Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Wars Caused By Religion
28 Answers
Which religion caused which war?
It is sad to see so many ABers holding the view that Christianity, (true Bible based Christianity, that is, not the 'in name only' variety), has been responsible for causing wars.
There is a difference between physically attacking people for their beliefs, and being attacked for holding a belief.
So, which particular religion was responsible for causing which particular war?
It is sad to see so many ABers holding the view that Christianity, (true Bible based Christianity, that is, not the 'in name only' variety), has been responsible for causing wars.
There is a difference between physically attacking people for their beliefs, and being attacked for holding a belief.
So, which particular religion was responsible for causing which particular war?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Theland, I understand where you are coming from.You dont think that "true" christians would go to war over beliefs.If that is the case then you cant believe that people like St. Augustine were true christians (St. Augustine believed in the "just" war). During the reformation many people were put to death by protestants such as Calvin, so therefore these people were not true christians either?
(I wont bang on about the catholics as I think I know your feelings towards them by now).
And we have the bible itself with its many hundreds of (God commanded) wars. Were the ancient jews "true" believers because they killed millions (allegedly). If it was not only acceptable, but even commanded, to commit genocide in the old testament, why do you have such a problem now.Its obvious from reading the bible that God has no problem with ordering the deaths of infidels.
In a similar vein Theland, can you give me one example of a war that was carried out exclusivly in the name of atheism? Sure, wars have happened in the name of communism etc, but these were political wars.The atheism was incidental.But can you name me just one war that was carried out in the name of atheism or the secular humanism that you despise?
P.S....Still waiting to here from you about the unfullfilled prophecies here http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Society-and-Cul ture/Religion-and-Spirituality/Question361774- 3.html
(I wont bang on about the catholics as I think I know your feelings towards them by now).
And we have the bible itself with its many hundreds of (God commanded) wars. Were the ancient jews "true" believers because they killed millions (allegedly). If it was not only acceptable, but even commanded, to commit genocide in the old testament, why do you have such a problem now.Its obvious from reading the bible that God has no problem with ordering the deaths of infidels.
In a similar vein Theland, can you give me one example of a war that was carried out exclusivly in the name of atheism? Sure, wars have happened in the name of communism etc, but these were political wars.The atheism was incidental.But can you name me just one war that was carried out in the name of atheism or the secular humanism that you despise?
P.S....Still waiting to here from you about the unfullfilled prophecies here http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Society-and-Cul ture/Religion-and-Spirituality/Question361774- 3.html
Wizard69 - I do not know of any group or nation that ever went to war in order to further the cause of atheism, but as you say, atheistic regimes went to war to further the cause of their atheistic regime.
Regarding the concept of a "Just War" then I can only offer my own simplistic philosophy. That is, I would expect our government to engage in a war to defend us from an external threat from another nation, and this could involve a preemptive attack.
Similarly, I would not like to see our government stand idly by if an ally were attacked by another nation.
Selling the idea to the British public is the tricky bit, as people are not willing, (and quite rightly so), to see our military mens lives expended for mere political whim.
I haven't forgotten the "prophecy " issue.
Regarding the concept of a "Just War" then I can only offer my own simplistic philosophy. That is, I would expect our government to engage in a war to defend us from an external threat from another nation, and this could involve a preemptive attack.
Similarly, I would not like to see our government stand idly by if an ally were attacked by another nation.
Selling the idea to the British public is the tricky bit, as people are not willing, (and quite rightly so), to see our military mens lives expended for mere political whim.
I haven't forgotten the "prophecy " issue.
Wizard69 - You mention Calvin as well as Augustine. Quite simply, the yardstick for judging their actions is found in the example given by Jesus Christ.
He was neither allied to the occupying powers, nor to the zealots who wished to overthrow them. He did not identify Himself with the religious authorities, nor even with those who would have bestowed honours on Him.
He put forth no political design or plan to reorganise society, and attempt to impose His idea of Utopia.
His allegiance was to God, and to Him alone.
By comparing Calvin to this standard, then you might say that Calvin believed in the basics of Biblical Christianity, but did not for whatever reason, practice them.
He was neither allied to the occupying powers, nor to the zealots who wished to overthrow them. He did not identify Himself with the religious authorities, nor even with those who would have bestowed honours on Him.
He put forth no political design or plan to reorganise society, and attempt to impose His idea of Utopia.
His allegiance was to God, and to Him alone.
By comparing Calvin to this standard, then you might say that Calvin believed in the basics of Biblical Christianity, but did not for whatever reason, practice them.
Wizard69 - No, I'm not ignoring the "Biblical Wars," at all.
If God comanded Israel to go to war against a particular people, then, they obeyed, trusting in Gods' higher and better judgement.
Who are Israel, or anybody else for that matter, to question God?
But the fact remains, that although religiously motivated wars, nominally "Christian", have occurred, there has been no war fought to further the cause of Christianity, by those people who identify themselves with Jesus Christ, and put into practice His teachings.
Look, for example, at over thirty years of conflict in Northern Ireland. Catholic, (Nationalist / Republican), pitched against Protestant, (Loyalist / Unionist).
Could anybody on either side, having planted a bomb, or fired a bullet, really claim to be a Christian? Of course not.
Christianity excludes such violence, and as such, cannot instigate a conflict.
If God comanded Israel to go to war against a particular people, then, they obeyed, trusting in Gods' higher and better judgement.
Who are Israel, or anybody else for that matter, to question God?
But the fact remains, that although religiously motivated wars, nominally "Christian", have occurred, there has been no war fought to further the cause of Christianity, by those people who identify themselves with Jesus Christ, and put into practice His teachings.
Look, for example, at over thirty years of conflict in Northern Ireland. Catholic, (Nationalist / Republican), pitched against Protestant, (Loyalist / Unionist).
Could anybody on either side, having planted a bomb, or fired a bullet, really claim to be a Christian? Of course not.
Christianity excludes such violence, and as such, cannot instigate a conflict.
Wizard69 - (continued) ...
When the civil war in Lebanon was raging, between muslim and Christian, the term "Christian" was used to describe any member of any armed group that wore numerous crosses and crucifixes around their necks, and carried an AK47.
That is not an example of Biblical Christianity, but was depicted as such.
The same can be said of "Christian" gangs in southern Nigeria, taking reprisal action against muslims in the north. This is simply not Biblical Christianity in action, but does not prevent the media describing the gang members as Christians. It is totally misleading.
When the civil war in Lebanon was raging, between muslim and Christian, the term "Christian" was used to describe any member of any armed group that wore numerous crosses and crucifixes around their necks, and carried an AK47.
That is not an example of Biblical Christianity, but was depicted as such.
The same can be said of "Christian" gangs in southern Nigeria, taking reprisal action against muslims in the north. This is simply not Biblical Christianity in action, but does not prevent the media describing the gang members as Christians. It is totally misleading.
Each individuals beliefs and actions based on those beliefs, would have to be measured against the ulimate standard, Jesus Christ.
Luther can be criticised for his anti semitism, but he made the right choice to break with Rome, based on his reading of scripture. He simply didn't go far enough in putting into practice the message of the scriptures.
Who knows? Maybe the ingrained anti semitism of the Roman church was a too deeply held conviction for him to easily abandon.
It's similar to the "Bible Thumpers" who condoned apartheid in S. Africa, or segregation of black people in the U.S.A.
Luther can be criticised for his anti semitism, but he made the right choice to break with Rome, based on his reading of scripture. He simply didn't go far enough in putting into practice the message of the scriptures.
Who knows? Maybe the ingrained anti semitism of the Roman church was a too deeply held conviction for him to easily abandon.
It's similar to the "Bible Thumpers" who condoned apartheid in S. Africa, or segregation of black people in the U.S.A.
I suppose it depends on the interpretation of the world "Christianity", Theland. In my opinion where the message of Christianity it concerned, there are a lot of misguided people out there, and perhaps those who went to war in the name of Christianity genuinely thought they were fighting for the Christian cause. Personally I don't believe that anyone who lives their life in what I perceive to be a truly Christian way would ever go to war.
The very narrow point I think you are trying to make, Theland, is anyone who has gone to war in the name of christianity is not really a christian. Yet, correct me if i'm wrong, you hint that we should as "a christian nation" pre-emptively attack nations who pose some kind of threat to us. So you have somehow convinced yourself that premeditated murder (an action explicitly condemned by the bible) is justified when its in the national interest. I can now see how easy it is for you to take the moral high ground, obviously you have an unrivalled understanding of christian thought.
By the way, do you think that god told gw bush to invade iraq?
By the way, do you think that god told gw bush to invade iraq?
How about the Russian Revolution? Could that not be described as war caused through Atheisim? Wasnt the practise of Christianity in Russia a criminal offence before th breakdown of communision? 30 million innocent people lost their lives through the setting up of Communist Russia under Stalin. This was in the 20th century yet we dont hear about it as much as the Nazi Holocaust of WW2 which when looking at sheer number was on a much smaller scale.
dawkins - No, I do not have an unrivalled understanding of Christian thought.
You, like me must have a view on what we should do in the face of evidence that a particular nation or group of terrorists, poses a dangersous threat to our people.
My view is we must defend ourselves. What's yours?
And, no, I do not believe for a moment that God spoke to Dubya and told him to invade Iraq.
I think he went in to Iraq, in the belief that there was a threat from WMD, or because of a wider agenda that he hasn't yet admitted to.
You, like me must have a view on what we should do in the face of evidence that a particular nation or group of terrorists, poses a dangersous threat to our people.
My view is we must defend ourselves. What's yours?
And, no, I do not believe for a moment that God spoke to Dubya and told him to invade Iraq.
I think he went in to Iraq, in the belief that there was a threat from WMD, or because of a wider agenda that he hasn't yet admitted to.
Yes Theland I would say that some wars are rationally justifiable but I, unlike you, am not bound to an absolutist morality. You see, you make a rational judgment that we should use preemptive force even though it contravenes thou shalt not kill, turn the other cheek, love your enemy etc. Your idea that rome corrupts the message of the NT through their idolatrous worship of mary is supposed to be informed by your devout worship of jesus yet you are able to ignore the central message of the jesus story. Fortunate for you that it�s a fable.
Booldawg
The russian revolution and the civil war that followed were fought initially to establish a democracy in russia. Like most revolutions it was a rejection of an absolute monarchy. This was scuppered somewhat when the provisional gov't was overthrown by the bolshevists in 1922 and the soviet union was established. For the implications of the revolution read animal farm.
The orthodox church was not outlawed as far as I can tell, but it was heavily suppressed after the civil was and under Stalin 10s of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were amongst the millions of innocent victims of the purge and deportations. However, during ww2 Stalin allowed the church to re-establish. So there you go, Stalin persecuted just about everybody in russia, he was a totalitarian who led by terror and suppression, he persecuted the church when it suited him and he welcomed it back in when it suited him. But he didn't do these things because he was an atheist. So no.
The russian revolution and the civil war that followed were fought initially to establish a democracy in russia. Like most revolutions it was a rejection of an absolute monarchy. This was scuppered somewhat when the provisional gov't was overthrown by the bolshevists in 1922 and the soviet union was established. For the implications of the revolution read animal farm.
The orthodox church was not outlawed as far as I can tell, but it was heavily suppressed after the civil was and under Stalin 10s of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were amongst the millions of innocent victims of the purge and deportations. However, during ww2 Stalin allowed the church to re-establish. So there you go, Stalin persecuted just about everybody in russia, he was a totalitarian who led by terror and suppression, he persecuted the church when it suited him and he welcomed it back in when it suited him. But he didn't do these things because he was an atheist. So no.
<<But he didn't do these things because he was an atheist>>
Dawkins, are you saying that it wasn't Stalin's belief in atheisim/evolution that led him to treat people like animals, or to count those he sent to gulags as being subhuman. Just as Hitler's atheistic and evolutionary views validated his belief that Jews were less developed.
Do you think if Stalin had feared God he would have ordered all those atrocities?
As for Christians in the Soviet Union. He may, or may not have persecuted the Orthodox church, but as for bible believing Christians he persecuted them exceedingly. As well as being sent to gulags, pastors were regularly marched out into the woods and shot and the Bible was a banned book. And this continued with all his atheist successors too.
Also bit puzzled about a comment you made to Theland
<<yet you are able to ignore the central message of the jesus story>>
The central message of the Gospel is
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"
How did Theland ignore this?
I trust that you will not ignore it
Dawkins, are you saying that it wasn't Stalin's belief in atheisim/evolution that led him to treat people like animals, or to count those he sent to gulags as being subhuman. Just as Hitler's atheistic and evolutionary views validated his belief that Jews were less developed.
Do you think if Stalin had feared God he would have ordered all those atrocities?
As for Christians in the Soviet Union. He may, or may not have persecuted the Orthodox church, but as for bible believing Christians he persecuted them exceedingly. As well as being sent to gulags, pastors were regularly marched out into the woods and shot and the Bible was a banned book. And this continued with all his atheist successors too.
Also bit puzzled about a comment you made to Theland
<<yet you are able to ignore the central message of the jesus story>>
The central message of the Gospel is
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"
How did Theland ignore this?
I trust that you will not ignore it
First off, lighter, Hitler wasn't an atheist, nor was nazi germany and the anti-Semitism you mention is a direct result of the teachings of the new testament that implicate the jews with the death of christ, but lets try and keep on track.
Are you saying that underneath you are evil and by converting to atheism and believing in evolution you would start to commit unspeakable crimes? Are you saying that a lack of christianity makes people evil? That isn't faith, lighter, its lack of faith. You must have a stronger faith in human nature than that. you are, after all, human.
As I pointed out in my post (if you had read it properly) Stalin did persecute the church. Stalin persecuted everybody. What stops dictators like stalin gaining power and persecuting millions is democracy not religion. The soviet system was a quasi-religious dogma based on subservience to the state. Secular states such as France and the UK built on democratic principles with universal human rights don't have these problems.
You shouldn't be puzzled about my comment to Theland, its simple and I spelt it out twice: He supports pre-emptive military action by a sovereign nation against a potential aggressor. This position runs counter to the teachings of Jesus in the NT. Theland is quite happy to condemn the catholic dogma for its, in thelands opinion, corruption of the christian message yet support action specifically condemned by the son of god. How is that difficult to understand?
Are you saying that underneath you are evil and by converting to atheism and believing in evolution you would start to commit unspeakable crimes? Are you saying that a lack of christianity makes people evil? That isn't faith, lighter, its lack of faith. You must have a stronger faith in human nature than that. you are, after all, human.
As I pointed out in my post (if you had read it properly) Stalin did persecute the church. Stalin persecuted everybody. What stops dictators like stalin gaining power and persecuting millions is democracy not religion. The soviet system was a quasi-religious dogma based on subservience to the state. Secular states such as France and the UK built on democratic principles with universal human rights don't have these problems.
You shouldn't be puzzled about my comment to Theland, its simple and I spelt it out twice: He supports pre-emptive military action by a sovereign nation against a potential aggressor. This position runs counter to the teachings of Jesus in the NT. Theland is quite happy to condemn the catholic dogma for its, in thelands opinion, corruption of the christian message yet support action specifically condemned by the son of god. How is that difficult to understand?
