The myth of religious violence

[Cearbhall]

The crusades were NOT religiously motivated?

No kidding. I don't really understand the desperation to separate religion from the causes of violence. Surely if someone is theistic, they don't think that the authority of their deity is threatened by the way that some people misuse organized religion on Earth? What's wrong with recognizing that the nature of religion, compounded with mental illness and other human faults, can lead to trouble?

 

[Meowzltov]

The crusades were NOT religiously motivated?

There were many crusades, but let's try to generalize to the ones fought in the holy lands. They are good examples of wars to fight back invaders that simply used religion as a rally call rather than as their valid reason for war.

 

[SteveB28]

Of course it does. I've given the example of ISIS on more than one occasion. The reason I said majority is because THAT IS WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT.

No, you would be wrong there. I can see no statement to the effect that religion causes the "majority" of violence. Nor have I said it.

You made that up.

 

[SteveB28]

There were many crusades, but let's try to generalize to the ones fought in the holy lands. They are good examples of wars to fight back invaders that simply used religion as a rally call rather than as their valid reason for war.

How do you presume to know the "valid reasons" for those campaigns? When Pope Urban called for the first one, he specifically claimed that God had "willed it". It was described as a 'pilgrimage' and all those who participated were promised that their sins would be remitted. In addition, the participants expected an apotheosis to take place in Jerusalem following a successful "return of Christianity to the Holy Land".

If that is not a 'root and branch' example of a wholly religiously inspired venture, I don't know what could possibly be one!

 

[Meowzltov]

No, you would be wrong there. I can see no statement to the effect that religion causes the "majority" of violence. Nor have I said it.

You made that up.

CONTEXT. I'm the one who wrote the OP. I think I know what the thread is about. The article from the OP spoke of the myth of religious violence, that " religion has tended to cause wars and strife throughout the millennia." The context is not that religion has cause vioence here and there, but that it is the major player. It is the common myth that you hear over and again these days that religion is THE source of violence that this thread is addressing.

 

[Meowzltov]

How do you presume to know the "valid reasons" for those campaigns?

I study history the same as anyone else.

 

[bhsmte]

I study history the same as anyone else.

There is quite a bit of historical evidence, that many wars were battled because of religious differences between people and most historians would agree with the motivation.

Religious beliefs in general, are very important to individuals, because they are a crucial part of their personal psyche and need to be protected. This psychological state leads to this; my religion is superior to your religion and my religion allows me to be entitled to go to war with you.

 

[Meowzltov]

many wars were battled because of religious differences

I would say some, but not many.

 

[SteveB28]

CONTEXT. I'm the one who wrote the OP. I think I know what the thread is about. The article from the OP spoke of the myth of religious violence, that " religion has tended to cause wars and strife throughout the millennia." The context is not that religion has cause vioence here and there, but that it is the major player. It is the common myth that you hear over and again these days that religion is THE source of violence that this thread is addressing.

You have erected yourself a strawman argument. Nothing that you said in your initial comment, nor anything in the article to which you referred, makes the claim that religion is responsible for a MAJORITY of human violence, as you subsequently have claimed above. The intent of that article was to clearly refute the idea that religion, in and of itself, is responsible for ANY violence and this is the vein that the conversation has continued to this point. You are raising an objection that doesn't exist.

 

[Meowzltov]

You have erected yourself a strawman argument. Nothing that you said in your initial comment, nor anything in the article to which you referred, makes the claim that religion is responsible for a MAJORITY of human violence, as you subsequently have claimed above. The intent of that article was to clearly refute the idea that religion, in and of itself, is responsible for ANY violence and this is the vein that the conversation has continued to this point. You are raising an objection that doesn't exist.

I disagree. You are clearly not reading in context.

 

[ken777]

I would say some, but not many.

Israel had good kings & bad kings. Judaism had good high priests & bad high priests. In like manner, I think the Christian church has had good leaders & bad leaders. The Christian religion is opposed to violence, so I would say that Christianity has never been the cause of violence.

.

 

[Jack of Spades]

Israel had good kings & bad kings. Judaism had good high priests & bad high priests. In like manner, I think the Christian church has had good leaders & bad leaders. The Christian religion is opposed to violence, so I would say that Christianity has never been the cause of violence.

It would possibly not be if the Christians had left OT out of the Bible. But because they chose to include it and make it a holy text, Christianity itself has been the cause of violence in the past. Religious violence is not only tolerated in the OT, it is encouraged. Please note we are talking about authorative holy text here which includes a handbook for a strict theocracy and recounts violent events as righteous actions.

If Christians want truly peaceful religion, they should cut the OT out of the Bible. NT is pacifistic indeed, but OT is encouraging both violence and theocracy and the relationship between OT and NT is not clear, so it's open for wide variety of interpretations.

I personally believe the two main reasons why the violent model of the OT is rarely followed nowadays is that A) majority of Christians don't take their own holy texts very seriously and B) because the lines of interpretation which belittles importance of OT, are popular now. But it's just a trend in interpretation, and there is material for another kind of interpretation available.

 

[keith99]

It would possibly not be if the Christians had left OT out of the Bible. But because they chose to include it and make it a holy text, Christianity itself has been the cause of violence in the past. Religious violence is not only tolerated in the OT, it is encouraged. Please note we are talking about authorative holy text here which includes a handbook for a strict theocracy and recounts violent events as righteous actions.

If Christians want truly peaceful religion, they should cut the OT out of the Bible. NT is pacifistic indeed, but OT is encouraging both violence and theocracy and the relationship between OT and NT is not clear, so it's open for wide variety of interpretations.

I personally believe the two main reasons why the violent model of the OT is rarely followed nowadays is that A) majority of Christians don't take their own holy texts very seriously and B) because the lines of interpretation which belittles importance of OT, are popular now. But it's just a trend in interpretation, and there is material for another kind of interpretation available.

Garbage. How can having the OT be part of the Bible contribute to the persecution of Jews by Christians, which has been going almost from the start of Christianity? In fact if the OT were omitted it just might have removed the thought that Jesus was a Jew and what little restraint remained at the more extreme times. In which case the final solution to the Jewish problem might have actually happened.

 

[Jack of Spades]

Garbage. How can having the OT be part of the Bible contribute to the persecution of Jews by Christians, which has been going almost from the start of Christianity? In fact if the OT were omitted it just might have removed the thought that Jesus was a Jew and what little restraint remained at the more extreme times. In which case the final solution to the Jewish problem might have actually happened.

It makes surprisingly much sense actually. If you take OT style theocracy, make it Christian theocracy and stone to death everyone who's not obeying, that includes Jews. Jews are apostates from point of view of Christianity, they were once in a right path but rejected Messiah.

What you're saying would be true if it was OT only, it's the mix of OT + NT that makes it Christian theocracy.

 

[Grafted In]

The crusades were NOT religiously motivated?

Really? So the it was the pope (small p) who ordered the mass slaughter of countless inocent men, women and children? Were their actions secular?
This is the very essence of the phrase "absolute power and authority breeds corruption",

 

[Grafted In]

[QUOTE="Jack of Spades, post: 68857749 Jews are apostates from point of view of Christianity, they were once in a right path but rejected Messiah.
[/QUOTE]

I would be careful with words like that. Their hearts and minds are ( temporarily) blinded for our sakes.

 

[Jahrooshshalom]

Religion:
1.man agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:

It's unfortunate that the banner of scholarship attached to what is a fostering of a false paradigm.

Christianity was founded by violence.

It was predetermined and preplanned violence that would occur to that physical manifestation of the prophesied Messiah in Judaism, God incarnate; Jesus the Christ.

The very definition of religion refutes this body of persons who attached scholarship to their reworking of religious histories across time.
Right now the religion of Islam is being demonstrated as intolerant, violent, savage, and murderous in not only the Middle East, but in Europe, France, as well. And it is all in keeping with the 2nd definition of the noun.

ISIS is beheading Christians! Cutting children in half, burning people to death, crucifying people. All this copies the actions of their religions prophet Muhammad who did the same thing when he was bringing Islam to those territories he thought to conquer in the name of allah.

The myth here is that violence does not comport with religion. History proves this body of persons to be fools that seek to reword history and blindfold rational people of the future as blood flows across this planet in the name of invisible god's.

 

[keith99]

It makes surprisingly much sense actually. If you take OT style theocracy, make it Christian theocracy and stone to death everyone who's not obeying, that includes Jews. Jews are apostates from point of view of Christianity, they were once in a right path but rejected Messiah.

What you're saying would be true if it was OT only, it's the mix of OT + NT that makes it Christian theocracy.

Makes sense, sort of the mirror image of something Paul said, Something about whatever is good... think then on these things. But instead of taking the best some take the worst (and honestly even then have to twist things a bit) and come up with a result worse than Frankenstein's monster.

 

[Jack of Spades]

Makes sense, sort of the mirror image of something Paul said, Something about whatever is good... think then on these things. But instead of taking the best some take the worst (and honestly even then have to twist things a bit) and come up with a result worse than Frankenstein's monster.

It sounds far-fetched when we think it from paradigm of modern Christian theology, but if you read late ancient or even better, medieval debates about herecies etc. it seems very different. They didn't read NT first and then make sidenotes of OT. For medieval theocrats the Bible was one blank text starting from the OT, and all of it was just as much God's Word (altho the phrase was something else then, but same idea). It looks very different when you read it that way.

I'm not making any of this up, I'm referring to the way Christians used to think when they ruled the Europe for a thousand years or so.

 

[Meowzltov]

If Christians want truly peaceful religion, they should cut the OT out of the Bible. NT is pacifistic indeed, but OT is encouraging both violence and theocracy and the relationship between OT and NT is not clear, so it's open for wide variety of interpretations.

Christianity accepts the idea from the OT that when God himself speaks directly to a prophet to instruct a war, it is righteous. However, God no longer speaks in this manner.