|
||||||||
Why do most RELIGIONS not tell their members not to fight and kill in wars ?? |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Bury, Lancashire. uP NORTH !
Posts: 5,553
|
Why do most RELIGIONS not tell their members not to fight and kill in wars ??
I dont follow any organised religion. I dont call myself an atheist either, nor believe in the big bang theory to explain the whole universe, i dont believe in any religion to explain existence. I dont know where the universe came from, thats the most logical stance to take. So thats where i stand on that.
As a thinking human being, i am anti war, and view war as total criminal insanity. What it is, is essentially human beings killing other humans that they have never even met, based on obedience to government and to religious ideology. After thousands of years of murderous wars it just seems we still havent learned, and have ever more ingenious ways of killing people., Along with a highly profitable arms trade who is complicit in the death and destruction orf wars. However, i accept that we dont live in a utopia, and every country has a right to a defence, in the same way that if someone broke in my home and tried to hurt me or my son, i would defend myself. The arms trade is highly profitable, war as they say, is a business. My question on wars and christianity, having looked at the bible, and especially the teachings of Jesus is this. With an estimated 2 billion Christians worldwide : why dont most christian religions instruct their followers not to join the army and not to kill others in their various governments wars ?? Seriously. Arent the churches supposed to be seperate from the bad things that go on in the world and not just pay lip service in sermons to wars being bad etc. You see a lot of pomp and ceremony in big churches around the time or war rememberance events, attended often by royals and tony blair etc, you see the church and the state become one. Instead of seperate. I know that many would risk their life if they refused to fight in wars or end up in priison in some countries if they stuck by their biblical/scriptural principles, but isnt the message of the bible to be seperate from the world, to suffer persecution for standing up to your principles ?? So why dont the cahtholics, just to use one example religion, not teach their followers not to join the army and not to shoot a machine gun at a stranger ? Or not to drop a bomb on another human ? And the same with another christian religion. I could take this further and say that all religions who claim to be of god, should outright just have some balls and just say we dont agree with joining the army because war is legalised mass murder, and we will stand firm. It does seem that at times that religions go along with the times they live in, they give in to pressure of whats going on in the world and end up changing their teachings in order to please people, or for fear of repurcussions, or just dont want to be seen as being old fashioned. All religions cherry pick the parts of the bible, koran, torah etc, that suit them. Give a religion long enough and it will change. be it a big religion or a cult. To me if someone claims that god is love, then love to me isnt strapping on a machine gun to kill people in a foreign land, or at home. Love isnt dropping a bomb from above, on to houses where mostly innocent people end up dead. Where are the churches prepared to tell their followers not to join the military or be a part of that ? I know it sounds idealistic and im not sure what id do if faced with someone invading me, on an individual level id fight back. My point is that if you really do believe in the teachings of jesus then you would never join the military and you would seperate yourself from what your government gets involved in when its violence. Theres no point having a bible in one hand and a gun in the other...... |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,190
|
If they told their followers not to fight those people are likely to become the subject of violence. Other communities/religions will take over their land, jobs, wives children etc and force the believers in to the wilderness or kill them. If this happens the religion's following falls & it's ability to create wealth decreases significantly, which is something the leaders of the religions have ever wanted to happen as they are generally at the top of the pyramid basking in the luxury that the religion has brought them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,106
|
Its a reasonable question. As far as Christianity goes Jesus was pretty clear in where he stood on war and violence - "Turn the other cheek", "Love your enemy", "He who live by the sword dies by the sword" etc - so you'd think that any Christian would refuse to fight in national wars. And there have been many conscientious objectors in the major World Wars for this reason.
There have been many more so-called Christians over the centuries who have readily gone to fight in wars (including politicians and leaders who waged wars in the first place) so it does make you wonder. In my experience religious people are particularly good at "double-think" as George Orwell coined the phrase. i.e. the ability to hold 2 completely contrasting views without having a problem with the contradictions. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 🖥⌨🖱
Posts: 29,238
|
Quote:
It does seem that at times that religions go along with the times they live in, they give in to pressure of whats going on in the world and end up changing their teachings in order to please people, or for fear of repurcussions, or just dont want to be seen as being old fashioned.
In fact one of the things that drives me nuts in this country is the way our religious leaders somewhat tend to avoid the contempt heaped on our political leaders. It should be a lot more balanced. |
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,096
|
If you and your family and everyone you know are at risk, due to threatened military invasion, it's a bit difficult to be pacifist. The Quaker Ambulance Service is an ''interesting compromise'', they run the same personal risks, but refuse to kill ...........
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 911
|
Quote:
I dont follow any organised religion. I dont call myself an atheist either, nor believe in the big bang theory to explain the whole universe, i dont believe in any religion to explain existence. I dont know where the universe came from, thats the most logical stance to take. So thats where i stand on that.
As a thinking human being, i am anti war, and view war as total criminal insanity. What it is, is essentially human beings killing other humans that they have never even met, based on obedience to government and to religious ideology. After thousands of years of murderous wars it just seems we still havent learned, and have ever more ingenious ways of killing people., Along with a highly profitable arms trade who is complicit in the death and destruction orf wars. However, i accept that we dont live in a utopia, and every country has a right to a defence, in the same way that if someone broke in my home and tried to hurt me or my son, i would defend myself. The arms trade is highly profitable, war as they say, is a business. My question on wars and christianity, having looked at the bible, and especially the teachings of Jesus is this. With an estimated 2 billion Christians worldwide : why dont most christian religions instruct their followers not to join the army and not to kill others in their various governments wars ?? Seriously. Arent the churches supposed to be seperate from the bad things that go on in the world and not just pay lip service in sermons to wars being bad etc. You see a lot of pomp and ceremony in big churches around the time or war rememberance events, attended often by royals and tony blair etc, you see the church and the state become one. Instead of seperate. I know that many would risk their life if they refused to fight in wars or end up in priison in some countries if they stuck by their biblical/scriptural principles, but isnt the message of the bible to be seperate from the world, to suffer persecution for standing up to your principles ?? So why dont the cahtholics, just to use one example religion, not teach their followers not to join the army and not to shoot a machine gun at a stranger ? Or not to drop a bomb on another human ? And the same with another christian religion. I could take this further and say that all religions who claim to be of god, should outright just have some balls and just say we dont agree with joining the army because war is legalised mass murder, and we will stand firm. It does seem that at times that religions go along with the times they live in, they give in to pressure of whats going on in the world and end up changing their teachings in order to please people, or for fear of repurcussions, or just dont want to be seen as being old fashioned. All religions cherry pick the parts of the bible, koran, torah etc, that suit them. Give a religion long enough and it will change. be it a big religion or a cult. To me if someone claims that god is love, then love to me isnt strapping on a machine gun to kill people in a foreign land, or at home. Love isnt dropping a bomb from above, on to houses where mostly innocent people end up dead. Where are the churches prepared to tell their followers not to join the military or be a part of that ? I know it sounds idealistic and im not sure what id do if faced with someone invading me, on an individual level id fight back. My point is that if you really do believe in the teachings of jesus then you would never join the military and you would seperate yourself from what your government gets involved in when its violence. Theres no point having a bible in one hand and a gun in the other...... Should we have allowed Hitler or IS to walk in and take over with everything they have done to Christians and Jews. I dont do god I class myself as a humanist but that doesn't mean I would stand by and see my family persecuted by invaders even if that meant fighting them on their soil. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,096
|
In ww2 we had ''Bevin Boys'', coal mining for conscienscious objectors .........
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Dewsbury, England
Posts: 8,683
|
Wow I haven't read a Justmadeit post for years.
Anyway on-topic, religious groups would be stupid to tell their followers not to fight wars. The future of that religion would be at risk the moment a powerful enough force wanted to get rid of it. If there was a room, and on one side of it were a hundred Jews who refused to fight, and on the other side there were a hundred Nazis armed with guns and enough bullets to kill all the Jews, and who believed all Jews should be exterminated, how many Jews would be left at the end of the battle if there was no way for them to escape the room? All the Jews would all be dead. In the Second World War, certain Christian denominations refused to fight the Nazis. Those denominations may owe their existence to the people who rejected their pacific beliefs. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 9,696
|
What better way of honouring god, then slaughtering nonbeliever???? (Rolleyes....)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,106
|
There a few examples where you could argue that taking a stand against an evil oppressor was the morally correct "Christian" thing to do. WW2 against the Nazis is perhaps one such an example even though I don't think Britain would have been threatened if they'd stayed out of it.
The majority of wars Britain have been involved in over the last 1000 years though have really had nothing to do with protecting poor British families form evil invaders. They've been all about the elite protecting their economic interests abroad and using a sense of patriotism and nationalism to get ordinary folk to risk their lives for that purpose. What's the Christian justification for that? |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,536
|
Quote:
The Quaker Ambulance Service is an ''interesting compromise'', they run the same personal risks, but refuse to kill ...........
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Bury, Lancashire. uP NORTH !
Posts: 5,553
|
Quote:
Wow I haven't read a Justmadeit post for years.
Anyway on-topic, religious groups would be stupid to tell their followers not to fight wars. The future of that religion would be at risk the moment a powerful enough force wanted to get rid of it. If there was a room, and on one side of it were a hundred Jews who refused to fight, and on the other side there were a hundred Nazis armed with guns and enough bullets to kill all the Jews, and who believed all Jews should be exterminated, how many Jews would be left at the end of the battle if there was no way for them to escape the room? All the Jews would all be dead. In the Second World War, certain Christian denominations refused to fight the Nazis. Those denominations may owe their existence to the people who rejected their pacific beliefs. ![]() As i said in my post, i get why people would defend themselves from attackers. In the same way if someone broke in to my home and tried to attack me or my son then i would try to protect him and me. Im just thinking that from the point of view of those who follow christ, and especially the leaders of those churches, you would think that all of them would advise their members not to take part in any violence, or killing, and if others wish too, that is up to them. If churches in all countries did this then it would even itself out. Is it more honourable for true believers, to lose your own life because they refuse to take someone elses life by following christs example, or do people think they should take part in the governments policy of warfare ? Most people on all sides dont really want wars, it seems they have to be coerced through propaganda and fear tactics of an enemy etc. There would still be those on all sides willing to folllow orders and enlist, but the ones who really did believe in 'thou shalt not kill' would not get involved in wars. Should the pope for example tell all his followers that they shouldnt pick up weapons, should islam ic leaders do the same ? Its a hypothetical question, as i know they wont do. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 6,447
|
That's all quite a complicated tangle of questions. The Old Testament is full of battles. It's about the survival of a race and laying down the rules that govern how a society of people should live. In there then there's a contradiction; 'Thou shall not kill', and yet at various points after that commandment was issued the Israelites engaged in some major battles.
Look at the battle to take Jericho. Apart from saving the Harlot and her company the rest of the city was razed to the ground. So clearly it's okay according to the Bible to kill non-believers as long as it's God's commandment, just don't kill members of your own tribe. That's been the pattern ever since. Someone in charge says it's God's will and it's then okay to hack and maim peoples of a different place, race or religion. e.g. the crusades. What you then realise is that religion is just a tool for controlling the masses. That's probably why the establishment had it in for Jesus. He gave people a different option that undermined the power of the ruling elite and upset the status quo. So in answer to your question, organised religion is simply one aspect of the control of the masses by the state, and since the state is in the business of protecting itself (which really means lining the pockets of the ruling elite and ensuring a continuity of power behind the scenes) then you won't find religious leaders advocating widespread conscientious objection. This reminds me of that old Gary Cooper movie ' Sergeant York ' (1941). He was a conscientious objector. Have a look from 1hr 25m how he's talked around. That's the establishment in action right there. https://youtu.be/60rq9YsdxWM?t=1h25m |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Bury, Lancashire. uP NORTH !
Posts: 5,553
|
Quote:
That's all quite a complicated tangle of questions. The Old Testament is full of battles. It's about the survival of a race and laying down the rules that govern how a society of people should live. In there then there's a contradiction; 'Thou shall not kill', and yet at various points after that commandment was issued the Israelites engaged in some major battles.
Look at the battle to take Jericho. Apart from saving the Harlot and her company the rest of the city was razed to the ground. So clearly it's okay according to the Bible to kill non-believers as long as it's God's commandment, just don't kill members of your own tribe. That's been the pattern ever since. Someone in charge says it's God's will and it's then okay to hack and maim peoples of a different place, race or religion. e.g. the crusades. What you then realise is that religion is just a tool for controlling the masses. That's probably why the establishment had it in for Jesus. He gave people a different option that undermined the power of the ruling elite and upset the status quo. So in answer to your question, organised religion is simply one aspect of the control of the masses by the state, and since the state is in the business of protecting itself (which really means lining the pockets of the ruling elite and ensuring a continuity of power behind the scenes) then you won't find religious leaders advocating widespread conscientious objection. This reminds me of that old Gary Cooper movie ' Sergeant York ' (1941). He was a conscientious objector. Have a look from 1hr 25m how he's talked around. That's the establishment in action right there. https://youtu.be/60rq9YsdxWM?t=1h25m Im watching that link now, cheers |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Bury, Lancashire. uP NORTH !
Posts: 5,553
|
Quote:
If you and your family and everyone you know are at risk, due to threatened military invasion, it's a bit difficult to be pacifist. The Quaker Ambulance Service is an ''interesting compromise'', they run the same personal risks, but refuse to kill ...........
Is refusing to take part in wars a quaker belief? Guessing so |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,721
|
Quote:
So are you suggesting people should not fight for their freedoms .
Should we have allowed Hitler or IS to walk in and take over with everything they have done to Christians and Jews. I dont do god I class myself as a humanist but that doesn't mean I would stand by and see my family persecuted by invaders even if that meant fighting them on their soil. Quote:
If you and your family and everyone you know are at risk, due to threatened military invasion, it's a bit difficult to be pacifist. The Quaker Ambulance Service is an ''interesting compromise'', they run the same personal risks, but refuse to kill ...........
In regards to the OP's post: well it's all down to Jesus. Apparently a great many Americans think Jesus loves guns and capitalism. I'm no Jesus-freak, but he always struck me as the antithesis of gun-tooting capitalism. But religious leaders, like politicians, are easily bought. While it was honourable to fight the Nazis, Christian or not, Christianity certainly didn't stop the spread of worldwide empires, indeed - the Vatican had one of its very own, and supported many others. That's the wonderful thing about Christ and other religious figures. They have this uncanny ability to preach exactly what those who represent them say they do. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,721
|
Quote:
That is rejecting violence yet helping, so is honourable.
Is refusing to take part in wars a quaker belief? Guessing so |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Bury, Lancashire. uP NORTH !
Posts: 5,553
|
Quote:
Sorry, I don't mean to needlessly pick, but although some denominations of Christianity were persecuted (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses), I'd be a little wary of placing them on the same scale or footing of persecution as the Jews. Afterall, Nazi Germany was overwhelmingly Christian, Hitler appealed and moulded his ideology to the Christian faith, and yes, many other Christians were persecuted, but it was largely due to being anti-Nazi rather than Christian. Although I suppose when you consider a great deal of Europe was Christian and under Nazi rule, then yes, Christians were persecuted, but I wouldn't say it was for their Christianity.
My Granddad apparently hated "conchies" (conscientious objectors). I know every step of the way I'd be one (I'm a pacifist, obviously) and I say that with a sister currently serving in the military. I've a lot of respect for things like the Quaker Ambulance Service and the like. Took a lot of guts to do that. In regards to the OP's post: well it's all down to Jesus. Apparently a great many Americans think Jesus loves guns and capitalism. I'm no Jesus-freak, but he always struck me as the antithesis of gun-tooting capitalism. But religious leaders, like politicians, are easily bought. While it was honourable to fight the Nazis, Christian or not, Christianity certainly didn't stop the spread of worldwide empires, indeed - the Vatican had one of its very own, and supported many others. That's the wonderful thing about Christ and other religious figures. They have this uncanny ability to preach exactly what those who represent them say they do. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 6,447
|
Quote:
Sorry, I don't mean to needlessly pick, but although some denominations of Christianity were persecuted (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses), I'd be a little wary of placing them on the same scale or footing of persecution as the Jews. Afterall, Nazi Germany was overwhelmingly Christian, Hitler appealed and moulded his ideology to the Christian faith, and yes, many other Christians were persecuted, but it was largely due to being anti-Nazi rather than Christian. Although I suppose when you consider a great deal of Europe was Christian and under Nazi rule, then yes, Christians were persecuted, but I wouldn't say it was for their Christianity.
I thought Hitler was a sceptic when it came to religion. For political appearance-sake wasn't he more neutral, but secretly quite set against organised Christian religion? He had Goering (sp) and Bormann actively persecute the various religious organisations. Something to do with the way Christian values ran contrary to Hitler's ideas of the genetic superiority of the Aryan race. So Christians were persecuted for their beliefs. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 9,696
|
Quote:
BIB to start with..... Are you sure about that?
I thought Hitler was a sceptic when it came to religion. For political appearance-sake wasn't he more neutral, but secretly quite set against organised Christian religion? He had Goering (sp) and Bormann actively persecute the various religious organisations. Something to do with the way Christian values ran contrary to Hitler's ideas of the genetic superiority of the Aryan race. So Christians were persecuted for their beliefs. Another catholic in hitlers inner circle, said he was still a 'good member in standing'.... |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 6,447
|
Quote:
Hitler grew up a Catholic. When he ruled we would spiritualize the concept of 'providence'.
Quote:
When he ruled we would spiritualize the concept of 'providence'.
Quote:
Another catholic in hitlers inner circle, said he was still a 'good member in standing'....
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,205
|
Quote:
If they told their followers not to fight those people are likely to become the subject of violence. Other communities/religions will take over their land, jobs, wives children etc and force the believers in to the wilderness or kill them. If this happens the religion's following falls & it's ability to create wealth decreases significantly, which is something the leaders of the religions have ever wanted to happen as they are generally at the top of the pyramid basking in the luxury that the religion has brought them.
I'm an agnostic pacifist and I've yet to be forced into the wilderness. Is it only believers who are likely to become the subject of violence?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,133
|
Quote:
Sorry, I don't mean to needlessly pick, but although some denominations of Christianity were persecuted (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses), I'd be a little wary of placing them on the same scale or footing of persecution as the Jews. Afterall, Nazi Germany was overwhelmingly Christian, Hitler appealed and moulded his ideology to the Christian faith, and yes, many other Christians were persecuted, but it was largely due to being anti-Nazi rather than Christian. Although I suppose when you consider a great deal of Europe was Christian and under Nazi rule, then yes, Christians were persecuted, but I wouldn't say it was for their Christianity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Devon
Posts: 12,829
|
People perceive a threat and some resort to violence.
It may be serious, such as Ethnic Cleansing, or 'just' a change in your way of life (Beards for Muslims etc) Either way, it is how we humans behave |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,029
|
Quote:
In ww2 we had ''Bevin Boys'', coal mining for conscienscious objectors .........
Quote:
Hitler grew up a Catholic. When he ruled we would spiritualize the concept of 'providence'.
Another catholic in hitlers inner circle, said he was still a 'good member in standing'.... |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:56.





I'm an agnostic pacifist and I've yet to be forced into the wilderness. Is it only believers who are likely to become the subject of violence?