I don't know. It would depend on the country and the war in question. People don't need religion to justify a war., even if some use religion as a means to an end for their own purposes. Shouldn't the blame be directed at the political leaders? Unfortunately, some (however many is too many) religious leaders have been political leaders as well, and responsible for a lot of carnage. So mutually exclusive depends on the circumstances.No one should.
Yes, they all have been to some degree at various points in history. No religion has their hands completely clean, and same can be said of anyone else.Do you think the Catholic church was hijacked for political reasons?
How about the Church of England?
They are the political bodies.
I was a Christian minister. Not a priest. And yeah, I know you'll throw out the Crusades and Christian/Catholic leaders who were responsible for tragic and terrible wars, but that doesn't invalidate the religion. It a stain on people who took the religion in the wrong direction. Not necessarily because of something the religion adheres to. Those people don't get to define what religion means for everyone else.You are kidding. Weren't you a priest?
And who were these political leaders? Are the Popes not political leaders? You mean to tell me the Catholic church and the Church of England were not involved in politics, and were just innocent bystanders?Shouldn't the blame be directed at the political leaders?
The Catholic Church happens to be a really, really, really big stroke.Religions are only political bodies inasmuch as they're involved in politics. There are lots of apolitical religious groups out there. Broad strokes and all that.
Well, unfortunately, those people got to define what religion means for for a good chunk of the world. As for what a religion adheres to, it is all open to interpretation, as apologetics prove.I was a Christian minister. Not a priest. And yeah, I know you'll throw out the Crusades and Christian/Catholic leaders who were responsible for tragic and terrible wars, but that doesn't invalidate the religion. It a stain on people who took the religion in the wrong direction. Not necessarily because of something the religion adheres to. Those people don't get to define what religion means for everyone else.
Didn't say I didn't want to talk about it. I said the discussion was getting away from the topic of the thread. Anyway, let's move on.We are not talking all things religion, just religion induced violence and its origins.
If you don't want to discuss things, why do you engage?
System, let's not try and be too naive, here. The three Meso-American, Pre-Columbian empires didnt become so large, expansive and wealthy without brutally, violently and ruthlessly attacking, defeating, killing and enslaving entire surrounding ethnic indigenous tribes who weren't as technologically advanced, have superior numbers or tactical/logistical advantages. And they did this for centuries while all three enlarged their empires at the expense of less powerful, weaker neighbors.War is a constant through human history, and empires anywhere were not forged without war at any time that history, but to say they were killing each other, is an oversimplification that feels like an excuse.
The other factor is, when the Brits and Spaniards first arrived, they were mostly well received, but then went on to betray, rob, and enslave the people who welcomed them, fed them, and helped them. And these were the Christian nations.
Some theologians will tell you that if St. Paul knew how some of his writings and epistles would've been later used, distorted and justified as official papal or church doctrines towards persecutions of Jews, non-Christian Germanic pagans, Old Norse Scandinavian communities who resisted and actively fought against Christian proselytization for centuries until early-mid 11th century, he might have been a bit more cautious before writing it.Ever heard of Pope Gregory IX?
Ever read passages like Ephesians 6:11-16?
Ever heard of the Malleus Maleficarum?
There. Go read.
Yeah, I hear you, Kiwi. Some of my comments or replies to these complicated, multi-faceted issues do tend to be way overly long and so detailed, it's easy to see how some posters might be concerned their eyes will bleed by the time their done reading. You try to be as informative as possible about certain topics in replies and explaining them can get lengthy at times plus how its worded or comes across can be a burden for some posters to read. I would also like to think I'm getting somewhat better than how I was 3-4 years ago. One lives and learns and improves.Respect your extensive knowledge, 2884...but you really need to add a “TL/DR” summary at the end.
Pretty much how politics in this country has become religion with violence and intolerance being attachedKind of like how centuries of destabilization of Africa and a century of it in the Middle East by Europe and America in the name of ruthless exploitation of their resources has created all of those strict, puritanical Islamist regimes, we even propped up and continue to prop up some of those strict, puritanical Islamist regimes.
So yeah, every religion and culture has a lot of blood on their hands. It's absurd for any religion or culture to think they can sit in a morally superior position to any other religion or culture. What's worse than it being absurd is that it's that very same sense of moral superiority to others that fuels all of the violence from all of the different religions and cultures.