The quote goes on:

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn

a man against his father,

a daughter against her mother,

a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—

a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.

Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

The books after the Gospels have more violence, but I don't think that reflects on Christians. The Old Testament is filled with violence but I don't think that reflects on Jews.

> The Old Testament is filled with violence but I don't think that reflects on Jews.

Of course it does, and I say this as a jew. Let's put it like this, being raised on a tradition whose first patriarch was ready to butcher his own son in order to prove his faithfulness to his imaginary friend, kinda paints father-son relations a certain way. Not to mention the whole circumcision thing, which is common to both jews and muslims.

Go read the Gospel of Thomas. Seriously.

I believe that these words have a deep and nonobvious meaning, provided all the gospels weren't totally made up.

I'm not making any claims about the meaning. My point is that someone could use this quote to 'prove' that Christian people are inherently violent in the same way they use quotes from the Quran to 'prove' that Muslim people are inherently violent - and both are nonsense.

There is a difference between prediction of future violence and explicit call for violence.

Which of these you think can be easier used to "justify" violence?

What semantics of "inherently violent religion" do you propose such that "our founders told us to kill infidels" still doesn't cut it?

I see things like all the children physically, sexually, emotionally abused by priests and nuns in Catholic children's homes; or the Lord's Resistance Army using child soldiers and rape as a weapon of war; or the threats of violence to and the harassment (and bombings and shootings) of workers in abortion clinics, and so I'm going to say "the Bible?"

You seem like a Christian (sorry if I'm wrong) so I'll ask: What are you doing to stop the radical extremists of your religion from perpetrating these terrorist actions? What are you doing to stop the extremist elements of your religion from denying women their human rights? What are you doing to stop Christian soldiers using rape as a weapon of war?

Why am I wrong to ask you these questions but it's okay to ask everyday Muslims these questions?

I believe the discussion was about founders' beliefs and their influence.

As for the second part, I'm hardly a theist, so what I'm doing is not walking around and telling gullible people that they have been created by some god who now wants them to hunt infidels. Sometimes encouraging others to do the same.

That quote seems to be taken out of context: http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-sword.html

It's surely not out of context, Jesus believed that "the (apocalyptic) end is near" (Matthew 16:28) and he's the "Son of man" who brings it.

Matthew 16:28: (Jesus speaking:) "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

At medieval times, people couldn't believe that Jesus could have told something that didn't happen, so they invented the legend that one of those present there still lives.

What you offer is the worldly perspective of Christ as a failed messiah. But Christ said that His Kingdom is not of this world. The disciples saw Christ come in His Kingdom when they witnessed the Resurrection. They saw the end -- that of the end of death and hades' dominion over humanity. They saw the ushering in of a new age: but not in the guise of a worldly conqueror, of a Rome-overthrowing messiah, but that of the conquering of death by humble love. Christ Himself demonstrates dying not only for those who love him but indeed for those who hate him.

Now you may of course feel free to disagree with this interpretation. But I think I have presented an understanding amenable to Orthodox Christian theology, which represents not an insignificant amount of people (200-300 million). I'm not trying to appeal to numbers, but rather my point is that when we are seeking to understand religious interpretations, we should be careful to not speak in absolutes such as "it's surely not out of context."

Wow. Way to take a poorly translated sentence out of context. Grab a concordance and cross reference that passage.