War and Religion

Man ~ this is interesting reading :-) --- I love to sit back and read, and watch others take part and debate what’s right / wrong, Offensive / not offensive. Especially over such a controversial issue as religion and ethnicity
 
Originally posted by acidtuch10

Especially over such a controversial issue as religion and ethnicity
Click to expand...
Yes, one of the two things that should never be discussed in public. The other is politics. :) Guess we don't go by that rule here do we? :rolleyes:
Honestly though, I usually don't try to get involved in this kind of thing. The problem is that some un-named parties seem to not be completely open to other people's views, and, as it seems to this person's method of thought, seem to try to downplay them.
I do, in-fact, agree with most of Scott's views, but I do not think that he should be 'imposing' them on other people of other religions who don't always agree with them.

NOW, I will post my stand on the subject.
First, a little background: I am a youth who is currently going through confirmation in a United Methodist church. I am having some issues with faith, but that is not something I wish to get into here. I shall write this as though I am a devout Christian.
My mother is/was a Quaker by upbringing, and as most of you probably know, Quakers are completely anti-war. They are not even supposed/allowed to sign up in any of the armed forces. This gives me a strong anti-war foundation to build off of, and right now I am fairly strongly influenced by this.

My opinion is that you cannot use war to teach peace. If you want peace to must be prepared to cooperate with your enemy. Sure, you can go in and kill Saddam Hussein and tear down his government, but if you don't fix the underlying problem of anti-U.S. sentiment in most of the world (and particularly in the Mid-East) then the same thing is just going to happen all over again. I recently saw some figures to effect of only about 10% of the world's population, outside of the U.S. and Israel (which is, by the way, the only country in the world right now where the majority of the population supports the U.S. And this only because the U.S. has been perfectly nasty to all of Israel's neighbors) support the U.S. and it's policies.

I do not go in for this 'preemptive action' thing from Mr. Bush, and I think that the arms inspections should have been allowed to continue. After all, Iraq had not, as of when the war started, attacked us, or anyone else. (And no, do not bring up the first Gulf War, etc.)
Now, if Iraq had attacked us, then I think things would have been different.

Originally posted by ScottW
I would bet $$$ that 95% of those who show up at a anti-war debate, don't really know all the details... they are only followers, with nothing better to do.
Click to expand...
I take offense to this. I am fairly certain that I know pretty much everything that is/has going/gone on in Iraq. Yet, I am still a confirmed anti-war protester.
I wear a button. It says 'War: not in my name' I have had many people come up to me and say 'Can I get one of those?' or 'I agree' or even just 'Thank you'. Things like that. I haven't had anyone come up and debate me or anything yet. (Maybe they just have the sense to keep quiet though ;) ) Now, I trust most of these people, and I do not think that they do not know the details. If anything, I would say that they probably know more about this thing than most pro-war people do. Of course most of these people are part of either my Quaker Meeting, or my Methodist church. Which leads me to my next point: I think that those Christians who are pro-war are significantly outnumbered by their anti-war brethren. Scott, you can argue this until the end of time, but I doubt that there are many people in either of my churches who are pro-war. Now assuming that these churches are even close to a representation of most parishes out there, I would say that you are probably in a severe minority. I think that every person must make a choice some time or other. Having said that, I don't think you will be damned until the end of time because you are pro-violence. ;)

Bad things would probably have happened if Saddam had remained in power, but bad things will certainly (and are already) happen from this war. These things that will cause great damage that will not always be easy to repair. But I am sure that we, with whatever God we choose to worship (or not, as the case may be) will find a peaceful solution in the end!


Okay, I think I am finished now! :)
 
Hmm... Let's see. I hang around w/ a bunch of people who are by their nature anti-war... therefore, I will cast a stone and vote that MORE people are anti-war than those who are anti anti-war.

::rollingeyes::

Man, good thing I don't need some quarters, cause not much cents is being made here.
 
I've kept quiet up til now on this topic, but will now say my piece, for what it is worth :)

The assumption is here that everyone professes a religion. I find that very presumptuous. Sure, most people do but a lot don't nor should religion be equated with morality as they are two separate things.

The natural order of things is THE only way to approach life. Darwin got real close to explaining the situation but he was troubled too much with his religion. Anyone who believes otherwise is simply too scared to face the fact that there is no God. That life on this planet is the beginning and the ending, that life itself, whether it be of a star, a dinosaur, a river, or man is simply part of a long process that will not and cannot be altered by the intervention of a divine being.

How does war fit into the above? As with any system there needs to be a balance. When the wolves die off, the deer multiply until there is not enough food and then they begin to die off until balance has returned to that ecosystem. War is how we as humans have always tried to maintain that balance and it can be military, economic, social or environmental.

We are animals first, "humans" second.

The animalistic side of me wants to see every dictatorship in this world destroyed no matter how great the cost, the humanistic side of me says there are better ways to achieve it than the way GW has.
 
ugg- i would argue that you are still coming from a religious/spiritual point of view when reasoning this. there is no assumption that religion/spirituality must have a banner or organization or even a name. certainly atheisim is a 'religious' perspective. it just supposes the lack of a God rather than the existence of one. many athiests accept this as witnessed by previous discussions here in the past, while many do not. for those who do, i welcome their input. for those who don't and just want to gripe about this subject not being for them, too bad. i don't participate in threads about laptops, pdas and cellphones. it doesn't bother me though.

i would also consider science a 'religion' if one uses it as their primary way of informing their views of what is and what is not. at any rate, i appreciate your contribution and feel it makes perfect sense in the context of this thread.
 
dlloyd: i didn't read your entire post. I will print it out and drink it before i go to bed to make me sleep. It is like warm milk.
nah, i'll read it now :p
 
Originally posted by ScottW
Hmm... Let's see. I hang around w/ a bunch of people who are by their nature anti-war... therefore, I will cast a stone and vote that MORE people are anti-war than those who are anti anti-war.
Click to expand...

Ooookay, where to start....
First off, I did not say that anti-war people outnumber pro-war people, I said that I think that anti-war Christians outnumber pro-war Christians. There is a major difference, please read things more carefully!
I guess this brings up the topic of who is really a 'Christian'. I believe that true Christians have a personal relationship with God. Therefore, although George W. Bush claims to be a Methodist, I don't believe that he has a personal relationship with God. Now, I don't know this for a fact, but based on what he has been doing lately, this is my conclusion.

Man, good thing I don't need some quarters, cause not much cents is being made here.
Click to expand...
I won't even start in on your grammar ;)
However, this statement is implying that you think my opinions are worthless.
I am sorry that you feel that way, but as Ed said, this thread was started for posting opinions and not having to worry about guarding against those who would attack us for what we posted.
I therefore respectfully request that you please refrain from doing this.
I apologize if I made you feel like you had to defend yourself, it wasn't intended that way.
 
Originally posted by dlloyd
Ooookay, where to start....
First off, I did not say that anti-war people outnumber pro-war people, I said that I think that anti-war Christians outnumber pro-war Christians. There is a major difference, please read things more carefully!
I guess this brings up the topic of who is really a 'Christian'. I believe that true Christians have a personal relationship with God. Therefore, although George W. Bush claims to be a Methodist, I don't believe that he has a personal relationship with God. Now, I don't know this for a fact, but based on what he has been doing lately, this is my conclusion.
Click to expand...

Well, considering that only God knows our hearts, I really don't know how you think that GW is NOT a born-again Christian. I would have to say that I do believe he is a Christian. He is a sinner, as I am as well. I see more actions in the public eye that show he is a Christian, than I do see that would point to that he is not. (haven't found any yet).

Scott
 
There was one thing that I forgot to say in my first and second posts: Scott mentioned that
"We are not saved by our works, but by faith alone."
Now it is probably not necessary to this thread that I say this, but I do not agree (again!! ;) ) with this.
I believe that Mother Theresa, as nice as she was, could not have got into heaven if she didn't believe in God.
Returning to the Scott's earlier example of Hitler, I think he could have become a Christian right before he died, and he would have gone to heaven, dispite all the atrocities he had commited. Unlike Scott though, I believe that you must 'live your speak' to some extent. In other words, I do not think that Hitler could have been a Christian while he was doing those dastardly acts.
I guess this means that I don't think that you can get into heaven on faith alone if you are torturing people at the same time.
 
dlloyd...

Well, I just quote the Bible (see earlier post), it's not really a matter of what *I* think, it is what God thinks.
 
I know, you said that. The thing is that I think you only quote those verses which serve you. I'm sure I could find verses in the Bible which support my side of the argument as well, but quoting those here would make me as bad as you.
I don't want to preach, I just want to state my views. Like this thread was originally intended for. Why can't you do that too, Scott?

Edited for spelling
 
I'm not the one stirring the pot here dlloyd. You make statements you can't back up. You find me verses that "support" your view point, I would be interested in viewing them.

BTW - All the verses I use are used in context of what they are written.

Also, you changed the statement earlier... I said *IF* Hitler had been a Christian and did all that bad stuff, he still would be saved.

The statement (of which you changed it too) was not, "If Hitler had been a Christian, would he had done those awful things?" I agree with you, I doubt that he would have, but that is a different discussion, not my original statement.

You twist and turn things around.

You opened a can of worms... time to starting eating. So, go ahead, post your verses, even if they "serve your purposes" as you say.
 
For everyone else in this thread... you may freely state your beliefs and opinions w/o feeling like you will need to defend yourself.

The certain gentleman who happens to claim to be a "Christian (pending)" who is discounting my views... must stand up to a debate among "similiarly grouped" view points.

Anyone who claims to be part of a "religion" or belief system, yet discounts it... really needs to back up what they are saying.

It would be like Ed saying... I'm a athiest, but I really don't agree with the athiest beliefs. Makes no sense.
 
Originally posted by ScottW
I'm not the one stirring the pot here dlloyd. You make statements you can't back up. You find me verses that "support" your view point, I would be interested in viewing them.

BTW - All the verses I use are used in context of what they are written.

Also, you changed the statement earlier... I said *IF* Hitler had been a Christian and did all that bad stuff, he still would be saved.

The statement (of which you changed it too) was not, "If Hitler had been a Christian, would he had done those awful things?" I agree with you, I doubt that he would have, but that is a different discussion, not my original statement.

You twist and turn things around.

You opened a can of worms... time to starting eating. So, go ahead, post your verses, even if they "serve your purposes" as you say.
Click to expand...

Ah, but Hitler did claim to be a Christian in Mein Kampf - http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm

I guess, though, that by the precepts of Godwin's Law, this thread is already dead... :)
 
My Dad is making me go to bed now, but know that I have read your posts, Scott, and will respond to them in full tomorrow morning.
 
I would make a distinction between what is required of us as Christians, and what is required for salvation. As Scott has pointed out, and quoted a number of good verses to support, salvation is by faith alone. Someone who has faith in Jesus, regardless of what they have done or will do in the future, is saved. Once saved, however, God does expect us to do good works. For example, Ephesians 2:10 says "For we are... created in Christ Jesus for good works..." please note that this comes right after verses 8 and 9 which state very clearly that "by grace you have been saved through faith...not the result of works" just so that there is no confusion. So essentially, while we are saved by faith, we were created to do good works.

To put it another way, which might make more sense, I would use the father/child analogy which appears many times throughout the Bible. The day I was born (actually, more like the day I was conceived, but that is totally immaterial :) ) I became my fathers son. As I grew, he required certain things of me, such as cleaning my room, taking out the garbage, etc. Now I may or may not have actually done them, but regardless of this I was still his son. Even if I never cleaned my room a day in my life, I would still be his son. As Christians, our relationship with God is much the same. The day that we accept Jesus as our Lord and savior, God adopts us as his children. This adoption is permanent (although I do believe it is possible to give up your salvation, that is another discussion). However, like any good father, God does have certain things he requires of his children. One of these is doing good works. It is not a requirement to BE a child, but it is a requirement AS a child. And again, like any good father, if we do not live up to his requirements (as we won't) while he may be saddened and angered, and may even punish us for not living up to his requirements, he WILL NOT disown us.

So yes, good works are required, and you can find verses in the Bible to support this. However, they are not SALVATION requirements. That is by faith alone.

I hope I made some sense here. I don't do this sort of thing very often :)
 
Originally posted by dlloyd
I guess this means that I don't think that you can get into heaven on faith alone if you are torturing people at the same time.
Click to expand...

Originally posted by scottw
Well, I just quote the Bible (see earlier post), it's not really a matter of what *I* think, it is what God thinks.
Click to expand...

/stirring pot

I think one of the problems here in all of this quoting and hypothesizing is that people are overlooking the bit about how one must "repent" their sins in order to be forgiven for them. Just saying "forgive me" is not enough - you have to appreciate the fact you screwed up and accept your actions for what they were.

Now one thing that I think Scott's quotes imply is that you can do anything you want with the expectation of forgiveness for your sins. "Oh it's OK I am a sinner and God knows that, sorry." This I think is what dlloyd is objecting to since it doesn't seem right, somebody is getting off on a technicality. But actually in the absence of some epiphany later on such premeditation precludes repentance - you may say your sorry but you don't mean it - you don't really repent.

When you think about it repentance is really a high mark to reach. Keep in mind that being sorry for having to face the consequences of your actions, be it through hellfire or afterschool detention, is not the same as repenting the actions themselves.


-Eric
 
kenny - this thread was predestined to make mistakes as soon as it started. i knew that. yet one more resaon i asked that this not become a debate about 'facts'. of course adding in other info and alternative interpretations as you and others have done is a good thing i think. still, the question is about personal beliefs, not 'facts'.

so kenny, macavenger, and lurk - what are your answers to the original question(s) i asked?
 
Originally posted by ScottW
dlloyd...

Well, I just quote the Bible (see earlier post), it's not really a matter of what *I* think, it is what God thinks.
Click to expand...

ScottW, you are not quoting the Bible. You are quoting one English translation of one version of the Bible.

I would suggest that all Christian (and Christianity interested people) study a little bit of (ancient) Hebrew. This is full of information. The way the language has been formed, it's capabilities and limitations that are different from modern English or French should lead us to some distances with direct quoting.

(I don't pretend to be an expert in languages, and for sure I'm not an expert in ancient Hebrew... )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top