Is Christianity prone to never inflict a physical pain on a person when there is no threat of experiencing a bigger physical pain or physical death? [closed]

Question

I've been confronted by some Buddhists and Confucians who told me that unlike Christianity, their religions (if we consider Confucianism a religion, of course) never forcibly inflict a physical pain on an individual, let alone taking his life (meaning normal situations when there is no threat of experiencing a bigger physical pain or even physical death if some certain urgent pain-involving measures are not taken - i.e. not such cases like amputation of a leg in gangrene, or cases with mercy killing, etc.) They said that if any individual is not agree with some points of teaching in Buddhism or in Confucianism, no physical pain would be required to be forced on such a person according to their system of beliefs. Christianity, however, as they said, is both historically and doctrinally quite different from that.

So here is my question: How does Christianity itself view itself in this regard? Does it agree with the above mentioned description of it?

I would want to have answers from the perspectives of Catholic, Orthodox and main-stream Protestant traditions.

Answer 1

Historically, this has definitely happened within the Christian world. It has been seen in the Church persecuting, executing and warring those who disagreed with her. But this does not necessarily mean that we would agree with those actions from a doctrinal perspective. In fact, it is seen more as a stain on the history of Christianity.

Doctrinally, the core issue is not about punishment but about justice. God is our creator and we are therefore subject to his authority. But the overwhelming picture of all people is that we are in total rebellion and deserve God's just punishment. Buddhists may tend not to believe in such a thing as justice because they don't believe in a higher authority who imposes moral standards on everyone.

10 as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” 13 “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” 14 “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” 15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 in their paths are ruin and misery, 17 and the way of peace they have not known.” 18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” (Rom 3:10-18)

But God is not just a judge but he is also gracious and merciful, which is why he sent his Son to take upon the punishment that we deserve when he died on the cross. And the cross did not just achieve our salvation, it also demonstrated how God is like and how his people are to reflect him. And Christians are not to take revenge, knowing that God will exercise justice in the end.

21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. (1 Pet 2:21-23)

Just punishment is not such a bad thing. Parents are to punish their children when they are disobedient in order to discipline them (not to take out your anger on them) (Prov 13:24), otherwise our children will grow up thinking they can do anything they want. (Do Buddhist parents not do this?) Governments exercise justice in restraining those who break the law. It would be an abomination if someone murdered your sister and the authorities said, "We don't believe in punishment, so we have no reason to detain this murderer." The punishment deters others from doing the same and also protects other members of society. But the punishment does not just deter and protect; it is also an exercise of justice because the lawbreaker deserves to be punished.

Answer 2

(relocated from a related question that was subsequently edited; this answer fits this new question more than it does the old one)

Perhaps many Christians (and non-Christians) would adopt that policy where practical (maybe not in defence, etc), but it is not a core part of Christianity.

As such, there is no single position on this, so of course "Christian group {X}" might not support some or all of these, but that isn't the point I'm making, rather: no central belief of Christianity prevented these, which demonstrably occurred.

Counter-examples, using policies readily adopted by large parts of the Christian church:

• the various crusades
• the various inquisitions
• treatment of non-believers, homosexuals, anyone challenging the authority of the church, or believers deemed "heretical" throughout the centuries
• senior members pro-conquest and conversion at the sword
• the many wars fought by Christian countries
• the fact that Christian schools, until very recently, have often had an on-record public policy of corporal punishment
• the fact that the US, one of the few Western countries where Christianity clearly dominates, still has the death penalty (in 2/3rds of the states)
• the popularity of (just as as an example) the preacher who recently advised breaking the wrist of your son if it appears "limp" (I can't be bothered to look up who it was)
• and many many more

So, no, I think claiming that as an over-arching feature of Christianity would be a huge stretch.

Answer 3

I am presenting one protestant view; I do not think there is a single protestant view.

I think it is correct, at a very high level; Buddhist thought looks at 'punishment' as less beneficial to persons than the Bible does. In practical terms it does not seem to have a big effect on government though for some more or less 'Buddhist' countries use capital punishment. Thailand and China are very good examples. Ignoring the practical aspect, the notion that pain and punishment should be resisted along with a high emphasis on passive kindness seems to be central to Buddhism.

I have always thought this is because the people who hold that religion have usually been without any power to resist the doctorial stance of their governments; they have developed a kind of spiritual 'coping mechanism' for the heartless cruelty of their societies.

The Biblical view on punishment is not a unanimously agreed one. I for example am more 'Buddhist' in my view of the Biblical term 'punishment'. I do not think God ever punishes His children, but those who are still under the curse of the Law, they are being punished and will be punished forever more if they do not accept that God punished their sins on Christ.

So the Buddhist view does not like punishment, but can't provide someone to take the punishment when it is finally necessary. The Christian view holds Christ as 'the punished One', meaning all believers will go unpunished.

It is difficult to compare religions because they start with fundamental positions that are in opposition. I am not aware that any other religion believes in ‘original sin’, which is a founding doctrine for Christianity. Christianity is also the only religion with grace (that is someone being totally punished for another, who receives no punishment on this account).

When it comes to how punishments are administered by the government for crime, or from parents with rebellious children, the New Testament seems to leave it to those authorities. However, cruelty is never tolerated in the Bible.

There is some ‘natural wisdom’ (as opposed to spiritual wisdom) in all religions. Therefore, it is not surprising that some verses from Proverbs seem to be just like Buddhist sayings. For example:

Those who are kind benefit themselves, but the cruel bring ruin on themselves. (Proverbs 11:17)

The righteous care for the needs of their animals, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel. (Proverbs 12:10)

The idea of punishment must be clearly separated between desiring to punish someone personally and civil laws to protect people. Desiring to punish is a sin, and excessive punishments indicates that desire.

The Buddhist would love the words of our Lord. For example:

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. ’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. (Matthew 5:38-42)

Jesus as very strict against the desire to harm your brother, even calling your brother a fool in anger was putting you in 'danger of hell"

21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment. ’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool! ’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. (Matthew 5:21-23)

In the end I think Biblical Christianity is more humane than all other religions because not only does it hold the ideal of kindness but it actually produces kindness in the heart by faith in Christ. Other religions can’t draw from the love of God in Christ as that is rejected. The fact that many under the name Christian have been very cruel only indicates that they might not have truly believed in the gospel:

Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness. (1 John 2:9)

For an in-depth understanding how punishment is different under Law verses under grace, see this post, for punishment and guilt go hand in hand.