Being Christian is about forgiving and loving your neighbours, isn’t it?

I dont think so really. The Crusades would have never happened if that were true.

The Crusades were a valid strategic response to the rise of Islam and the Islamic conquest of Byzantium and the Christian middle east.

The crusades (at least the earlir ones) were primarily about protecting Christians who were being attacked and having their land taken by Muslims.

Yes however in Christian theology it's both forgiveness _and_ repentance (which requires a penance), thus it doesn't mean you are free of consequences just because you have been forgiven.

Additionally, loving your neighbour means calling on God's mercy which is willing the Good of the other (the definition of "what is good?" is answered differently in Christianity).

Finally, not everyone is your neighbour (Jesus also acknowledged his enemies in Luke 19:27).

"Your enemies are still your neighbors" is entirely consistent with those statements and in fact was how it was understood by the consensus mainstream of christianity until very recently, and is still how it is understood in most variants other than american protestantism.

> Yes however in Christian theology it's both forgiveness _and_ repentance (which requires a penance), thus it doesn't mean you are free of consequences just because you have been forgiven.

Indeed, but for this you need to let the person in question time to realise their errors and repent, which is impossible if you kill them.

> Additionally, loving your neighbour means calling on God's mercy which is willing the Good of the other (the definition of "what is good?" is answered differently in Christianity).

Calling on God’s mercy does not imply playing god ourselves and disposing of the lives of others.

> Finally, not everyone is your neighbour (Jesus also acknowledged his enemies in Luke 19:27).

It is not really relevant in this case, though. Murderers can be Christian as well and accept his “reign”. But yeah I take your point: the bible has a lot of inconsistencies.

I love my children and I forgive them when they do wrong, but there's always consequences for actions.

Nobody here is saying there shouldn't be consequences. Instead we are saying that every single person should have the right to seek forgiveness from their creator(s). If you execute someone before they have have made things right (or not), you are playing the role of God.

Everyone does have the right to seek forgiveness from God, and He does forgive "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" https://nasb.literalword.com/?q=1+John+1%3A9, but in the same breath human beings are subject to government and the rules that go with it because God has given that authority "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God." https://nasb.literalword.com/?q=Romans+13%3A1 If one willingly takes the life of an innocent human being with full knowledge that by that action they forfeit the right to live then it's a fitting consequence.

“Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed,For in the image of God He made man." https://nasb.literalword.com/?q=Genesis+9%3A6

I don’t know if I would quote from completely distinct sections of the Bible and use the phrase “in the same breath”.

Romans 13:1-7 is a controversial section of Paul’s letters, because it implicitly contradicts the teachings of Christ if you stop in verse 1. If you look at the whole context of the passage, he seems to be placing conditions on verse 1 that would exclude pretty much every government in history.

As usual, it’s best to refer to Christ’s words in the gospels when you’re trying to understand his teachings. He preached nonviolent resistance, turning the other cheek, forbade oath-taking.

He did not say capital punishment is cool.

Christian is an umbrella term that describes many differing sets of beliefs. This is an oversimplification but Protestants for example believe in Sola Fide, the believe that salvation comes from faith alone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide), whereas Catholics believe that salvation requires "good works", the sort of thing you're likely thinking of. So ... different groups hold differing sets of beliefs with regards to what loving your neighbor means and what is expected behavior. This is a huge oversimplification, the "Salvation in Christianity" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation_in_Christianity) and "Good Works" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_works) pages can help orient (or disorient) you.

> This is an oversimplification but Protestants for example believe in Sola Fide, the believe that salvation comes from faith alone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide), whereas Catholics believe that salvation requires "good works", the sort of thing you're likely thinking of

“Protestants” are not a monolith and can have very different ideas. And no, I was not thinking of good works, it’s more general than that. The New Testament is all about being merciful, letting go of hate and not seeking retribution. How we are supposed to act on those ideals is not always clear, but that is a recurring theme in the foundational book of all Christian denominations (the big ones anyway).

Anyway, that was mostly rhetorical. The actual reason is that religion is just a way of making a point without having to support it, the ultimate appeal to authority. These people are happy claiming that Jesus loves people, except for some scapegoats, whom he hates. It’s pathetic, really. I have a lot of respect for people who actually live in accordance with their principles, even if I don’t agree with them. None of the Christian I know who are like that support the death penalty.

Why did Jesus go into the temple and blow their shit up? Shouldn't he have forgiven the money changers and dove sellers?

Lot's of people calling themselves Christian support Trump.

I don't think you can deduce much about someone's character just because they go to church or call themselves religious.

I sure can; either you really believe it which means you must be quite deluded or you pretend to believe it (and cherry pick what and where you bring it up), in which case you are a grifter. Both I don't want to spend time with.

That according to that fairytale thou shalt not kill, so if you believe that, how are you in favour of killing people? That is a task only for the lord, not for us humans.

Not to mention often times convicted but actually innocent criminals, which must mean straight to hell (although murder of guilty also is straight to hell).

I'm an atheist, so I wouldn't consider myself an expert on their beliefs, but you don't appear to be either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill

I guess it's a matter of interpretation; I am also an atheist but was raised a protestant (we had to memorise and read in front of the class selected parts from the bible every day) and our flavour (which might be different from even others in the same branch) definitely has no tolerance for justified killing except by the lord. I know some religions have tolerance for justified killing as you pointed out, just that's not what ours told us.

But point taken and people do and read into things whatever fits them.

Lost in translation, the Commandment is not to murder. Legal killing of the guilty (of murder), and in self defense for example, is not murder. Just as it isn't in the secular legal system. Therefore, there is no conflict.

That's not to say that there isn't room for mercy when called for. Also, prudence should be exercised to the highest possible standard and then some.

No one has broken a Commandment by executing Ted Bundy for example, by defending from a hostile Army, nor by defending their own life from imminent murder by a criminal aggressor.

Christ gave commandments that superseded the Mosaic law.

He explicitly forbade violence in all forms, with no exceptions for retaliation. And he went further to say you should respond to violence with nonviolent love and submission.

Christ would not endorse capital punishment of Bundy, soldiers in any army, or “stand your ground” style killings.

That's false on all counts. You're engaging in incorrect conjecture in regard to what he stated. Further, what Christ "would not endorse" is your conjecture and not fact.

Christianity is not about allowing society be destroyed by its internal enemies such as criminals and their syndicates, nor about blanket injustice for victims, nor about allowing foreign armies to overtake it (often destroying Christianity). How ridiculous. Although that would be a convenient misinterpretation for wayward Christians, anti-Christians and society's enemies.

Imagine giving your statement to virtually any historical Christian Society of any significant size. Such flirtation with this type of interpretation has always been fringe at best or outright secular (from Christianity's enemies), and always incorrect.

That institutions who purport themselves to be Christian support violence does not change what Christ himself taught.

I interpret Christianity to be following the teachings of Christ, rather than following post-Christ dogma that is frequently in open contradictions to Christ's teachings.

I encourage you to (re-)read the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7, particularly relevant to violence are verses 38-48) and reflect on how those words might be compatible with state-sanctioned violence of any form?

I agree with you that this interpretation is historically one that has been fringe since the Council of Nicaea. That does not mean that it is incorrect.

Do you think Christ, who commanded "Do not swear an oath", "Do not resist an evil person", and "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (the word for 'enemy' here carried a nationalistic tone), would endorse any of the earlier-quoted uses of violence?

As someone who is very comfortable professing Christian ideas, I don't understand how you could present his commandments as anti-Christian. It is literally how he tells us to live.

There was that time Jesus stepped in an prevented a completely legal death sentence from being carried out.

Because their prophet was murdered by the state. It seems weird that a religion would be pro-execution when their founding was, in part, "innocent man was executed".

I'm sure believers have jumped through the hoops required to justify it but from the outside, one would expect a country that is majority christian to oppose executions.