|
Post by TJ on Dec 5, 2009 12:56:49 GMT -8
That's news to me.
|
|
ddueck
Ghostwriter
Omnia dicta fortiori, si dicta Latina!
Posts: 245
|
Post by ddueck on Dec 5, 2009 13:26:17 GMT -8
Sacrifice! DDueck, I'm not trying to start a flame here, but you believe that God (or the Scriptures) supports war because it can lead to an outcome that favors his supporters. This is dangerous. God kills, and he sacrifices people because they are pagans and the "chosen" Jewish people need land. Isn't this the same philosophical view that Islamic terrorists make? They (and God, if they are victorious) are killing people because they are infidels and they have razed the Palestinian land... I'm curious about your view on God and the crusades. I think there needs to be a distinction between what a human does and attributes to God, and the "actual" teachings of God (The Ten Commandments, Sermon on the Mount, etc). Well, I'm not a proponent of violence in the name of religion in any sense, or of any kind of violence really. Read my response to Jon above for more details on this subject regarding the crusades & etc., but as far as the "acceptability" of religious wars are concerned, it's a moot point since Christ came to earth and gave His teachings - as you say below, Christ did come to challenge people's view of God and their relationship to Him. We are to be loyal patriots of our country as long as our country is righteous and just, but never are we to do harm to another in the name of God. Christ's teachings clearly reflect the fact that a Christian's responsibilities (since Christ's redeeming sacrifice and the newly personal nature of God's interaction with man, vs. the collective way He dealt with the line of Israel in the Old Testament) are to bless and aid those around him, whether they share His faith or not. Again, all I was attempting to point out to Craig was that the Bible as written does not "oppose war unconditionally." Maybe it's me but I don't see the "bringing the sword" comment as justifying His support for war. I view it more as a statement that says he has come to challenge people's view of God and their traditional relationship with God.... The interesting thing is if someone does take up a sword against thier father or mother, does that voilate the Honor your father and mother Commandment? Unlike, other prophets, I didn't read of any stories of Jesus killing others, or going to War, in the name of God. Yes, there is the overturning of tables incident, but Christ himself said "Blessed are the Peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God..." Again, I agree about the "sword" comment, but I also see it as Christ giving a warning that His teachings would bring conflict as well as unity: unity to those who truly embraced the teachings in the spirit in which they were given, but conflict to those who did not. Sadly, this last group now contains a huge and tragic portion of the organization that calls itself the "Church." I brought it up in the first place merely to illustrate that conflict is something the Bible tells us to expect and anticipate, and that if conflict was something God opposed unconditionally, then He would have chosen some other way of redeeming sin, if there indeed could have been another way. All this to say, Christ's presence on Earth did have a great deal to do with "Peace on Earth and good will towards men," but the kind of peace brought about by a common love for and dedication to something higher and Holier - something most of the world doesn't really want to associate with thus far. As to your question about regarding conflict with parents, it is important to keep the larger context of the chapter in mind: Vs. 21-23 - "Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes." Vs. 26-33 - "So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows. Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven." Clearly Christ is talking about the future dangers of being associated with Him and His then-revolutionary teachings, and about how those who accepted His doctrines would be alienated even by those closest to them - family and dear friends. He most certainly was not telling people to take swords to their parents. And Christ turned over the moneychangers' tables in the Temple because they were using Temple rituals as a way to make money in ways totally inappropriate for Temple worship - "My house will be called a house of prayer, but ye have made it into a den of thieves." Not unlike the practices of the Catholic Church during the majority of its history: indulgences, crusades brought on by ulterior motives, etc...
|
|
ddueck
Ghostwriter
Omnia dicta fortiori, si dicta Latina!
Posts: 245
|
Post by ddueck on Dec 5, 2009 13:30:20 GMT -8
Allow me to amend: it was anti- established, traditional religion. Christians, Jews, Orthodox peoples of any kind were persecuted. My question still stands: how is religion responsible for the Holocaust?
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on Dec 6, 2009 22:47:34 GMT -8
Hitler was anything but atheist.
The man firmly believed in the occult, for fuck's sake.
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on Dec 6, 2009 23:45:42 GMT -8
My comment about the Holocaust was less to do with Christianity, and more to do with Judaism, and how Hitler specifically targeted one religion for extermination.
|
|
ddueck
Ghostwriter
Omnia dicta fortiori, si dicta Latina!
Posts: 245
|
Post by ddueck on Dec 7, 2009 9:01:02 GMT -8
My comment about the Holocaust was less to do with Christianity, and more to do with Judaism, and how Hitler specifically targeted one religion for extermination. Ah, this makes more sense. Thanks for expounding! I still consider it bit of a stretch to say that religion caused the Holocaust, when it was more of an antagonism and racism against a religious people which motivated the atrocity. Maybe this is a terrible metaphor, but isn't that kinda like saying black people caused slavery*? *CLARIFICATION (I modified this post): Meaning, of course the slave trade as practiced by western culture out of Africa into the 19th century - certainly not slavery as seen throughout world history.
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on Dec 7, 2009 12:21:59 GMT -8
Perhaps it would be better to say that it was another atrocity *involving* religion, rather than being caused by it. It's just another example of one group of religious people believing that their religion is better than the other religion, and determining that the people who don't believe their religion should be removed.
The Crusades - Christianity removing Islam The Spanish Inquisition - Catholic Christians removing pretty much anyone who wasn't a Catholic Christian European Incursion into the Americas - Christians removing ancient tribal religions Holocaust - Occultists and Christians removing Jews Modern Islamic Fundamentalism - Islam removing the Infidels
It doesn't matter which religious group is removing which religious group. To me, it's all wrong.
|
|
ddueck
Ghostwriter
Omnia dicta fortiori, si dicta Latina!
Posts: 245
|
Post by ddueck on Dec 7, 2009 13:58:09 GMT -8
Perhaps it would be better to say that it was another atrocity *involving* religion, rather than being caused by it. It's just another example of one group of religious people believing that their religion is better than the other religion, and determining that the people who don't believe their religion should be removed. The Crusades - Christianity removing Islam The Spanish Inquisition - Catholic Christians removing pretty much anyone who wasn't a Catholic Christian European Incursion into the Americas - Christians removing ancient tribal religions Holocaust - Occultists and Christians removing Jews Modern Islamic Fundamentalism - Islam removing the Infidels It doesn't matter which religious group is removing which religious group. To me, it's all wrong. I definitely concede to this. Religious oppression, antagonism and persecution of any kind, by anyone, is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Craig Richard Lysy on Dec 15, 2009 18:55:56 GMT -8
Jon - It doesn't matter which religious group is removing which religious group. To me, it's all wrong. My friend we should not judge a religion by the actions of its devotees. Human beings are intrinsically flawed and often religion provides power - a combination that is a recipe for tragedy. To often people externalize religion to judge, coerce and attempt to control others. The lens needs to be turned inward! As the revered Prophet Gandhi once said, "If there is a Devil, then he dwells within our heart, and that is where our battles must be waged." Having read all the Great books and studied all the Great Prophets I can tell you that each religious discipline provides a path back to the Devine if the practitioner accepts the precepts and lives them. If you read each sacred text as I have, you will find Truth in each of them. It is then up to the devotee to transform the revealed truth into constructive living. That is easier said than done. All the best.
|
|