Christianitys Perpetual Support of War
Russian Orthodox Church argues that sacrificing life in war against Ukraine «washes away sins.»
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russian-orthodox-church-argues-that-sacrificing-life-in-war-against-ukraine-washes-away-sins/ar-AA12eAS2
Christianity owes much to the ancient Roman Empire, which made Christianity its official religion. The Roman Empire even got to name its God: "Jesus" is a Roman name like Brutus, Aurelius, etc. You might suspect a State such as the Roman Empire would choose a religion that serves it, a religion designed to help the State be strong and be able to defeat its enemies. Finding the truth about God would be a secondary consideration, if it was considered at all.
This would explain Christianitys ridiculous situation about salvation: Christianity has contradictory teachings about how to be saved! If either heaven or hell await, then what could be more important than learning how to gain heaven, and avoid the eternal torture of hell, a place supposedly created by a God who loves us?
Yet, in Catholic school I was taught the doctrine that dying with an unrepentant and unforgiven mortal sin meant hell. And what is a mortal sin? The Catholic Church starts with the seven cardinal sins of pride, greed, lust, wrath, gluttony, envy, and sloth. It then adds masturbation, contraception, abortion, French kissing, intentionally missing Mass on Sunday, and more. The list goes on and on. Live a mostly good life, but commit the sin of greed at age 80 and die? Too bad.
Other Christian denominations offer a much better deal for getting into heaven. Some deals are one and done, i.e., accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior and your good. Done deal. To compete with denominations that have easier requirements for getting into heaven, the Catholic teaching about heaven mysteriously disappears at funerals, where the priest invariably assumes the deceased is in heaven. Never mind if the deceased has intentionally been missing Sunday Mass for the last few decades, has been habitually prideful, greedy, lustful, whatever. In fact, Donald Trumparguably a poster boy for the seven cardinal sinsis thought by some Christians to be second only to Jesus. Really. Amazon has a book with the title President Donald J. Trump, The Son of Man - The Christ. No doubt, after Trump passes, millions of Christians will picture him in heaven.
Its easy to suspect Christianity doesnt have a clue about the afterlife and how to get into heaven. In any case, it fails to agree about how to be saved. Baptist? If Catholics are right you arent saved. Catholic? If Baptists are right you arent saved. Jesus supposedly came to give us the means of salvation but apparently did such a poor job of it that Christian denominations cant figure out what it is, even with holy men and women who, undoubtedly, pray to the Holy Spirit for insight and truth.
But if Christianity cannot clearly and unambiguously tell us how to get to heaven, what good is it? Its good for serving the needs of the State. In return, the State gives Christianity respect, privileges such as honor, freedom from taxation, laws (in over 30 U.S. states, a parent who denies medical treatment to a child on religious grounds cannot be prosecuted even if the child dies), etc.
One of the primary services of religion to the State is to help the State wage war. So, you might expect Christianity has historically given its approval to most or all wars the State wants to wage. And youd be right. Examples include the acceptance of German Lutherans and Catholics to Hitler's wars, the acceptance of Italian Catholics to Mussolini's wars, the acceptance of American Christians to the Korea, Vietnam, Iran, and Afghanistan wars, etc. Saint Augustine devised the doctrine of Just War about 1,600 years ago. The doctrine describes the conditions that must be met for a Christian to justly fight a war. Yet, the doctrine has never been used to prevent Christians from fighting wars, even with other Christians. Apparently, in the Second World War, German Lutherans justly fought American Lutherans; Italian Catholics justly fought American Catholics. (I fail to understand how a war can be just for both sides. But then Im not a Christian theologian.) Augustines Just War doctrine has historically functioned as The Rubber Stamp Approval of War doctrine.
The Second World War lasted about six years. During that time no Christian Church declared the war unjust and forbade its followers from participating under pain of sin. To the contrary, the churches provided Christian military chaplains to both sides, to tell the soldiers their cause was just, and to sometimes bless the planes and the bombs.
It has been estimated about 70 million people died in World War II. Consider 70 million people lined in a row. Imagine killing one person a second, day and night, week after week. How long would it take to kill 70 million people. The calculation is a simple one (70,000,000)/(60*60*24*365.25). We divide 70 million seconds by 60 to get minutes, by 60 again to get hours, by 24 to get days, by 365.25 to get years. Then result is over 2 years. Kill a person per second and it will take over 2 years to kill 70 million people.
Christianity and approval of war go together like the peanut butter and chocolate in a Reeses Cup.
P.S. My thanks to the Russian Orthodox Church for providing more evidence for my views.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russian-orthodox-church-argues-that-sacrificing-life-in-war-against-ukraine-washes-away-sins/ar-AA12eAS2
Christianity owes much to the ancient Roman Empire, which made Christianity its official religion. The Roman Empire even got to name its God: "Jesus" is a Roman name like Brutus, Aurelius, etc. You might suspect a State such as the Roman Empire would choose a religion that serves it, a religion designed to help the State be strong and be able to defeat its enemies. Finding the truth about God would be a secondary consideration, if it was considered at all.
This would explain Christianitys ridiculous situation about salvation: Christianity has contradictory teachings about how to be saved! If either heaven or hell await, then what could be more important than learning how to gain heaven, and avoid the eternal torture of hell, a place supposedly created by a God who loves us?
Yet, in Catholic school I was taught the doctrine that dying with an unrepentant and unforgiven mortal sin meant hell. And what is a mortal sin? The Catholic Church starts with the seven cardinal sins of pride, greed, lust, wrath, gluttony, envy, and sloth. It then adds masturbation, contraception, abortion, French kissing, intentionally missing Mass on Sunday, and more. The list goes on and on. Live a mostly good life, but commit the sin of greed at age 80 and die? Too bad.
Other Christian denominations offer a much better deal for getting into heaven. Some deals are one and done, i.e., accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior and your good. Done deal. To compete with denominations that have easier requirements for getting into heaven, the Catholic teaching about heaven mysteriously disappears at funerals, where the priest invariably assumes the deceased is in heaven. Never mind if the deceased has intentionally been missing Sunday Mass for the last few decades, has been habitually prideful, greedy, lustful, whatever. In fact, Donald Trumparguably a poster boy for the seven cardinal sinsis thought by some Christians to be second only to Jesus. Really. Amazon has a book with the title President Donald J. Trump, The Son of Man - The Christ. No doubt, after Trump passes, millions of Christians will picture him in heaven.
Its easy to suspect Christianity doesnt have a clue about the afterlife and how to get into heaven. In any case, it fails to agree about how to be saved. Baptist? If Catholics are right you arent saved. Catholic? If Baptists are right you arent saved. Jesus supposedly came to give us the means of salvation but apparently did such a poor job of it that Christian denominations cant figure out what it is, even with holy men and women who, undoubtedly, pray to the Holy Spirit for insight and truth.
But if Christianity cannot clearly and unambiguously tell us how to get to heaven, what good is it? Its good for serving the needs of the State. In return, the State gives Christianity respect, privileges such as honor, freedom from taxation, laws (in over 30 U.S. states, a parent who denies medical treatment to a child on religious grounds cannot be prosecuted even if the child dies), etc.
One of the primary services of religion to the State is to help the State wage war. So, you might expect Christianity has historically given its approval to most or all wars the State wants to wage. And youd be right. Examples include the acceptance of German Lutherans and Catholics to Hitler's wars, the acceptance of Italian Catholics to Mussolini's wars, the acceptance of American Christians to the Korea, Vietnam, Iran, and Afghanistan wars, etc. Saint Augustine devised the doctrine of Just War about 1,600 years ago. The doctrine describes the conditions that must be met for a Christian to justly fight a war. Yet, the doctrine has never been used to prevent Christians from fighting wars, even with other Christians. Apparently, in the Second World War, German Lutherans justly fought American Lutherans; Italian Catholics justly fought American Catholics. (I fail to understand how a war can be just for both sides. But then Im not a Christian theologian.) Augustines Just War doctrine has historically functioned as The Rubber Stamp Approval of War doctrine.
The Second World War lasted about six years. During that time no Christian Church declared the war unjust and forbade its followers from participating under pain of sin. To the contrary, the churches provided Christian military chaplains to both sides, to tell the soldiers their cause was just, and to sometimes bless the planes and the bombs.
It has been estimated about 70 million people died in World War II. Consider 70 million people lined in a row. Imagine killing one person a second, day and night, week after week. How long would it take to kill 70 million people. The calculation is a simple one (70,000,000)/(60*60*24*365.25). We divide 70 million seconds by 60 to get minutes, by 60 again to get hours, by 24 to get days, by 365.25 to get years. Then result is over 2 years. Kill a person per second and it will take over 2 years to kill 70 million people.
Christianity and approval of war go together like the peanut butter and chocolate in a Reeses Cup.
P.S. My thanks to the Russian Orthodox Church for providing more evidence for my views.
Comments (45)
Well, no, not really. No "J" in Latin, you see. So it became "Iesus", derived from the Greek spelling, in turn derived from the Aramaic and Hebrew forms, Yeshua or Y'shua.
Quoting Art48
It's appropriate to note that Christianity didn't become the official religion of the Empire until the 4th century C.E. By that time Rome had already reached its greatest extent. In fact, it was somewhat less than its greatest extent, some of Trajan's conquests having been lost or abandoned. So the establishment of the Empire was accomplished while most of the citizens of the Empire worshipped pagan gods, but not one in particular, pagans, unlike Christians, being quite tolerant for the most part. Sol Invictus was favored as the high god for a time, from Aurelian on, but nothing permanent.
But Christianity, once established, was zealous and relentless in assuring its predominance, and was thus imperial in its own way, that way being the suppression of any other beliefs by any means necessary. And of course Christians, when they differed with one another, were inspired to kill off or repress their erring co-religionists, and did so for many centuries. So it may be said Christianity or those who profess to be Christians have always favored war of one sort or another, despite the Gospels, and more in the spirit of the tribal god of the Jews according to the Old Testament.
Jesus says Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34). I think a substantial case could be made that Christianity, inherently, is more war-like than Judaism in that they envision a figure of pure evil (the Devil) that must be opposed (usually by force) as opposed to Judaism which has no such equivalent. Christianity is also a religion specifically designed to spread and influence other cultures, as explained in the Gospels. Again, this is not a Jewish quality. In sum, I think Christian violence in that period is reasonably understood as the continuation of the Gospel and not in contrast to it.
All good points. I've read that there was some effort to convert Gentiles to Judaism during the Empire, but nothing extensive. Frankly, I have no idea if that's true or not. I doubt there was anything extensive or any coordinated effort, though, because you're right--Christians are enjoined to spread Christianity. It ties into the Christian version of what took place at Pentecost after Jesus was crucified, I think. Jews, on the other hand, are notso enjoined, to my knowledge.
Jews were not particularly tolerant of pagan practices, of coursed, as we know from the two great revolts against Roman rule, but except in the case of rioting between Jews and pagans in Alexandria, Jews were reacting to the spread or imposition of pagan religion within Israel itself and not trying to impose Judaism on others or beyond the land they thought they'd been promised.
Intolerance combined with the belief that they were commanded to spread the Gospel would be likely to result in violence. I think you're correct. I'm sometimes overwhelmed by the rather bloodthirsty rhetoric of the Old Testament, it seems. But again, it can be argued that the violence was to be employed in conquering a certain area in particular, as opposed to the entire world.
Many Christians take that verse literally and out of context, as you've done here, as a justification for Christian violence.
Matthew 10
34Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; 36and A MANS ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD. 37He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39He who has found his life shall lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake shall find it.
Jesus is in no way advocating violence here. The sword is a metaphor. Jesus is speaking of division.
This is made clear in the parallel passage from Luke:
Luke 12
51Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; 52for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two, and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son, and son against father; mother against daughter, and daughter against mother; mother-in-law against daughter-in-law, and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.
A key concept in the gospel preached by Jesus is the division between the righteous and the unrighteous. The words spoken by Jesus while He preached His gospel are by which the division between righteous and the unrighteous will be judged. Those words are the "sword". Interestingly, it is also by the words spoken by Jesus while He preached His gospel that the unrighteous can make themselves righteous.
The OT was written roughly between 10th century BC and 4th century BC. It contains very bloodthirsty rhetoric but also very morally advanced literature, especially once you get to the Second Temple era (586 BC to 70 CE). Take, for instance, book of Jonah, written in the 5th century BC -- God expresses deep concern for Nineveh which was part of the Assyrian Empire -- Israel's ancient enemy -- as well as the animals within Nineveh. The circle of moral concern has been broadened very far from the nationalistic God of Exodus. I think a decent argument could be made that as you advance through the years you see the progression of morality, in a good way. Sacrifices are replaced with an emphasis on good deeds (this is a central message of the prophets). Moral concerns are broadened.
I don't know too much about Rome, but the story of Romulus and Remus does strike me. I don't know how important these ancient myths are or their importance within the culture. It does give me reason to pause, however, when a culture's founding tale involves bloodshed, especially between brothers -- it just seems to start a questionable precedence. Take this in contrast to the depiction of King David described in Book of Samuel who goes through lengths to establish a peaceful transition of power even though his predecessor is trying to kill him.
Quoting ThinkOfOne
I agree. I was not saying that Jesus advocates violence and bloodshed. I just think when a figure as polarizing as Jesus comes around you're going to get it though. He did bring division. I like Christianity, but it's inevitable with all the different variants and the insistence on spreading the Gospel that war will come. It's not necessarily a bad thing.
Only because the gospel preached by Jesus is not the foundation for Christianity. The gospel that Christianity is spreading is the Pauline gospel. I suspect that you responded before I edited my previous post and added another paragraph.
I haven't seen any improvements upon the observation.
Like Cain and Abel?
Cain was immediately condemned and sentenced, by God, to a life of misery.
Some endorsement of murder that is.
so... we have no clue whatsoever what the real gospel is, the gospel written by those who witnessed Jesus. We have the Pauline gospel, and nothing else.
This is rather very peculiar.
I'm not saying it's an endorsement of murder - Yahweh as genocidal thug is well understood - just the Noah's Ark story accounts for that. Yahweh's entire project is an endorsement of murder.
I was simply drawing attention to this comment from you:
Quoting Moses
Foundational narratives about a dud siblings are not rare.
Cain is not a founder of the Hebrew people. You're grasping at straws here.
God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule
[i]God
The Onion | Alerts
Sep 26, 2001, 15:00 New York time[/i]
Such texts? Does that apply to this post? I will interpret it as "I'm too intellectually lazy to actually read the Bible and try to understand it." Nothing new.
Quoting Tom Storm
The founding father is Abraham then it goes to Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. Then Moses. Moses actually does murder but under very different circumstances. We do get morally grey with the founders.
Can you elaborate on what you've written here? As it stands, it doesn't make any sense in the context of what I wrote.
It's not my reading. You're free to tell the world what exactly the "correct" reading forevermore is. I suppose you might include The Quran, The Book of Mormon, and a few more perhaps.
And this is common with other religions too. The link even far more obvious in Islam.
Quoting Art48
Thank the KGB for patriarch Kirill.
:up: :fire:
What's there to elaborate? You said that the gospels are pauline. There are no other gospels. So where does one get Jesus's teaching? Not from the bible, because that is PAULINE. You said that.
I really don't understand what you don't understand. There is one bible. It is pauline. So where is the Jesu gospel? it is not available to us, because, as you said, only the pauline gospel is what we can get.
Where is the point where I lost you?
I am a Christian and I have heard this point made before but I cannot help thinking that it sounds terribly like a dog-whistle excuse. "I know I said we should keep England for the English - but I never meant you should beat up foreigners!" This was, after all, the son of God. Even if he wasn't, he must have known how words like that from a leader get interpreted by followers.
I also like to link this whenever occasion demands, which is too often. I think it is an amazing piece of writing and an inspired solution to the problem of what a satirical website could do after 9-11.
Surely the big problem here is we have no reason to think anything in the NT is quoting whoever the character of Jesus was based on. The gospels were anonymously written decades after the events and were translations of copies of translations and it's hard to accept that their contents (which is essentially fan fiction codifying a legend) represents anything which happened.
Even Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong thinks literalism is off -
Unless biblical literalism is challenged overtly in the Christian church itself, it will, in my opinion, kill the Christian faith. It is not just a benign nuisance that afflicts Christianity at its edges; it is a mentality that renders the Christian faith unbelievable to an increasing number of the citizens of our world."
- John Shelby Spong, Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy
This point must be heard: the Gospels are first-century narrations based on first-century interpretations. Therefore they are a first-century filtering of the experience of Jesus. They have never been other than that. We must read them today not to discover the literal truth about Jesus, but rather to be led into the Jesus experience they were seeking to convey. That experience always lies behind the distortions, which are inevitable since words are limited."
? John Shelby Spong, Why Christianity Must Change or Die
That may be so. But as an answer to the problem of Jesus' saying he brings a sword and not peace - and the dog-whistle implications of that saying - it's too broad. If we say 'Well, Jesus - whoever he was - probably didn't say that' then we would be guilty of chucking out whatever he is said to have said that we don't like on the grounds that it's all unreliable anyhow - but still keeping the bits we like. Let's keep the sermon on the mount and let's chuck out 'the poor will always be with you' and consigning the fruitless vines to hell and whatever else makes us squirm, according to taste.
The trouble with Spong's quote is that people will claim to have the Jesus experience from any old bit of nonsense, having dismissed the Bible as 'first-century'. He mentions that century three times to convince us how poor the narrative is. Was it a particularly bad century for unreliable narratives? I'm not sure that ours is any better.
But he is also right, it's a matter of spirit and in particular the Holy Spirit, not the dead letter of the law. Granted.
As with any text some readings are deeper than others. Some readings of any given text could be idiotic. Just because there might be several ways to interpret something doesnt mean that it is endlessly flexible.
Incidentally, this is exactly how Christianity functions as it stands (but without the skepticism). Religious folk base their version of Jesus on subjective grounds or personal preferences, cherry picking a verse here or there, or even just holding an interpretation based on no familiarity with the text at all. Can there be any living faith that doesn't ultimately come down to subjective preferences?
I'm not a mythicist, so I'm not saying that Jesus wasn't based on an actual person. Just that we have nothing reliable to go by. This matters when we project God status onto the narrative; unlike the other first century folk.
Well, it was a dispute among brothers, which led to bloodshed, but Remus wasn't killed by Romulus. The dispute was over where the city to be known as Rome was to be founded. Remus preferred the Aventine Hill, Romulus the Palatine Hill. The brothers agreed to settle the dispute by recourse to the practice of augury, which involved prediction through the observed behavior of birds (thought to have originated with the Etruscans). I don't know the details of the ritual, but it was performed and Remus saw six birds while Romulus saw 12, meaning, it seems, that the gods chose the Palatine Hill.
Remus refused to accept the result, and commenced building his city on the Aventine. Romulus began building his on the Palatine. Romulus began building a city wall, but while it was being built Remus climbed over it and began to insult his brother. Violence broke out, and one of Romulus' followers killed Remus. Romulus saw to it that his brother was accorded all honors and an appropriate burial.
It's thought that the myth of the brothers was significant to Romans because they first triumphed over adversity together, avoiding death initially by being suckled by a she-wolf, then raised by a shepherd, and succeeding ultimately in gaining revenge against the king who wanted them murdered, knowing their semi-divine origins (through Mars and their human mother). So, unity among Romans led to their success. But Remus broke that unity, and refused to follow the choice of the gods, and so was killed.
Okay. Evidently you misunderstood what I wrote. The problem is that I did NOT say what you say I said.
Contrast what you say I said with what I actually wrote:
Quoting ThinkOfOne
The gospel preached by Jesus is contained in the words attributed to Jesus from the beginning of His ministry through His crucifixion as documented in Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.
Paul subsequently all but ignored the underlying concepts of the gospel preached by Jesus and created a "gospel" of his own with very different underlying concepts. Paul even called it "my gospel". This is the Pauline gospel.
So, the gospel that Christianity is spreading is the Pauline gospel. Not the gospel preached by Jesus. Just as I wrote. NOT what you say I said.
Christians have a long history of taking scripture out of context and deluding themselves into believing that it supports whatever self-serving belief they may have. When Matthew 10:34 is placed in the context of (34-39) the meaning is clear. It is made even more clear in the context of Luke 12:51-53. Even clearer within the context of the gospel preached by Jesus in its entirety.
A recurring theme throughout the four gospels is that Jesus speaks figuratively, many in the audience take it literally and fail to understand what Jesus is saying (as with Matthew 10:34). Of those who fail to understand Jesus had the following to say:
John 8
43Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot listen to My word. 44You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he tells a lie, he speaks from his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of lies.
In what way can such Christians reasonably be called "followers" of Jesus?
Christians have a long history of [s]taking scripture out of context and deluding themselves into believing that it supports[/s] using scripture to support whatever self-serving belief they may have.
Context is the apologist's "get out of jail free" card, but they also use speaking figuratively and other devices.
Would we need to demonstrate that they intended to misinterpret the Bible? It seems more likely that they are sincere and that the Bible is like a Rorschach test - people see whatever is in them in it. Which is why arguing about the meaning of a Bible verse (in the full realization of scripture's interpretative fecundity) is about as useful as an extra dick.
Glad we got that resolved.
No religion that really insists on peace can become established - Jainism, for example, but tolerance for doublethink is amazingly high, and people are quite capable of banging on about turning the other cheek whilst also banging away with their kalashnikov at anyone who disagrees.
Of course, that's possible in some cases, especially if the person is naive and simply takes their preachers word as to what the bible says. But sincere belief is rare in my experience compared to self-serving belief.
I'd say the best account is that people use the Bible to give themselves support for whatever they wish to believe. People will claim they are merely following the Bible when they, for example, kick their child out of their home for being gay or refusing to bake a wedding cake. But show them Matthew 5:33-36 where Jesus clearly says not to take oaths and it rolls off like water on a duck. They couldn't care less what the Bible says. They merely use it when convenient, when it serves their self-interest.
I hear you and there is much merit to what you say here but I also think this is a limited notion of self-interest. It is impossible to read anything without a lens of self-interest or subjectivity. We are meaning making creatures who use language to manage our environment. A book of wisdom literature (whatever it is) is always going to be interpreted or shaped by one's worldview and perspectives, no matter how innocent or malicious. It's unavoidable. There is no direct access to a text.
Let's move the Bible to one side and take the Koran.
Believers can interpret the Koran in ways which seem barbaric or enlightened. I don't think it is fair to say that one group is self-interested, while the other is doing god's work. The fact is they are both doing god's work from their own self-interested positions. There is nothing in barbarism that precludes sincerity and good intentions.
You and me both. Unfortunately it seems to be quite rare nowadays. And getting rarer. Especially since the rise of Trump. Never admit that you're wrong. Just keep slinging the BS. Facts don't matter. Solid evidence doesn't matter. Sound reasoning doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that they believe that they are right.
Russian Church Leader's Sacrilegious Claim: Says Soldiers Can Cleanse Their Sins by Dying in Ukraine (Sep 27, 2022)
It literally feels like they still live in Middle Age