xjwsforChrist

PAULSACRAMENTO SAID

While we have heard the often quoted "Religion causes wars", the reality is that the view WAS that religion is the PRIMARY cause of wars.
That was refuted quite well by Vox Day in his book "the irrational atheist".
And shown to be the case as most atheists debaters quickly stopped using that view as it was proven over and over in debates with apologetic Christians ( Like Dinesh D'Sousa).
But when it gets officially mentioned by an atheist in a respected piece, well I guess we can (hopefully) sound the "death bell" for that most silly of arguments:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... r?page=0,2

An exert:

Moreover, the chief complaint against religion -- that it is history's prime instigator of intergroup conflict -- does not withstand scrutiny. Religious issues motivate only a small minority of recorded wars. The Encyclopedia of Wars surveyed 1,763 violent conflicts across history; only 123 (7 percent) were religious. A BBC-sponsored "God and War" audit, which evaluated major conflicts over 3,500 years and rated them on a 0-to-5 scale for religious motivation (Punic Wars = 0, Crusades = 5), found that more than 60 percent had no religious motivation. Less than 7 percent earned a rating greater than 3. There was little religious motivation for the internecine Russian and Chinese conflicts or the world wars responsible for history's most lethal century of international bloodshed.

Indeed, inclusive concepts such as "humanity" arguably emerged with the rise of universal religions. Sociologist Rodney Stark reveals that early Christianity became the Roman Empire's majority religion not through conquest, but through a social process grounded in trust. Repeated acts of altruism, such as caring for non-Christians during epidemics, facilitated the expansion of social networks that were invested in the religion. Likewise, studies by behavioral economist Joseph Henrich and colleagues on contemporary foragers, farmers, and herders show that professing a world religion is correlated with greater fairness toward passing strangers. This research helps explain what's going on in sub-Saharan Africa, where Islam is spreading rapidly. In Rwanda, for example, people began converting to Islam in droves after Muslims systematically risked their lives to protect Christians and animists from genocide when few others cared.

EXTRACTOR SAID

Here's a unique but accurate take on this subject. It's not religion that causes most wars, it's religious INTOLERANCE. Religious intolerance was the fuel for the Crusades for example, not the correct application of Christianity.

It's interesting, the people who promote the idea of religion starting wars & want to do away with religion, are actually being religiously intolerant... like the people who have started most wars.
_________________
“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest." (Jesus said this.) Matt 11:28

WILLIAM SAID


If there was no religion there would be nothing to tolerate.

We'd prolly still find an excuse to blow each other up anyway.

YPPUPLLEH SAID

If there were no people there would be no wars
_________________
Love is a warm rubber puppy...

TEC SAID




Yeah... I agree. Excuses like territory, power, money, resources, etc, etc. Religion is just one more excuse.


Thanks for that article, Paul. Illuminating.

Peace,
tammy

EXTRACTOR SAID


If there was no art there would be nothing to tolerate.
If there was no music there would be nothing to tolerate.
If there were no opinions there would be nothing to tolerate.
If there were no cultures there would be nothing to tolerate.
If there were no people there would be nothing to tolerate.
If there was no religion there would be nothing to tolerate.
If there was none of the above, there would be nothing to live for.

WILLIAM SAID




We're doomed!

I do think that religion breeds intolerance. It does not always lead to war but it is always divisive.

WILBUR SAID



Check out Buddism or Taoism. No intolerance there at all.

WILLIAM SAID

I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that can't tolerate the eastern philosophies/religions no matter how tolerant those religions/philosophies may be.

Which came first? The chicken or the egg?

WILBUR SAID

I think it's all irrelevant. We're on this earth for a short period of time and if one chooses to be intolerant and live their lives with negativity then I say let them. For a certainty it's their loss, not anyone else's.

When exiting the high control group part of the mourning process is anger at god (for many). When it spills over into every being of your life and you spend countless online hours arguing and calling people stupid or mentally inferior because they have a belief, well, that's just pathetic.

It's no different than knocking on someone's door preaching about how rutherford is the only way.

I know this because I was once a person who was a religious intolerant jerk. Thank goodness I grew out of it. So allow me to apologize for those that are intolerant on their behalf.

Ooooh, adorable monkey alert!!!

PAULSACRAMENTO SAID




Well, lets give the "devil" his due and not fail to recognize that it was Islamic expansion and conquest that brought on the cruzades.

PAULSACRAMENTO SAID

Taoisim isn't really a religion per say and as for buddhist, yes, there have been some militant and intolerant buddhists.

GLADIATOR SAID

The truth is that major religions have always been entwined with ruler-ship, power and what we now call politics. Major religions have often had their own armies. Religion has been used as a vehicle and has used its power to subdue and plunder both its follower and other nations. Major religion has had more to do with greed than God.

However, within those religions there have been many individuals who were sincere and lived a life based on love and principle. Also there have been many small religious groups, in both the east & west, that have lived in humility and practised love, tolerance and the practice of a quiet mind. Many people now follow their own spiritual journey and attach themselves to such groups if they need to share their journey.

PAULSACRAMENTO SAID




We need to realize that after the fall of the roman empire, the church was the only organization around with any form of stability.
The church "needed" armies to protect their lands, their schools and hospitals, were all were welcomed.
Like anything else and anything were people are involed, things take on a life of their own.
Many a small group was able to exist BECAUSE of the protection of the church.
The issues started when greed and power become something to covet WITHIN the church.
It short, it got too big, too wealthy and too powerful.
Of course NO one has been more critical of the church than it's own followers.
Too many to count really, Anslem, Franics of Assis, Aquinas,Luther and so many others too.

Like any other powerful organization, those in power fought to keep what was "theirs" BUT the internal; struggles of the Church had very little to do with any wars BUT to get a church on their side, many were not above manipulating them or even bribing them and, as our Lord said: The flesh is weak.

The church proved to be all to human and proved the wisdom of Augustine when he said it was a Hospital for sick people and not a museum for saints.

GLADIATOR SAID


PaulSacramento


This is true, and it is how that power was sometimes used that causes some to blame religion for war. It is easy to judge from our armchair the way institutions acted in what were barbaric, dangerous and uncertain times.

My point is that the history of imperfection in major religions should not be used as an excuse to condemn all religion or spiritual endeavour.