serve Him as they should have been doing. They were never saved, never believed God was real in the first place, because had they honestly believed, they never would have dared do what they did. Anyone can lie, and lie about their alleged faith is precisely what they did. A liar kills for the lord they are lying about, a saint dies for the Lord he knows is real.

I hope that helps.

[mattfivefour]

I have a good reply for you to use freely. Rather than serving God, many people, particularly in the medieval period, but definitely in all the centuries and decades since the advent of Christianity, have used the Name Of The Lord to serve themselves. They painted the Cross on their false fronts and exploited God in deepest blasphemy, rather than serve Him as they should have been doing. They were never saved, never believed God was real in the first place, because had they honestly believed, they never would have dared do what they did. Anyone can lie, and lie about their alleged faith is precisely what they did. A liar kills for the lord they are lying about, a saint dies for the Lord he knows is real.

[myinnuendo999]

Yes, all great answers

May I respond with adding what I would ask?

Turn the question around and ask, since under Mao, Stalin and Hitler (who were non religious)- more people have been murdered than all religions put together-{historical statistics show when you do your studies},-- does this mean that we can also make a hasty generalization--leaping to a conclusion- that all non-religious people are automatically represented by Mao, Stalin and Hitler -(non religious) and that this somehow makes it a legitimate argument? Since this person assumes we are to bear the guilt that all religions equal death, murder and hate, that Christianity falls into this category and is somehow illegitimate now?-(guilt by association)?Are we are to assume now that anyone- (to be fair) by leaping to a conclusion that all persons who are non religious have to bear the guilt of being represented by Mao, Stalin and Hitler their guilt?



People were murdered for many reasons "in the name ONLY of Christianity" and not because they truly representing Jesus Christ.

To find out the truth of ANY Religion we MUST look to it's founder. Christianity is not represented by mere men and women who name Christ on their lips and then turn around and murder people. Christianity is represented by it's founder -Jesus Christ and we must look to HIM to find out how Christians truly live.

To me, most people who make such false assertions are trying to save face by making excuses because they really don't want to know the truth. If they did find out the truth, then they know they would have to give up their sins.

they need to get their facts straight .

[Meg]

To find out the truth of ANY Religion we MUST look to it's founder. Christianity is not represented by mere men and women who name Christ on their lips and then turn around and murder people. Christianity is represented by it's founder -Jesus Christ and we must look to HIM to find out how Christians truly live.

Excellent point.

[momoffaith]

I have a good reply for you to use freely. Rather than serving God, many people, particularly in the medieval period, but definitely in all the centuries and decades since the advent of Christianity, have used the Name Of The Lord to serve themselves. They painted the Cross on their false fronts and exploited God in deepest blasphemy, rather than serve Him as they should have been doing. They were never saved, never believed God was real in the first place, because had they honestly believed, they never would have dared do what they did. Anyone can lie, and lie about their alleged faith is precisely what they did. A liar kills for the lord they are lying about, a saint dies for the Lord he knows is real.

I hope that helps.

That is REALLY good!

[Tooty]

I suppose the problem with only saying that those atrocities were not God's will and were carried out by people not following the word of God is that I would not be addressing their point. Their whole point is that religion is dangerous. They don't care if "God" had any part in it or not, because they don't believe in him anyway.

I would just like to point out to them that much more evil has been committed by atheistic or non-religious causes. They can't blame religion. They can blame human nature. Over all, religion has actually helped curb the dark side of humanity...a bit.

It is also disturbing how people will use the violence of Islam to illustrate how Christians are dangerous. Apples and Oranges. They are truly delusional.

[Tooty]

Yes, all great answers

May I respond with adding what I would ask?

Turn the question around and ask, since under Mao, Stalin and Hitler (who were non religious)- more people have been murdered than all religions put together-{historical statistics show when you do your studies},-- does this mean that we can also make a hasty generalization--leaping to a conclusion- that all non-religious people are automatically represented by Mao, Stalin and Hitler -(non religious) and that this somehow makes it a legitimate argument? Since this person assumes we are to bear the guilt that all religions equal death, murder and hate, that Christianity falls into this category and is somehow illegitimate now?-(guilt by association)?Are we are to assume now that anyone- (to be fair) by leaping to a conclusion that all persons who are non religious have to bear the guilt of being represented by Mao, Stalin and Hitler their guilt?

To me, most people who make such false assertions are trying to save face by making excuses because they really don't want to know the truth. If they did find out the truth, then they know they would have to give up their sins.

they need to get their facts straight .

This is kind of my thinking although I didn't spell it out so well.

[Robert]

I suppose the problem with only saying that those atrocities were not God's will and were carried out by people not following the word of God is that I would not be addressing their point. Their whole point is that religion is dangerous. They don't care if "God" had any part in it or not, because they don't believe in him anyway.

I would just like to point out to them that much more evil has been committed by atheistic or non-religious causes. They can't blame religion. They can blame human nature. Over all, religion has actually helped curb the dark side of humanity...a bit.

It is also disturbing how people will use the violence of Islam to illustrate how Christians are dangerous. Apples and Oranges. They are truly delusional.

And I would have to agree with them on one point: religion IS dangerous, because it is man trying to reach up to God. Grace, on the other hand, is God stooping down to reach us. Christianity then is not a religion, but something entirely different.