War in the name of God

[I, Brian]

I've cleaned up this thread a bit - apologies for the mess earlier.

[Excelsis Deo]

Originally Posted by Mus Zibii

Is it, though? I'm certainly not going to jump to the defense of Islam here. I've seen too many beheadings done recently to the chant of Praise Allah that are far too successfully (Therefore, when ye meet the infidel, smite at their necks 47/4) defended by Mullahs. But isn't there some wiggle room, a lot of wiggle room, in fact, for violent Christianity? If not in the canon NT then in the doctrines of the church fathers?

Like I said before, the concept of the avenging Saviour has been around virtually since the beginning. In fact, I'm not sure, but didn't the execution style of quartering originate in Christianity?

Again, you fail to make the distinction between Jesus and his so called followers. When I joined this thread I narrowed my discussion to compare Jesus and Mohammed only. The reason was to answer the question concerning whether war to advance the faith is consistent with Christianity and Islam. The logical way to answer this was to compare the teachings and life of each. Thus we can dispel with the red herring attempts to muddy the issue with horror stories of Christian and Muslim atrocities. The obvious conclusions based upon their own teaching and life is quite different. Jesus was a man of peace who advocated love and sacrifice for others. And who lived this teaching by giving himself for the sins of all mankind. In contrast, as the Muslim and secular resources I noted in an earlier post demonstrated, Muhammed was a man who advocated and used violence to advance his ideology.

Concerning the so called "avenging Savior", Revelation refers to Jesus as returning to judge the world in righteousness. This is his perogative given by God.

[Mus Zibii]

Well, you won't get any argument from me in defense of Islam, but see... one groups righteous judge is another man's terrorist theology. In this case, I think they're both guilty (see thread below). The second Christianity got the upper-hand (same with Islam) is began its cleansing of the infidel. Mohomet was keen to preach, 'look to the people of the book for understanding' until these same people were under the sword. Same deal with Christian Rome.

Not that Judaism is much better, text-wise. I imagine being persecuted, massacred, occupied and then exiled (not necessarily in that order) takes the punch out of subjective indignation.

[Blue]

Is it not true to say that historically all theocracies have waged war against people who are different.

It seems to me that a theocracy that declares it has the backing of a God, a Dogma, a set of doctrines, instantly sets itself against any other society that has a different set of theocratic beliefs, also sets itself against any that posits a rational approach to Government based in reason (if there are any?).

To my mind, all theocracies, all societies that claim they wage war in the name of their presumed God and with its blessing, are dangerous... so The US is as dangerous as any group/society of Islamic faith, or any other.

Religions and a personal spirituality are not grounds for fighting wars... why can't people be at least honest and admit that most wars are about jealousies, land-grabbing, and the personal selfishly power-hungry desires of leaders?

We should all actively seek and promote REASON and rationality in Government and certainly never wage war in the name of a God.

[bananabrain]

Not that Judaism is much better, text-wise. I imagine being persecuted, massacred, occupied and then exiled (not necessarily in that order) takes the punch out of subjective indignation.

er, excuse me? are you talking about the conquest of canaan or what?

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Zenda71]

I am not very well educated about Islam, but from what I have read and heard, violence is to be used as only a last resort. That said, it seems to me that Muhammed is a pragmatist. He sees violence in the world and tries to give examples of when it can be used ... based of course in the prejudices of his day and background.

My problem with the Jesus versus Muhammed argument is that it seems like a variation of the "My God is better than your God" exchange. (Is not! Is too! Ad nauseum.)

Christians have justified violence since the founding of Christianity. It seems to matter not a whit that Jesus was a pacifist. And Mullahs in today's society call for their followers to be peaceful, despite the fact that Muhammed says violence is OK when used in self-defense and that we are all involved in a struggle against evil (an idea borne out of Zoarastrianism ... at least, that's what I'm reading in the book "The Search for Zarathustra").

People want to protect what's theirs and justify it in immeasurable ways. This is delusion, but a pervasive one, no matter the religion.

My 2 cents ...

With metta,
Zenda

[Mus Zibii]

Originally Posted by Blue

Religions and a personal spirituality are not grounds for fighting wars... why can't people be at least honest and admit that most wars are about jealousies, land-grabbing, and the personal selfishly power-hungry desires of leaders?

We should all actively seek and promote REASON and rationality in Government and certainly never wage war in the name of a God.

Well, that's good apologetics, and I think that definitely fuels wars regardless of what is written on the banner. But in the heart of religion, at its core, without any real exception, there is the mantra of: convert, you are favoured, the unbelievers must be destroyed. That often seems to play as much of a role in faith as the various myths that reconcile mans place on earth. Now this too is'about jealousies, land-grabbing, and the personal selfishly power-hungry desires'.

[Mus Zibii]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

er, excuse me? are you talking about the conquest of canaan or what?

b'shalom

bananabrain

That, the assigning of unflattering myth to non-hebrews, the vast restrictions of accessibility to god, the unbearable lightness of being a goyim. LOL

[Anzac]

In my opinion a contradiction in terms, there's one notable opinion on the matter that always strikes me with "Holy War": "I always distrust people who know so much about what God wants them to do to their fellows".

If we're all created with this free will despite religious (not spiritual) pretext then killing someone else is removing their free will in all forms and so you yourself are more guilty than the person you are killing in the name of God. It's a vicious cycle of "I'm right because I say so" except seen through a religious text. People are fallible which is why religion is and there can never seriously justifiably be war in the name of God. If someone declares there can be then either the fallible religion is, or the infallible God. I don't deny spiritual rights, just the context with which religion is so often the cause of the suffering it wishes to prevent. "A means to an end" within the religious movement cannot be justified so as we are all individuals of the same berth and kind despite what any person my say to contradict this. We are all humans, killing another is not the answer and especially not in the name of creation.

[Blue]

Originally Posted by Mus Zibii

Well, that's good apologetics, .

BUT, Mus Zibii, you haven't answered the main point of what I said, namely that theocracies are inherently bad.
Rid half the world of its theocratic governments and hopefully we may see a greater drive to rationalism and peace.

[I, Brian]

You mean like the armies conquering in the name of "freedom", "liberty", and other secular American values? :P

Blaming religion on war is to miss the bluff - that war is a political process, but religious belief may be usurped for political ends.

[Mus Zibii]

Originally Posted by Blue

BUT, Mus Zibii, you haven't answered the main point of what I said, namely that theocracies are inherently bad.
Rid half the world of its theocratic governments and hopefully we may see a greater drive to rationalism and peace.

I was ready to agree, then Brian brought up a good point (though secular freedoms and liberty, are good things - at least preferable to secular complacency and fallacy). But I imagine any philosophy behind government could be bad or good, depending on the mindset under it. I feel it could easily be done - to have a Christian theocracy that doesn't condemn homosexuals, women, etc. And though it goes against the holy writ and holy law, its conceivably possible to do the same with Islam and Judaism. And if that's not enough, a 'free' secular government could easily find 'reason' to be as closed and tyrannical as any rude theocracy.

As a cynic, I'm not hopeful of seeing any static accomplishment by any of the above. Good people, of all walks of life are responsible for forcing equity and liberty on the masses.

[Excelsis Deo]

Originally Posted by Zenda71

I am not very well educated about Islam, but from what I have read and heard, violence is to be used as only a last resort. That said, it seems to me that Muhammed is a pragmatist. He sees violence in the world and tries to give examples of when it can be used ... based of course in the prejudices of his day and background.

My problem with the Jesus versus Muhammed argument is that it seems like a variation of the "My God is better than your God" exchange. (Is not! Is too! Ad nauseum.)

Christians have justified violence since the founding of Christianity. It seems to matter not a whit that Jesus was a pacifist. And Mullahs in today's society call for their followers to be peaceful, despite the fact that Muhammed says violence is OK when used in self-defense and that we are all involved in a struggle against evil (an idea borne out of Zoarastrianism ... at least, that's what I'm reading in the book "The Search for Zarathustra").

People want to protect what's theirs and justify it in immeasurable ways. This is delusion, but a pervasive one, no matter the religion.

My 2 cents ...

With metta,
Zenda

Often people try to make this a religion on religion thing. However, Check out this site: www.faithfreedom.org, a site by secluarists and humanists about Islam. Here you will find more evidence about the problems with Islam I have mentioned earlier in this thread.

As far as my God (god) vs your God (god). This is a simple matter concerning comparing Jesus and Muhammed. The material is there for those who want to read it. Again I think there is little arguement(once the lives of both are examined) that Jesus was a man of peace and Muhammed was not. Why this matters and the reason I keep kicking this dead horse is because both men set precedent by their own lives. Jesus showed the world that God loves us and invites us to abandon our sin (which Jesus died for) and inherit eternity with Him. Muhammed showed that we must submit to God or perish either by the hand of God or His chosen servants. In Christianity "God" died for us. In Islam you may be expected to die for "God". These distinctions make all the difference.

Christians in the first three centuries did not use violence to advance their faith. Instead many died as martyrs following Jesus' example. However, we all know what happended when Christianity was united with the Empire. As such, I believe that the uniting of church and state was the downfall of true Christianity. A faith founded on love and self-sacrifice for others replaced by a shame/fear based religion preoccupied with power and control of culture. According to Foxes Book of Martyrs many who perished under the Catholic inquisitions were Jesus following Christians who would not swear allegience to the Pope or the Catholic Church. Instead, their only allegience was to Christ and His teachings.

Thus we have come full circle back to Jesus. Those who are called by His title Christians need to follow His way as put forth in Scripture and not the doctrines and dogmas of men. This includes a wilingness to suffer evil and not to return evil for evil as has happend to many times in recorded history. I like the way John puts what I want to say: "Beloved let us love one another, for love is from God and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love." 1 John 4:7-8.

[Mus Zibii]

On a fatal day, in the holy season of Lent, Hypathia was torn from her chariot, stripped naked, dragged to the church, and inhumanly butchered by the hands of Peter the Reader and a troop of savage and merciless fanatics; her flesh was scrapped from her bones with sharp oyster shells, and her quivering limbs were delivered to the flames. The just progress of inquiry and punishment was stopped by seasonable gifts; but the murder of Hypathia has imprinted an indelible strain on the character and religion of Cyril of Alexandria


Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire


Christians when in power, as early as 416 when the above event took place, by law barred non-Christians from working, living in certain provinces, frequently stole from and destroyed non-Christian holy sites, and took an unequivical offensive stand against Jews.

You're right about Mahomet in comparison to Jesus, but in the long run what does it matter? If Jesus said he is the only way, its only a baby-step toward enforcing the prohibition of all other paths. There are numerous quotes from Paul as well as Jesus that seem to wholly preach love, but there are blunt and stunning contradictions. Jesus referring to the woman as a dog, Paul telling his followers to put infidels from the table, etc.

But yeah, I can hear you getting ready to tell me about Mahomet beheading a multitude of those who refused to worship him and selling their wives and children into slavery. I hear you. I'm just saying it all leads to mass murder, whether by design or by invention. The human animal would've been better off had Noah's boat sprung a leak.

[Mus Zibii]

....who perished under the Catholic inquisitions were Jesus following Christians who would not swear allegience to the Pope or the Catholic Church. Instead, their only allegience was to Christ and His teachings.

Something that always got me about the inquistion and how its linked with Christianity: those who perished were called heretics, infidels, but refused to confess and escape death and torture because they felt their Christian faith was solid. Now that doesn't include all victims of the inquistion, but still...

On a side note, Mahomet said (and I agree) that its permissible to renounce faith or confess to false accusations if it'll save your life, as long as your faith is still intact in your heart. That's why if I ever get picked up by Moslem terorists I'm going to start praying in arabic and play up my Persian lineage. LOL While in my heart I'll be saying...

Well... hehehe...

Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it