Does religion cause war?

[Yttrium]

People cause war. They'll find any convenient excuse, including religion. Take away religion, and they'll still have plenty of other excuses available.

 

[Halbhh]

Have you studied the secular origins of the Anti-Semitism? Or would you find that the main reason for Anti-Semitism was Christianity, and, to a lesser extent, Islam after the nation of Israel was established?

I am witnessing, before my very eyes, a Christian transformation in the Ukraine. When I was growing up there (it was part of the USSR then), Christians were very pacifist. But now, after the US (a Christian nation, overwhelmingly) sponsored a Maidan revolution, Ukraine's Christians have (surprise!) transformed! One of my childhood friends is now a volunteer, fighting for a pro-Ukraine batallion. The whole "Anti-terrorist-Operation, ATO" in the Eastern Ukraine was began by none other than Acting Ukraine President Turchinov! Himself a practising Baptist!

Oleksandr Turchynov - Wikipedia



I don't mean that religion causes was, only that nothing in Christianity forbids him to start a war. Couple that with the Old Testament belief that God chooses certain people and gives them territory or special status, and you have a climate that's ripe for war.

Summary of the my argument is as follows. Old testament clearly supports and encourages war. Nothing in the New testament explicitly contradicts this notion, allowing many Christians to support war(s). Christians were very tough on heretics, because, in their view, heretics were responsible for Christians straying from the truth and ending up in eternal hell.

*(update: I realized this below addresses both questions)

Consider: there are about 2 billion that call themselves "Christian", so therefore just from that alone, you'd expect to have the entire range of every human behavior, including the common evils, and the best of the virtues.

All. Right?

Why, if it's supposed to be Christianity? Because not all actually believe --> People that have been in churches for enough years learn that some there every week or month don't actually believe Christ rose, for instance (one commonplace). (this was more common 40 years ago, and today many non-believers have left, so that the number of non-believers in churches is less than it was in the 1970s, 80s, but there are still some of course; and also there are churches that are more about nationalism than about God)

When a person doesn't believe Christ rose, then it's less likely that person will listen to Christ, and hear more of his words.

Then, having Christianity as merely an identity or tradition, then they can just be however they want, and then justify it in their minds, however they like, without realizing they have a position that directly contradicts Christ's instructions on how to live:

"Love one another",
"Love your neighbor as yourself",
"In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you..."
...

Without believing fully, believing that Christ rose, a person can discount these or just...forget them...

It's been that way since the beginning practically, where some that didn't believe would join, and also once younger generations grew up in the church as their tradition/identity. Some would believe, and others would not.

 

[A_Thinker]

Did you even read the OP? I quoted a Christian, W Bush, claiming that God told him to start a war in Iraq and his conviction, that the 2003 war was the right thing to do has nothing to do with Christians or Electricians fighting in a war. His religion helped him start a war that was based on lies.

Christianity has nothing to do with GWB claiming that God told him to start a war ...

 

[A_Thinker]

Perhaps the subject should be rephrased as... are Christians more or less violent vs Non-Christians?

Sould we include Stalin and Mao's body counts ?

 

[BigV]

Sould we include Stalin and Mao's body counts ?

Well, it's very interesting that Stalin's and Mao's killings are pointed to as an example of Atheism causing mass murder. But when I point out that Christians have killed more people, and killings continue to this day, these claims are simply dismissed, with statement such as this one:

Christianity has nothing to do with GWB claiming that God told him to start a war ...

 

[Halbhh]

Well, it's very interesting that Stalin's and Mao's killings are pointed to as an example of Atheism causing mass murder. But when I point out that Christians have killed more people, and killings continue to this day, these claims are simply dismissed, with statement such as this one:

Check more carefully.

Suppose Ralph Whoever claims the label "Patriotic American".

And then Ralph shows up at a protest march and beats peaceful marchers with a club. Ralph claims he did it "for America", and "because I'm a patriotic American."

Well, we know that in reality our American Constitution specifically gives us all the Freedom of Assembly, and the Freedom of Speech.

And we know these are generally considered central and key ideals of America.

Should we then look at Ralph assaulting people to try to shut down their freedom of political speech and claiming it's for America as what America really is?

Should we take Ralph's assaulting people as the key characteristic that tells us what America really is?

Some might, but most would not. Here's why --

A) individuals don't represent ideas in all their actions. The ideal and the individual action are sometimes not aligned.

B) we see that often certain individuals or groupings don't even believe in those ideals of the thing they have self-labeled with -- they may believe opposite values to the defining values of that thing.
They are only trying to use the thing to attempt to legitimize their own separate, incompatible agenda of their own.

 

[A_Thinker]

Well, it's very interesting that Stalin's and Mao's killings are pointed to as an example of Atheism causing mass murder. But when I point out that Christians have killed more people, and killings continue to this day, these claims are simply dismissed, with statement such as this one:

Between the two of them, Stalin and Mao killed more than 100 million of their own people.

 

[BigV]

Between the two of them, Stalin and Mao killed more than 100 million of their own people.

Wrong about Stalin and probably about Mao. From what I know about Stalin's era history, the number of those killed by him often includes people who died from hunger in the 1930s, and everyone killed in the Russia's Civil War. But, as fate would have it, nobody counts dead Native Americans and Lincoln is not responsible for America's Civil War dead. And nobody counts the dead killed by the police, lynched slaves, etc... as victims of democracy. But you can bet your bottom dollar that if, in the Soviet Union of 1930's, a cop killed 10 people, and was then himself killed for what he did, 11 deaths would have been counted towards Stalin's tally.

Remember, even the Soviet leaders started bashing Stalin, starting with Khruschev. There would be no reasons for them to make Stalin into a good guy.
How Khrushchev bashed Stalin and his heritage

 

[A_Thinker]

Sta

Wrong about Stalin and probably about Mao. From what I know about Stalin's era history, the number of those killed by him often includes people who died from hunger in the 1930s, and everyone killed in the Russia's Civil War. But, as fate would have it, nobody counts dead Native Americans and Lincoln is not responsible for America's Civil War dead. And nobody counts the dead killed by the police, lynched slaves, etc... as victims of democracy. But you can bet your bottom dollar that if, in the Soviet Union of 1930's, a cop killed 10 people, and was then himself killed for what he did, 11 deaths would have been counted towards Stalin's tally.

Remember, even the Soviet leaders started bashing Stalin, starting with Khruschev. There would be no reasons for them to make Stalin into a good guy.
How Khrushchev bashed Stalin and his heritage

Stalin starved millions in Ukraine ...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw0tk56E4uOcHHcJQp-8P7q-&cshid=1582762378772