The Priest is the Christian.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:
Years ago, I found the Encyclopedia of Wars at a book sale. Normally obscenely expensive but for $20 I could take it of the bookseller’s hands.
It chronicles over 1800 wars (fights, etc) up until the year 2003. It is NOT comprehensive but it’s a great work. From that work, and other more comprehensive sets one can deduce that religious wars/conflicts add up to less than 10% of all major conflicts in recorded history (one set claims that it is between 10-14%).
So to purport that religion is the root of most conflicts and wars is unsubstantiated. [/quote]
Yeah, I did some research on the topic, because of the accusations that religion is the chief reason for violence and war in the world and found the same result. It’s not even close. Religion is no where in the ball park in proportion to wars for secular reasons. [/quote]
I disagree. Wars have been fought over religion since time immemorial. Whether the house of Judah fighting the Northern kingdom over the worship of foreign ‘gods’, to the Roman suppression of Jews and the early Christian church, to the wars of the Saracens, to the wars of the Protestants and Catholics, to the Spanish Inquisition. Who are we to say that it is not God’s will? The Canaanites were detestable and were ‘irrevocably’ given over to the Lord. The sins and excess of Sodom, Gomorrah, Tyre and Sidon led to their annihilation. Who are we to say that religions are peaceful and should be so. I see no evidence of that in anything I’ve read.
‘So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon.’ - Joshua 10:40-41 [/quote]
I would say that many conflicts were exacerbated by religious difference, but religious differences were not the primary cause. Think of it as adding a bit of fuel to an already raging fire. Take the Roman wars against Judah. It’s clear that they were primarily caused by a wish to maintain Roman hegemony over its provinces in the face of separatists movements. The religious differences in that case were important, but still only intervening variables.
[/quote]
If you mean the kingdom of Judah, that was before Rome’s expansion. Judah flourished under Assyrian satrapy. It remained relatively peaceful with its neighbours with some exceptions like Hezekiah’s revolt. He built an underground water tunnel that remains as a tourist site today.
I think you mean Judea(a province named by the Romans) which Pompey conquered after Syria and Mithridates the Great.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:
Years ago, I found the Encyclopedia of Wars at a book sale. Normally obscenely expensive but for $20 I could take it of the bookseller’s hands.
It chronicles over 1800 wars (fights, etc) up until the year 2003. It is NOT comprehensive but it’s a great work. From that work, and other more comprehensive sets one can deduce that religious wars/conflicts add up to less than 10% of all major conflicts in recorded history (one set claims that it is between 10-14%).
So to purport that religion is the root of most conflicts and wars is unsubstantiated. [/quote]
Yeah, I did some research on the topic, because of the accusations that religion is the chief reason for violence and war in the world and found the same result. It’s not even close. Religion is no where in the ball park in proportion to wars for secular reasons. [/quote]
I disagree. Wars have been fought over religion since time immemorial. Whether the house of Judah fighting the Northern kingdom over the worship of foreign ‘gods’, to the Roman suppression of Jews and the early Christian church, to the wars of the Saracens, to the wars of the Protestants and Catholics, to the Spanish Inquisition. Who are we to say that it is not God’s will? The Canaanites were detestable and were ‘irrevocably’ given over to the Lord. The sins and excess of Sodom, Gomorrah, Tyre and Sidon led to their annihilation. Who are we to say that religions are peaceful and should be so. I see no evidence of that in anything I’ve read.
‘So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon.’ - Joshua 10:40-41 [/quote]
I would say that many conflicts were exacerbated by religious difference, but religious differences were not the primary cause. Think of it as adding a bit of fuel to an already raging fire. Take the Roman wars against Judah. It’s clear that they were primarily caused by a wish to maintain Roman hegemony over its provinces in the face of separatists movements. The religious differences in that case were important, but still only intervening variables.
[/quote]
If you mean the kingdom of Judah, that was before Rome’s expansion. Judah flourished under Assyrian satrapy. It remained relatively peaceful with its neighbours with some exceptions like Hezekiah’s revolt. He built an underground water tunnel that remains as a tourist site today.
I think you mean Judea(a province named by the Romans) which Pompey conquered after Syria and Mithridates the Great.[/quote]
Yes, an error on my part. My ancient history is lackluster at best. I’m referring to the First Jewish-Roman War specifically. (66-73 AD)
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:
Years ago, I found the Encyclopedia of Wars at a book sale. Normally obscenely expensive but for $20 I could take it of the bookseller’s hands.
It chronicles over 1800 wars (fights, etc) up until the year 2003. It is NOT comprehensive but it’s a great work. From that work, and other more comprehensive sets one can deduce that religious wars/conflicts add up to less than 10% of all major conflicts in recorded history (one set claims that it is between 10-14%).
So to purport that religion is the root of most conflicts and wars is unsubstantiated. [/quote]
Yeah, I did some research on the topic, because of the accusations that religion is the chief reason for violence and war in the world and found the same result. It’s not even close. Religion is no where in the ball park in proportion to wars for secular reasons. [/quote]
I disagree. Wars have been fought over religion since time immemorial. Whether the house of Judah fighting the Northern kingdom over the worship of foreign ‘gods’, to the Roman suppression of Jews and the early Christian church, to the wars of the Saracens, to the wars of the Protestants and Catholics, to the Spanish Inquisition. Who are we to say that it is not God’s will? The Canaanites were detestable and were ‘irrevocably’ given over to the Lord. The sins and excess of Sodom, Gomorrah, Tyre and Sidon led to their annihilation. Who are we to say that religions are peaceful and should be so. I see no evidence of that in anything I’ve read.
‘So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon.’ - Joshua 10:40-41 [/quote]
I would say that many conflicts were exacerbated by religious difference, but religious differences were not the primary cause. Think of it as adding a bit of fuel to an already raging fire. Take the Roman wars against Judah. It’s clear that they were primarily caused by a wish to maintain Roman hegemony over its provinces in the face of separatists movements. The religious differences in that case were important, but still only intervening variables.
[/quote]
If you mean the kingdom of Judah, that was before Rome’s expansion. Judah flourished under Assyrian satrapy. It remained relatively peaceful with its neighbours with some exceptions like Hezekiah’s revolt. He built an underground water tunnel that remains as a tourist site today.
I think you mean Judea(a province named by the Romans) which Pompey conquered after Syria and Mithridates the Great.[/quote]
Yes, an error on my part. My ancient history is lackluster at best. I’m referring to the First Jewish-Roman War specifically. (66-73 AD)[/quote]
12 months ago my historical knowledge of Israel was virtually nil. I was a Greek and Roman heathen.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The Priest is the Christian.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/24/why_catholic_priests_are_protecting_muslims_in_the_central_african_republic.html[/quote]
And he’s doing God’s work. Many Christians make the world a better place.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I don’t mean to piss you off pat and I think you’re a nice guy, but you do realise that for centuries the Catholic Church fought a vicious war of annihilation over the Holy Roman Empire? Burning Protestants, taxing peasants till they starved? Do you have any idea where the wealth of the Catholic Church came from? Do you have any idea how high up the suppression of child abuse in Catholic institutions went?
If you want to answer these questions honestly go ahead. But I’m not interested in apologetics.[/quote]
You’re missing the point. Despite all that religion has not caused a majority of wars. Not even close. Period.[/quote]
You may be right. Considering that wars have been waging continuously since long before recorded history it is a difficult question to answer. I will grant you this: you may well be right and I may be wrong. It would’ be the first time.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]espenl wrote:
A world without religion would be great, but it will not happen any time soon. Luckily I live in one of the worlds most secular countries. Meanwhile enjoy the good things like Bach and the Cologne Cathedral.[/quote]
You mean Bach the profoundly religious Lutheran? You mean the 8 century old Catholic cathedral and house of the archbishop of Cologne? Clearly you are a Norwegian.[/quote]
I mean exactly that, there are good things that have come out of religion, and they can be enjoyed regardless of ones own religion. They show great things made by inspired men.
[quote]espenl wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]espenl wrote:
A world without religion would be great, but it will not happen any time soon. Luckily I live in one of the worlds most secular countries. Meanwhile enjoy the good things like Bach and the Cologne Cathedral.[/quote]
You mean Bach the profoundly religious Lutheran? You mean the 8 century old Catholic cathedral and house of the archbishop of Cologne? Clearly you are a Norwegian.[/quote]
I mean exactly that, there are good things that have come out of religion, and they can be enjoyed regardless of ones own religion. They show great things made by inspired men.[/quote]
I notice it’s Christianity you bring up. I don’t think your country will receive similar benefits from the waves of Islamonazis your socialist government seems intent to bring in.
[quote]kamui wrote:
It’s clear that society is the first thing that influences change, before the Church.
There are people in the Church who were huge when it came to civil rights. But what’s sort of funny is when we bring up Martin Luther King, why the hell was he a Southern Baptist… In order for Martin Luther King Jr. to even have existed as a Southern Baptist racism had to exist within that Church which would have prevented him from having any voice at all. So we can cheer religion in the name of him as a hero, but not without pointing out the hypocrisy of the religion in the first place which segregated the Church due to politics.
He, the individual had the courage to stand up, and died for it. Not the Church as a whole. The Churches should be the things leading ethics. In general the institutions aren’t the agents of moral progress they should be, or that people claim them to be. They more keep the status quo until their positions are so heinous and unpopular that society forces them to change.
That is true… Some parts of Oslo has become really bad already. They cost about 500000$ a piece as well. That money could do more good where they come from.
[quote]espenl wrote:
Meanwhile enjoy the good things like Bach and the Cologne Cathedral.[/quote]
Good point.
I have a greater cultural and historical appreciation of Christianity than most Christians I know.
I just finished a year and a half of work on the subject of Christian architecture (with a good chunk of time spent on your stavkirker).
[quote]pushharder wrote:
For instance I’ve seen the mistake (not from you) before when this subject arises where the Spanish conquistadors atrocities are cited as examples of religious wars.
No.
DeSoto, Pizarro, Cortes, de Vaca, Coronado, Balboa, Ponce de Leon, et al, were in the wealth seeking business. Whether they dragged a few priests around with them or not, or priests followed in their footsteps did not change the fact that they were conquering, i.e., making war, for pretty much the same reasons most wars were fought – to gain resources and increase wealth.
[/quote ]
It’s true the conquistadors were reckless adventurers seeking gold. However those that followed and colonised the land were devout, if not fanatical believers intent on obliterating ever aspect of the native cults (not so in North America though.)
True to an extent but I could name hundreds of devout noblemen who we’re fighting for their religion. Gustavo’s Adolphus for example.
[quote]
Oftentimes the religious "flavor’ was just a cover. This could’ve even be argued about the Crusades.
Let’s face it, man has always ran around violating the the 8th and 10th Commandments and has had no problem using violations of #'s 5, 6, 7 and 9 to accomplish that goal.[/quote]
Agreed
I’m curious how many wars were REALLY started by religious differences. I would suspect that religious differences was the guise of the leadership used to do what they wanted. I would even further suspect that is the case with every war attributed to religion.
Organized religion is simply another government/oversight entity. No different than a democracy, republic, monarch, etc, etc. The associated religious text is analogous to our constitution. A living, breathing document in which to interpret as needed.
Organized religion desires just as much to command as many followers as possible, to obtain control of resources, and maintain rule of law.
If every other government structure acts this way, how can we possibly expect organized religion not to act this way? It almost seems inevitable and primitive. It wreaks of our innate need for survival.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
For instance I’ve seen the mistake (not from you) before when this subject arises where the Spanish conquistadors atrocities are cited as examples of religious wars.
No.
DeSoto, Pizarro, Cortes, de Vaca, Coronado, Balboa, Ponce de Leon, et al, were in the wealth seeking business. Whether they dragged a few priests around with them or not, or priests followed in their footsteps did not change the fact that they were conquering, i.e., making war, for pretty much the same reasons most wars were fought – to gain resources and increase wealth.
[/quote]
It’s true the conquistadors were reckless adventurers seeking gold. However those that followed and colonised the land were devout, if not fanatical believers intent on obliterating ever aspect of the native cults (not so in North America though.)
True to an extent but I could name hundreds of devout noblemen who we’re fighting for their religion. Gustavo’s Adolphus for example.
Agreed
[quote]pat wrote:
Is this a lesson in how to say nothing in 500 words or less? What was the point of this?
You’re wrong, and Kamui is right. Your not putting forth any facts, historical accuracy, or reason behind your posts, they are almost complete emotion. Your contention that secularism is more peaceful or would be a better way of life based on history and terrible acts of religion past just doesn’t pan out in reality. [/quote]
I don’t think you actually read the discussion and jumped in at the end to make a judgment on it. How one could read my posts and just see emotion and yet read Kamui’s posts and not see his emotion (and lack of facts) means you had your mind made up before reading OR you did not read closely.
I don’t know which one you failed to do, but you didn’t participate in the discussion and if you read it apparently you REALLY failed to read it closely.
Methinks you wanted to give credit to someone you agreed with regardless of their clarity and positions.
Below you will see an initial response from Kamui which is pure emotion and has 0 facts. Weirdly it was in response to a post of mine that was almost all facts. Either you failed to read the whole discussion closely or you are unsure of the definition of emotion and facts.
[quote]To produce this “wealth” and this wellfare, we have eaten everything our parents had produced during the “glorious thirty”.
Yet we are unwilling to treat our old people respectfully. Let alone their old ideas and their old values.
Worst, we are already feasting with the future work of our children and grand-children, who will be our posthumous slaves for their whole lifetimes.
We all know it, and we don’t care.[/quote]
I’m not sitting here saying I’m correct over him (I don’t consider myself the judge of those things, I leave that to the people like you and Push who apparently feel the need to do such things), but you sure have said some things that are demonstrably untrue in your unnecessary and trivial “analysis” of our discussion.
Participate more, judge less. We’d all have more fun then.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:
Years ago, I found the Encyclopedia of Wars at a book sale. Normally obscenely expensive but for $20 I could take it of the bookseller’s hands.
It chronicles over 1800 wars (fights, etc) up until the year 2003. It is NOT comprehensive but it’s a great work. From that work, and other more comprehensive sets one can deduce that religious wars/conflicts add up to less than 10% of all major conflicts in recorded history (one set claims that it is between 10-14%).
So to purport that religion is the root of most conflicts and wars is unsubstantiated. [/quote]
Yeah, I did some research on the topic, because of the accusations that religion is the chief reason for violence and war in the world and found the same result. It’s not even close. Religion is no where in the ball park in proportion to wars for secular reasons. [/quote]
I disagree. Wars have been fought over religion since time immemorial. Whether the house of Judah fighting the Northern kingdom over the worship of foreign ‘gods’, to the Roman suppression of Jews and the early Christian church, to the wars of the Saracens, to the wars of the Protestants and Catholics, to the Spanish Inquisition. Who are we to say that it is not God’s will? The Canaanites were detestable and were ‘irrevocably’ given over to the Lord. The sins and excess of Sodom, Gomorrah, Tyre and Sidon led to their annihilation. Who are we to say that religions are peaceful and should be so. I see no evidence of that in anything I’ve read.
‘So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon.’ - Joshua 10:40-41 [/quote]
That wars have been fought over religion, by religion, and/or by religious peoples is not in contention. Yes, it has happened and is continuing to happen.
The argument isn’t that religion hasn’t been a source of war and violence. The argument is that religion isn’t the the main cause of war and violence in general and throughout history. The further argument is against the idea that getting rid of religion would get rid of war and violence.
If you want to get rid of war and violence you have to get rid of greed, fear, hatred, and jealousy. Getting rid of religion will not get rid of the main impetus of war and violence.
I suspect very few wars were actually, primarily motivated by religion from the perspective of the people on top who were starting the wars; but its tough to tell what’s going on in someone’s head, especially as time passes. The problem I see with the religious aspect of war is that it seems like it is easier to get the masses to the front lines and to act as cannon fodder when they are convinced they are fighting for a holy or religious cause. Its not the only way to motivate people to go to war, but it seems to me like it can be a big arrow in the war-mongering quiver, so to speak.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I don’t mean to piss you off pat and I think you’re a nice guy, but you do realise that for centuries the Catholic Church fought a vicious war of annihilation over the Holy Roman Empire? Burning Protestants, taxing peasants till they starved? Do you have any idea where the wealth of the Catholic Church came from? Do you have any idea how high up the suppression of child abuse in Catholic institutions went?
If you want to answer these questions honestly go ahead. But I’m not interested in apologetics.[/quote]
I don’t deny that people in the church have done some bad things, horrible despicable things. But in as much as they were fighting their ‘enemies’ they were also fighting against the very church they professed to be fighting for. These are not Christian tenets, nor Catholic tenets. Killing people and doing horrible things is already sin enough, to do it in the name of God or the church doubles the sin.
I cannot do anything about what people have done in the past. I know that the church does not stand for that, nor did it when they did those terrible things.
The problem of the medieval church is that politics and church were very much entangled. That is why separation of church and state is a good thing. As for the child abusers and protectors I say hang them all. I have a zero tolerance policy towards hurting children. And yes I know how high up it went, I also know that there were some accusers looking to get paid. The accusation were page 1 news, the acquittals of some of those accusations were page 50 news. For instance, everybody cheered the Netherlands government for raiding the offices of the church searching for evidence of child abuse even though the search was illegal. What didn’t get much news time is that they didn’t find a shred of evidence.
It was an abuse of children and church and it did tremendous damage to both. I am not sure what if anything it has to do with a true heart seeking the Lord and becoming close to Christ.
The actions of a few, though vile, does not diminish true faith and salvation in the person of Jesus.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:
Years ago, I found the Encyclopedia of Wars at a book sale. Normally obscenely expensive but for $20 I could take it of the bookseller’s hands.
It chronicles over 1800 wars (fights, etc) up until the year 2003. It is NOT comprehensive but it’s a great work. From that work, and other more comprehensive sets one can deduce that religious wars/conflicts add up to less than 10% of all major conflicts in recorded history (one set claims that it is between 10-14%).
So to purport that religion is the root of most conflicts and wars is unsubstantiated. [/quote]
Yeah, I did some research on the topic, because of the accusations that religion is the chief reason for violence and war in the world and found the same result. It’s not even close. Religion is no where in the ball park in proportion to wars for secular reasons. [/quote]
I disagree. Wars have been fought over religion since time immemorial. Whether the house of Judah fighting the Northern kingdom over the worship of foreign ‘gods’, to the Roman suppression of Jews and the early Christian church, to the wars of the Saracens, to the wars of the Protestants and Catholics, to the Spanish Inquisition. Who are we to say that it is not God’s will? The Canaanites were detestable and were ‘irrevocably’ given over to the Lord. The sins and excess of Sodom, Gomorrah, Tyre and Sidon led to their annihilation. Who are we to say that religions are peaceful and should be so. I see no evidence of that in anything I’ve read.
‘So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon.’ - Joshua 10:40-41 [/quote]
I would say that many conflicts were exacerbated by religious difference, but religious differences were not the primary cause. Think of it as adding a bit of fuel to an already raging fire. Take the Roman wars against Judah. It’s clear that they were primarily caused by a wish to maintain Roman hegemony over its provinces in the face of separatists movements. The religious differences in that case were important, but still only intervening variables.
[/quote]
The Romans tended to adopt the religious practices of their conquered regions. They tended to fear the religious aspect as a ‘just in case’ measure. That is why they didn’t suppress religion, except in the case of Christianity. In fairness to Rome, they did have a nut job sociopath in Nero at the time, who felt scapegoating the problems of Rome on the Christian movement was a wise idea, needless to say it failed.