Religion as an excuse for war?

Millions of honest people are recognizing that the world’s religions are ‘rotten trees’ that have produced "bad fruit," in particular, by promoting bloody wars. In the Bible the world empire of false religion is described as a spiritual harlot called "Babylon the Great." The Bible says that "in her was found the blood of prophets and of holy ones and of all those who have been slaughtered on the earth."—Revelation 17:3-6; 18:24.
People who are disgusted with all the killing that has gone on in the name of God may wonder if there are Christians who actually live in harmony with this Bible prophecy: "They will have to beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4) Do you know a truly God-fearing people who have renounced war? i know i do and it is Jehovahs witness, yes there are individuals in the world who renouce war, who are not Jehovahs witness, but as a world wide group Jehovahs witness are loving their neighbours by not learning war any more.
And they will have to beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore.Isaiah 2;4 many who once learned war no longer do , and the reason why is because they are taught by Jehovah.
 
well people havent anything for what they must have to fight other than religion . religion is the only thing on which every nation is still fundamentalist and do care about the very religion. apart from religion there is no other excuse due to global village theory and wTO . only n only thing left is religion which can be a reason for war and the leaders used it wrongly.
 
Religion isnt to be blamed for this, but man is. Most religion in and of themselves are peaceful religions, but man, at his core, with all his anger and hate and covertness and jealousies, use religion as an excuse to forward their evil motives. Again, most religions are peaceful and if the followers of those religions would practice it as it is, there would be no religous wars; except of course, not counting the few religions that arent peaceful at its core.
 
I didn't read all the messages, but would like to go back to the initial question. War can be looked at as a conflict that leads two groups to the notion of extermination which we all agree is proper to life concept itself. And war can be looked at as a machine of extermination, which very sadly today has become an industry far beyond any goverment, society or religion.And war can be looked at economically as an engine for reform.It is during war that people look for peace.and they finally find it. Wars seem to be manifestations of the dark side. The dark side of men that all religions fight but unfortunately hold in them the seed of wars that is the injustices that all three religions accumulated throughout. It is only when (a mon avis) men of eligion sit together and solve or accept the disparities and shake hands like grown up....
 
... Religion as an excuse for war... Would be, I say, irrelevant?Is there any war that wasn't fondamentally religious?
 
That can be argued. The Nazi party line fulfills many requirements of a cult, and they certainly detested the Jews, for no reason other than them being Jewish. Of course, they also attacked plenty of other groups, such as homosexuals and the handicapped. The Nazi party line was something like "Küche, Kirche und Vaterland" i. e. kitchen, church and fatherland.

However, I don't believe religion was ever really used as a reason for the Allies to engage in the war.
 
Susma Rio Sep said:
Without an institution there would be no power of number in religion to engage in any way in wars and in violence.

Susma Rio Sep
Click to expand...

Religion itself creates a sense of fraternity, a strong sense of US vs. others. Even without institutions, or even state affiliation, a Christian would feel outrage if a fellow Christian was hurt, but would not care or would not be so aroused if a Hindu was hurt. It is human nature to identify with those who share our characteristics, be they physical, cultural, or personal. Thus, even without institutionalized religions we would still be having the same wars and for the same reasons. Only the words, the vocabulary, the rhetoric, would be different. Besides, you all are forgetting that wars and conflict predate the organized religions we are talking about here. They began with primitive man in the jungles and forests. Religions as we know them are a max of 4,000 or 5,000 years old in distant roots, and only about 2,000 years in advanced formation. Most are even younger than that.
 
Re: Religion as an excuse for war - early days

Quahom1 said:
One could also site the push of the Moors...they spread all the way to Spain, and killed everything in sight.

just a thought

v/r

Q
Click to expand...

Last time I visited these places from the gates of China to Spain I found native peoples everywhere. They all had distinct racial features, cultures, and there were many different religions followed by hundreds of millions within this area. Pray tell, where did these people come from?
 
A.Khalil said:
Religion itself creates a sense of fraternity, a strong sense of US vs. others. Even without institutions, or even state affiliation, a Christian would feel outrage if a fellow Christian was hurt, but would not care or would not be so aroused if a Hindu was hurt. It is human nature to identify with those who share our characteristics, be they physical, cultural, or personal. Thus, even without institutionalized religions we would still be having the same wars and for the same reasons. Only the words, the vocabulary, the rhetoric, would be different. Besides, you all are forgetting that wars and conflict predate the organized religions we are talking about here. They began with primitive man in the jungles and forests. Religions as we know them are a max of 4,000 or 5,000 years old in distant roots, and only about 2,000 years in advanced formation. Most are even younger than that.
Click to expand...

What a predjudicial and erroneous thought. I have a medic son that would prove your thesis to be in error. He doesn't care who gets hurt. He doesn't like it at all. In fact he hates it with all his being.

Oh, and he is a Christian...
 
Re: Religion as an excuse for war - early days

Originally Posted by Quahom1
One could also site the push of the Moors...they spread all the way to Spain, and killed everything in sight.

just a thought

v/r

Q
Click to expand...

A.Khalil said:
Last time I visited these places from the gates of China to Spain I found native peoples everywhere. They all had distinct racial features, cultures, and there were many different religions followed by hundreds of millions within this area. Pray tell, where did these people come from?
Click to expand...

...from out of sight.
 
Re: Religion as an excuse for war - early days

A.Khalil said:
I guess someone needs glasses, and it is not I.
Click to expand...

Of course not Khalil. My stupidity always gets the best of me...I'm such a dunce conservative American.

Une mille pardons.
 
Quahom1 said:
What a predjudicial and erroneous thought. I have a medic son that would prove your thesis to be in error. He doesn't care who gets hurt. He doesn't like it at all. In fact he hates it with all his being.

Oh, and he is a Christian...
Click to expand...

You do understand that the use of a Christian and a Hindu was just as an example, right?

As for the issue itself, experience shows that you are wrong. I am in the Medical field myself and I know that you are wrong, and I see it happen all the time, here in the US and abroad. Yes, one would treat all patients and the injured because of professional training (and because of liability laws I might stress), but not necessarily with the same urgency or using the same level of care. Just as in an emergency one would tend to treat children first, then women then men, one would tend to treat and care for a priest before a layman, or a person that one knows is of the same faith before a person of another faith. Ask your medic son that if he arrives at a scene of an accident and he sees 2 people fallen on the ground, one is wearing a priest's garment and the other has a long beard and wearing a turban, which one would he treat first?

We all have lies that we cocoon ourselves in and feel comfortable with, but they are still lies. The claim of altruism is one of them.
 
A.Khalil said:
You do understand that the use of a Christian and a Hindu was just as an example, right?
Click to expand...

The beautiful thing - to a real Christian, there is no difference!
 
A.Khalil said:
You do understand that the use of a Christian and a Hindu was just as an example, right?

As for the issue itself, experience shows that you are wrong. I am in the Medical field myself and I know that you are wrong, and I see it happen all the time, here in the US and abroad. Yes, one would treat all patients and the injured because of professional training (and because of liability laws I might stress), but not necessarily with the same urgency or using the same level of care. Just as in an emergency one would tend to treat children first, then women then men, one would tend to treat and care for a priest before a layman, or a person that one knows is of the same faith before a person of another faith. Ask your medic son that if he arrives at a scene of an accident and he sees 2 people fallen on the ground, one is wearing a priest's garment and the other has a long beard and wearing a turban, which one would he treat first?

We all have lies that we cocoon ourselves in and feel comfortable with, but they are still lies. The claim of altruism is one of them.
Click to expand...

there a big difference between your medical experiences and mine or my son's...it is the god of money, vs. people.

When people are hurt, we hurt. We don't worry about who is going to pay for it all. We just fix them.

We would treat the one hurt the worst, first. Besides, the priest I wouldn't worry about, God has his soul, so I'd go after treating the other one first, just to make sure he had a chance in this life to re-consider things...:eek:

you walked right into that one my friend.

lol. Thanks. You proved my point.
 
Prober said:
The beautiful thing - to a real Christian, there is no difference!
Click to expand...

so, the medic son is a true Christian? Woa. High praise indeed. Thank you.
 
By the way...I wanted to welcome Kahlil to the forum and apprecite the fine question he has posed!

Kahlil wrote:

one would tend to treat and care for a priest before a layman, or a person that one knows is of the same faith before a person of another faith. Ask your medic son that if he arrives at a scene of an accident and he sees 2 people fallen on the ground, one is wearing a priest's garment and the other has a long beard and wearing a turban, which one would he treat first?

My comment:

My son is a Paramedic and I'm pretty sure he's trained to treat the person with the most severe injury first regardless of rank in society...but what you pose is really scarry to me that someone would treat a cleric first...that is really weird to me...

- Art
 
A.Khalil said:
Religion itself creates a sense of fraternity, a strong sense of US vs. others. Even without institutions, or even state affiliation, a Christian would feel outrage if a fellow Christian was hurt, but would not care or would not be so aroused if a Hindu was hurt. It is human nature to identify with those who share our characteristics, be they physical, cultural, or personal. Thus, even without institutionalized religions we would still be having the same wars and for the same reasons. Only the words, the vocabulary, the rhetoric, would be different. Besides, you all are forgetting that wars and conflict predate the organized religions we are talking about here. They began with primitive man in the jungles and forests. Religions as we know them are a max of 4,000 or 5,000 years old in distant roots, and only about 2,000 years in advanced formation. Most are even younger than that.
Click to expand...

Well, A.Khalil certainly does have some valid points, which shouldn't be completely ignored as a result of some less valid ones. Religion, historically, does tend to create a sense of fraternity, and this does sometimes find expression in an "us vs. them" mentality. This may not always be the case, and in fact, it may not be the case with the majority of religious peoples, but it is undoubtedly a reality of how mankind sometimes uses religion.

I also think that A.Khalil is correct to point out that violent conflict, organized or not, most certainly predates organized religion. I have heard many times that "more wars are fought over religion than anything else." While this may superficially appear to be true, I would say that there is a bit of bias seeping through in such a sentiment. Many wars which are blamed upon religion are usually much more based upon economics and/or politics. Religion, being so often idealized, simply becomes a convenient flagship for warring parties. It can be used to cleverly smooth out the blatantly foolish or selfish reasons for conflict for which the ordinary person wouldn't be inclined to fight and kill. For instance, an army which can rally behind the ideal of 'fighting for God' will probably perform more passionately on the battlefield than an army who is told before battle: "Let's go out there and save our economy!" Granted, economy is important...very important...but not many people are willing to die for it. Arguably, many people are more willing to die for a deity of some kind, or soem religious ideal. Now, whether or not this behavior displays a disingenuous understanding of the true essence of religion is really beside the point. The strategy works, and it works well...has for thousands of years.

Thus, I would largely agree that religion, being something which so many people are passionate about, was unfortunately a shoe-in so far as becoming the force at the forefront of so many conflicts...not because religion, itself, is inherently a violence-inducing practice, but because mankind's passion for its ideals oftentimes become entangled with his passion for attaining security or stability with worldy things. You know the saying: When the wrong man uses the right tool, it works in the wrong way. Such is the case with religion, historically and up to the modern day. When an angry, frustrated, and strung-out group of people are out looking for a fight, their use of religion mysteriously tends to breed behavior that is peculiarly irreligious. Much of the time, the use of violence is a foregone conclusion. Religion is just taken along for the ride.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top