Jesus is for the Jews? Then why do people call the New Testament Anti-Semitic? Jesus is quite hostile towards the Jews in The Gospel of John. He is rather antagonistic towards the Jewish Rabbis whom he refers to as hypocrites. Matthew 23:1-40 is a lengthy chapter where Jesus calls out the Rabbis for being hypocrites.
Jesus makes allegories, not literal commands for violence like Muhammed does. You are also missing how much Paul has influenced Christianity. The majority of the New Testament is comprised of Paul's letters. Many Christians probably fail to realize that they are following Paul's teaching even more than the teachings of Jesus.
It was Christianity that has led to the secular culture in the west due to the emphasis on the individual, human rights, the importance of church and state separation. One cannot underestimate how much Christianity has influenced what we think and believe today. Even the deranged social justice movements of today are basically perverted Christian movements. Many of the elements are there including original sin (white males), dedicating ones life to the oppressed, forgiving the prostitute (Slut-Walk) and so on.
I would like to see the evidence that Jesus is literally calling for violence. You must be able to find a passage in the bible and then quote it.
Well, you have two Jesus'. You have the Jesus presented from his apostles, then you have the Jesus of Paul. Jesus and his movement, preserved by his brother James, was for the Jews only. Paul comes along, says Jesus "in the flesh" is superceded by Jesus in the spirit. Jesus then tells Paul he is the first apostle, and contradicts all the in the flesh teachings. Again, muddled.
It is also important to note that Jesus was not against the Jews, or the old law, his problem was with the priestly class, who were essentially rulers, who were rich, and preyed upon the poor people. That is what was so revolutionary about Jesus, he was going to heal you for free, while the priests were going to essentially bankrupt you, forcing you to buy large amounts of sacrificial items, which was essentially a pay to play system. He just heals you, and that's that, so you can see the priestly class having a problem with him.
Christian anti semitism started the moment Christianity was adopted for Romans, and non Jews. The Old testament works strictly maintain that the Messiah is to be here for Jews, and Jews alone. Big point of contention.
Christianity did not lead to secular culture. That is false. Even Christians like James Madison realized the need for secularity, and that is why they strictly seperated them. The idea of a secular society is heterodox to the Bible, Talmud, Quran etc. I mean, the idea that a religion that insists upon it's supremacy being a principle cause for it's own privileged position being removed, it does not cohere. Spinoza, Paine, Hume, etc etc were all opposed by Christians, and their churches. To say the enlightenment and secularity came as a result of the thing it was directly opposed to, does not cohere.
Maybe I miswrote, but I was referring to the fact that while Jesus can technically be read as being for violence in certain passages, Christians have created hand holds that allow them to not listen to this. But here are some, attributed to Jesus.
“I say to you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. As for my enemies who do not want me to reign over them, bring them here and kill them in my presence” (Luke 19:26-27)
“Do not think that I have come to send peace on Earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law” (Matthew 10:34-35)
The difference here, is that Jesus is not directing people to kill on his behalf until there is nobody but christians on Earth. HUGE difference. Jesus also does a good job contradicting these passages in his other statements as well.