Are Christians Resonsible For Wars?

[Michael The Disciple]

Rock Star Tom Petty:

But while he’s tackling controversial subject matter, Petty told Catholics he respects whatever faith they want to have, but that he wouldn’t personally continue supporting a church that actively covered up crime.

“Catholics, don’t write me. I’m fine with whatever religion you want to have, but it can’t tell anybody it’s OK to kill people, and it can’t abuse children systematically for God knows how many years,” he told Billboard. “If I was in a club, and I found out that there had been generations of people abusing children, and then that club was covering that up, I would quit the club.”

Speaking of religion more generally, Petty told Billboard that “it seems … to be at the base of all wars.”

“I’ve nothing against defending yourself, but I don’t think, spiritually speaking, that there’s any conception of God that should be telling you to be violent,” he continued. “It seems to me that no one’s got Christ more wrong than the Christians.”

While he was specifically talking about Catholics, in general he blames "religion" for wars.

We always here this from the world.

Can anyone name what wars were started by Christians?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Rock Star Tom Petty:



While he was specifically talking about Catholics, in general he blames "religion" for wars.

We always here this from the world.

Can anyone name what wars were started by Christians?

Is this a trick question?

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Is this a trick question?

Which wars?

WW1? WW2? Korea? Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan?

Where are the wars Christians are responsible for?

The media/liberals are always saying all wars are because of "religion".

But is this true of the Christian religion?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Which wars?

WW1? WW2? Korea? Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan?

Where are the wars Christians are responsible for?

The media/liberals are always saying all wars are because of "religion".

But is this true of the Christian religion?

OK, I'll give it a try....

Wars throughout history are usually fought for land and resources, religion is only used to get the peasantry and plebeians to fight for the wealthy land owners who were in power. The rank and file are usually sold a dream how God is against whoever they are fighting. Also the enemy is demonized and therefore they need to be convince that they are literally the arm of God avenging man kind. This posed a problem when America had its Civil War, due to both sides were brothers and Protestant Christians.

Biblical Christianity has issues like "love your enemy" and "turn the other cheek" which causes it to be ineffective as a true war religion. IMO.

[aegsm76]

I am sure that Christianity was behind the Mass Killings by Stalin, Mao and Kim, as well.
Oh wait, they did not believe in a God or religion!!!!

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

OK, I'll give it a try....

Wars throughout history are usually fought for land and resources, religion is only used to get the peasantry and plebeians to fight for the wealthy land owners who were in power. The rank and file are usually sold a dream how God is against whoever they are fighting. Also the enemy is demonized and therefore they need to be convince that they are literally the arm of God avenging man kind. This posed a problem when America had its Civil War, due to both sides were brothers and Protestant Christians.

Biblical Christianity has issues like "love your enemy" and "turn the other cheek" which causes it to be ineffective as a true war religion. IMO.

Good answer.

[Sean]

The Myth that Religion is the #1 Cause of War
by Robin Schumacher
edited by Matt Slick

Atheists and secular humanists consistently make the claim that religion is the #1 cause of violence and war throughout the history of mankind. One of hatetheism's key cheerleaders, Sam Harris, says in his book The End of Faith that faith and religion are “the most prolific source of violence in our history.”1

While there’s no denying that campaigns such as the Crusades and the Thirty Years’ War foundationally rested on religious ideology, it is simply incorrect to assert that religion has been the primary cause of war. Moreover, although there’s also no disagreement that radical Islam was the spirit behind 9/11, it is a fallacy to say that all faiths contribute equally where religiously-motivated violence and warfare are concerned.

An interesting source of truth on the matter is Philip and Axelrod’s three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars, which chronicles some 1,763 wars that have been waged over the course of human history. Of those wars, the authors categorize 123 as being religious in nature,2 which is an astonishingly low 6.98% of all wars. However, when one subtracts out those waged in the name of Islam (66), the percentage is cut by more than half to 3.23%.

religious wars bar chart



religious wars pie chart

That means that all faiths combined – minus Islam – have caused less than 4% of all of humanity’s wars and violent conflicts. Further, they played no motivating role in the major wars that have resulted in the most loss of life.

Kind of puts a serious dent into Harris’ argument, doesn’t it?

The truth is, non-religious motivations and naturalistic philosophies bear the blame for nearly all of humankind’s wars. Lives lost during religious conflict pales in comparison to those experienced during the regimes who wanted nothing to do with the idea of God – something showcased in R. J. Rummel’s work Lethal Politics and Death by Government:

Non-Religious Dictator Lives Lost

Joseph Stalin - 42,672,000
Mao Zedong - 37,828,000
Adolf Hitler - 20,946,000
Chiang Kai-shek - 10,214,000
Vladimir Lenin - 4,017,000
Hideki Tojo - 3,990,000
Pol Pot - 2,397,0003
Rummel says: “Almost 170 million men, women and children have been shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed or worked to death; buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed or killed in any other of a myriad of ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens and foreigners. The dead could conceivably be nearly 360 million people. It is though our species has been devastated by a modern Black Plague. And indeed it has, but a plague of Power, not germs.”4

The historical evidence is quite clear: Religion is not the #1 cause of war.

If religion can’t be blamed for most wars and violence, then what is the primary cause? The same thing that triggers all crime, cruelty, loss of life, and other such things. Jesus provides the answer very clearly: “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man,” (Mark 7:21–23).

James (naturally) agrees with Christ when he says: “What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you? Is not the source your pleasures that wage war in your members? You lust and do not have; so you commit murder. You are envious and cannot obtain; so you fight and quarrel,” (James 4:1–2).

In the end, the evidence shows that the atheists are quite wrong about the wars they claim to so desperately despise. Sin is the #1 cause of war and violence, not religion, and certainly not Christianity.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Sean

The Myth that Religion is the #1 Cause of War
by Robin Schumacher
edited by Matt Slick

Atheists and secular humanists consistently make the claim that religion is the #1 cause of violence and war throughout the history of mankind. One of hatetheism's key cheerleaders, Sam Harris, says in his book The End of Faith that faith and religion are “the most prolific source of violence in our history.”1

While there’s no denying that campaigns such as the Crusades and the Thirty Years’ War foundationally rested on religious ideology, it is simply incorrect to assert that religion has been the primary cause of war. Moreover, although there’s also no disagreement that radical Islam was the spirit behind 9/11, it is a fallacy to say that all faiths contribute equally where religiously-motivated violence and warfare are concerned.

An interesting source of truth on the matter is Philip and Axelrod’s three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars, which chronicles some 1,763 wars that have been waged over the course of human history. Of those wars, the authors categorize 123 as being religious in nature,2 which is an astonishingly low 6.98% of all wars. However, when one subtracts out those waged in the name of Islam (66), the percentage is cut by more than half to 3.23%.

religious wars bar chart



religious wars pie chart

That means that all faiths combined – minus Islam – have caused less than 4% of all of humanity’s wars and violent conflicts. Further, they played no motivating role in the major wars that have resulted in the most loss of life.

Kind of puts a serious dent into Harris’ argument, doesn’t it?

The truth is, non-religious motivations and naturalistic philosophies bear the blame for nearly all of humankind’s wars. Lives lost during religious conflict pales in comparison to those experienced during the regimes who wanted nothing to do with the idea of God – something showcased in R. J. Rummel’s work Lethal Politics and Death by Government:

Non-Religious Dictator Lives Lost

Joseph Stalin - 42,672,000
Mao Zedong - 37,828,000
Adolf Hitler - 20,946,000
Chiang Kai-shek - 10,214,000
Vladimir Lenin - 4,017,000
Hideki Tojo - 3,990,000
Pol Pot - 2,397,0003
Rummel says: “Almost 170 million men, women and children have been shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed or worked to death; buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed or killed in any other of a myriad of ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens and foreigners. The dead could conceivably be nearly 360 million people. It is though our species has been devastated by a modern Black Plague. And indeed it has, but a plague of Power, not germs.”4

The historical evidence is quite clear: Religion is not the #1 cause of war.

If religion can’t be blamed for most wars and violence, then what is the primary cause? The same thing that triggers all crime, cruelty, loss of life, and other such things. Jesus provides the answer very clearly: “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man,” (Mark 7:21–23).

James (naturally) agrees with Christ when he says: “What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you? Is not the source your pleasures that wage war in your members? You lust and do not have; so you commit murder. You are envious and cannot obtain; so you fight and quarrel,” (James 4:1–2).

In the end, the evidence shows that the atheists are quite wrong about the wars they claim to so desperately despise. Sin is the #1 cause of war and violence, not religion, and certainly not Christianity.

YES!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Sean

Non-Religious Dictator Lives Lost

Joseph Stalin - 42,672,000
Mao Zedong - 37,828,000
Adolf Hitler - 20,946,000
Chiang Kai-shek - 10,214,000
Vladimir Lenin - 4,017,000
Hideki Tojo - 3,990,000
Pol Pot - 2,397,0003

While I agree with most of the article I would like to point out that some of these individuals were religious.

Shinbutsu-shūgō was the religion of Hideki Tojo, while Pol Pot was a Theravada Buddhist, he studied at a Buddhist monastery. Also in one of his speeches on Democracy calling Buddha his leader. Joseph Stalin was raised Russian Orthodox in the home of a Russian priest, he attended Eastern Greek Orthodox seminary in order to join the priesthood. While Stalin would denounce Christianity in his youth. The biographer Edvard Radzinsky in his book Stalin: The First In-depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia's Secret Archives, notes that “During his mysterious retreat (of June 1941) the ex-seminarist had decided to involve the aid of the God he had rejected.” Vladimir Lenin had strong Jewish roots, and always admired the Jewish religion, his thoughts on Christianity is well known. Mao Zedong was raised in a very devout Buddhist home of wealthy aristocrats, while he is known for his one statement that "atheism must take the place of God" you have to keep in mind that Buddhism doesn't have a god, but Mao was also quoted as saying that "it is wrong to tell people to be against religion.” So, there's your quandary concerning Mao.

Now, last but not least, Mr Adolf Hitler the Godzilla which everyone picks when you need a bad example. Adolf Hitler should not be a choice when you want to prove that Non-religious leaders kill more than religious leaders. Hitler was a Catholic, he also went as far to incorporate the Nationalist Socialist Party into the German Church calling it Deutsche Christen which symbol was a Christian cross with swastika in the middle. Books on this topic are The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany, by Susannah Heschel, and The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945 By Richard Steigmann-Gall.

Adolf Hitler in a speech in 1922 remarked, “My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter…”

In his autobiography Mein Kampf, Hitler stated:

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

Please I don't want to take away from Sean's post, but just trying to merely point out that when having a discussion how these individuals (especially Hitler) were non-religious you might not have such a strong argument. If anything all these men were raised in heavily religious homes and cultures, and another argument that could be posed is that their upbringing still had to have some strong influence in their later years even if they weren't practicing their religion (as in the case of Mao Zedong.

[Pressing-On]

Interesting article....

The Real Murderers: Atheism or Christianity?

Before I get to the particular facts, there is more than just a factual problem here. There is a theoretical problem as well and I tried to make the point that we must distinguish between what an individual or group of people do and what the code that they allegedly follow actually asserts. The fact is that there are people who do things consistently that are inconsistent with the code that they allegedly follow. But often times when that happens, especially where religion is concerned, the finger is pointed not at the individual who is choosing to do something barbaric, but at the code he claims to represent. The only time it's legitimate to point to the code as the source of barbarism is if the code is, in fact, the source of barbarism. People object to a religion that used barbaric means to spread the faith. But one can only use that as an objection against the religion if it's the religion itself that asserts that one must do it this way, as opposed to people who try to promote the spread of the religion in a forceful fashion in contradiction to what the religion actually teaches.

http://ht.ly/yiG4U