18 Oct 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI'll have to side with LH here. "Religion" needs more clarification.
It's not clear to me whether you are saying that some wars have been caused by religion or not.
Btw, I don't think one could successfully argue that there were no wars intrinsicly "religious" in nature, but then jumping from that to "religion" causes war is far shy of even my imagination.
Lemme add the Greek and then Roman conquest of the known world to the long list of counter evidence.
18 Oct 05
Originally posted by HalitoseI'm so confused. What do these verses mean?
I'll have to side with LH here. "Religion" needs more clarification.
‘You shall annihilate them - Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites – as Yahweh your God commanded you.’ (Deuteronomy 20.11,18)
‘The Lord is a man of war; the Lord is his name.’
(Exodus 15.3)
18 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageCould you recheck the first reference?
I'm so confused. What do these verses mean?
‘You shall annihilate them - Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites – as Yahweh your God commanded you.’ (Deuteronomy 20.11,18)
‘The Lord is a man of war; the Lord is his name.’
(Exodus 15.3)
The second one in context:
"1
Then Moses and the Israelites sang this song to the LORD: I will sing to the LORD, for he is gloriously triumphant; horse and chariot he has cast into the sea.
2
My strength and my courage is the LORD, and he has been my savior. He is my God, I praise him; the God of my father, I extol him.
3
The LORD is a warrior, LORD is his name!
4
Pharaoh's chariots and army he hurled into the sea; the elite of his officers were submerged in the Red Sea.
5
The flood waters covered them, they sank into the depths like a stone.
6
Your right hand, O LORD, magnificent in power, your right hand, O LORD, has shattered the enemy."*
The verse you quoted is part of a hymn of thanksgiving to God for rescuing the Israelites from the Egyptians.
---
* http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/exodus/exodus15.htm
18 Oct 05
Originally posted by lucifershammer16: But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes,
Could you recheck the first reference?
17: but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Per'izzites, the Hivites and the Jeb'usites, as the LORD your God has commanded;
18: that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices which they have done in the service of their gods, and so to sin against the LORD your God.
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=RsvDeut.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=20&division=div1
18 Oct 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAre you questioning the morality of the conquest of Canaan or trying to prove a "religious" war actually happened?
16: But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes,
17: but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Per'izzites, the Hivites and the Jeb'usites, as the LORD your God has commanded;
18: that they may not teach you to do ...[text shortened]... Deut.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=20&division=div1
18 Oct 05
3 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseThe morality question on that has been debated to death here (pardon the pun), and focused not on conquest, but on that “you shall save alive nothing” part. I don’t recall if anyone ever raised on here the historical question of whether such a large-scale conquest-by-war ever really took place.
Are you questioning the morality of the conquest of Canaan or trying to prove a "religious" war actually happened?
But with regard to howardgee’s issue here—
I would think that any institutionalized system that (1) claims for itself the only valid expression of a totality of Truth, and (2) regards alternative views as dangerous or perverse, would have a built-in tendency (or temptation at least) toward violence as a means either to advance its tenets or to proscribe other views. Such a system may have built-in safeguards as well—for example, a strict ethic of nonviolence at its core—but unless such safeguards are vigilantly articulated and affirmed, the urge to violence is likely to burst forth. And it has. Again, I think that tendency is endogenous to such systems, religious as well as secular.
Comparative “body counts” prove nothing, absolve no one.
18 Oct 05
Originally posted by HalitoseDid I say ALL wars were started by religion? No - I did not.
So WWI & II were started because of religion? How about most of the communist revolutions? Erm... Methinks you fell into cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy here...
Many wars are caused by differences in ideologies, not necessarily religion.
As it happens though, WW1 was started by conflict between muslims (Serbia) and Xstians (Austria-Hungary).
As for WW2, ever heard of the holocaust?!?! Also the Japs worshipped their emperor as a God, which fanatacism earned them 2 atomic bombs.
18 Oct 05
Originally posted by HalitoseWrong again!
I'll have to side with LH here. "Religion" needs more clarification.
Btw, I don't think one could successfully argue that there were no wars intrinsicly "religious" in nature, but then jumping from that to "religion" causes war is far shy of even my imagination.
Lemme add the Greek and then Roman conquest of the known world to the long list of counter evidence.
Both the Romans and Greeks built Temples to their own Gods in occupied territories and forced the conquered to worship them.
Ever heard of the Romans throwing a few Xstians to the lions here and there?
Man, your grip on history is shaky.
18 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by howardgeeIs the issue limited to wars started by religion? What about conflicts where religion may not have been the origin, but may have been one of a cluster of "causes"? Or, there may be cases where some religious support was the "straw" that let the war begin. I don't think the holocaust could have occurred, for example without the complicity of the German (lutheran) Church that supported Hitler, and without a history of Chrisitan anti-semitism in Europe--whether anti-semitism is a "necessary" feature of Chrisitanity or not. Whether Hitler thought he was a Christian is beside the point.
Did I say ALL wars were started by religion? No - I did not.
As it happens though, WW1 was started by conflict between muslims (Serbia) and Xstians (Austria-Hungary).
As for WW2, ever heard of the holocaust?!?! Also the Japs worshipped their emperor as a God, which fanatacism earned them 2 atomic bombs.
But, as I said above, for any ideological institution that has the two features I mentioned, one should not be surprised to find such an institution involved in wars, inquisitions, etc. So I'm not singling out any one such institution, merely saying that I think a proclicivity for violence is likely to be endongenous to any such institution.
And, to the extent that religions have those two features, they are likely to contribute to wars.
19 Oct 05
Originally posted by vistesdBeautifully put - I think you have answered your own question here!
Is the issue limited to wars started by religion? What about conflicts where religion may not have been the origin, but may have been one of a cluster of "causes"? Or, there may be cases where some religious support was the "straw" that let the war begin. I don't think the holocaust could have occurred, for example without the complicity of th ...[text shortened]... nd, to the extent that religions have those two features, they are likely to contribute to wars.
19 Oct 05
Originally posted by vistesdWar is a very complicated issue, often involving many factions.
Thanks. I might have moved to a slightly "weaker" position, though; from "cause" to "contribute."
However, religion has been a contibuting cause in many (if not all) wars.
People glibly retort that wars are about power, not religion, but I argue that religion is inseperable from power. It is a control and wealth generor.
Religion is at least an easy banner to unite under - it helps to mark the sides of the struggle.
19 Oct 05
Originally posted by HalitoseDon't forget the Second War for Independence, the American Civil War....state's rights trampled in the name of Unionism.
So WWI & II were started because of religion? How about most of the communist revolutions? Erm... Methinks you fell into cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy here...
Many wars are caused by differences in ideologies, not necessarily religion.
19 Oct 05
Originally posted by chancremechanicAnd I think Lincoln made it clear, did he not, that the Union, and not slavery, was the main cause. However, do you think the North would've been willing to sustain the war effort without the underlying moral issue of slavery?
Don't forget the Second War for Independence, the American Civil War....state's rights trampled in the name of Unionism.
19 Oct 05
Let us not forget, also, that religion can be used dishonestly as a justification for aggressive action. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, and during multiple confrontations with the United States and its allies, he would miraculous transform from a secular dictator to a pious muslim, praying publically and declaring the west an enemy of Islam. This is one especially obvious example of a power using a religion to shore up public support for war - for it is clear that Saddam was fighting for political power, not to promote Allah above other gods.