Wars Caused By Religion

[Theland]

Which religion caused which war?
It is sad to see so many ABers holding the view that Christianity, (true Bible based Christianity, that is, not the 'in name only' variety), has been responsible for causing wars.
There is a difference between physically attacking people for their beliefs, and being attacked for holding a belief.
So, which particular religion was responsible for causing which particular war?

[Lighter]

Dawkins -
When you said to Theland <<yet you are able to ignore the central message of the jesus story>> I pointed out that actually the central, first and foremost message of the Bible is God's love for men and salvation through Christ Jesus His Son, not as you assumed teachings such as 'turn the other cheek' etc ,(though of course they are important).

As for me, and all men, being evil let me introduce you to another core Christian belief.
"For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God"
"There is none righteous, no not one"
"For the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth"
"For I know that in me,(that is in my flesh), dwelleth no good thing".

We are all sinners, that's why God sent His Son, who sinned not, to die for us, seeing were unable to keep His law.
Each one of us, Christian and atheist alike is capable of the most atrocious crimes.

You think that Nazi anti-semitism was directly from the New Testament !!
The New Testament teaches love towards the Jews! They were the first ones the apostles were to evangalise. And today there is no other group that gives as much support and care toward Jews across the world than bible believing Christians.
Hitler was an atheist, his ethical viewpoint, (ie racism and genocide) had more to do with Darwin's 'The Origin of Species' and theories of eugenics than your ludicrous suggest of the Bible.

[Theland]

dawkins - War has always been a moral dilemma for Christians. That is why for example, during WW2, some went to war whilst others refused on grounds of conscience, or if they did go, would serve as medics etc rather than on the front line.
I have no problem "turning the other cheek" if I am personally affronted, but I have gone to the rescue of people in distressfrom violence. Was I wrong to do that? To save a victim from an assailant?
But when it comes to nation against nation, should I support our government for defending us from aggression, even if that meant preemptive action to prevent greater carnage?

[dawkins]

Lighter

I know what you meant. Restating what you believe to be the central message of the bible doesn't address my question re Theland (not that you should answer for him mind you) The bible is allegorical. If you can't get the simple morality of thou shalt not kill then what use is it apart from a mechanism to combat your fears of death?

'All men are capable of the most atrocious crimes'. I partly agree with you here, however: There is a limit to the atrocities that any one person can commit and it is easier to stop an individual from committing atrocities. Autocratic/Theocratic systems of gov't are by definition absolutist and tend towards intolerance and violence Democracies tend to be more tolerant and less violent. This same Yardstick can be applied whether the state is communist (Stalin's Russia), Muslim (Hussain's Iraq) or Christian (Nazi Germany).

Now what did hitler believe? In 1922 he said 'my feelings as a christian points me to the lord and saviour as a fighter'. In 1923 Hitler said 'the first thing to do is to rescue germany from the jew who is ruining our country ... we want to prevent our germany from suffering, as another did, the death upon the cross': And in Mein Kampf: 'by defending myself against the jew I am fighting for the work of the lord'. And don't forget that Hitler didn't carryout his atrocities single-handed.

And tell me why the corruption of Darwinism is any different from the corruption of religion or the corruption of e=mc squared?

[dawkins]

No theland I think your morals are finely tuned to self preservation as opposed to belief in salvation but I think we all feel like that, its darwinian survival programming or put more simply, kin selection. What special status is a country in your religion?

I'm just thinking as per your initial question, if you believe that just believing in christ gets you salvation then morally that's a free lunch. Wars are never started by christians as long as you can frame your enemy as a potential threat and what odds because we are all sinners and coveting your neighbours ox is as bad as murder and as long as you believe in jesus it doesn't really matter.

Just in case you don't understand me:

You tailor your religion to fit your beliefs. You take selectively from the bible the bits that suit you. The bible is not a path, it is a crutch.

[Lighter]

Dawkins - <<And tell me why the corruption of Darwinism is any different from the corruption of religion or the corruption of e=mc squared? >>

Well setting aside energy-mass equivalence, the belief in Darwinism certaintly corrupts one's world view. Believing that God made you and believing that sheer random improbable chance made you has got to affect the way you live and view life. Either you are answerable to God and there is a reason for everything, or you can do what you want as you're not much more than an animal.

With the arrival of 'Origin of the Species', with it's unscientific and racist teachings, followers of Darwin believed that other races, aborigines, pygmies etc were less developed evolutionary than whites. In fact in Australia 'crackshots' were brought over to hunt down aborigines, the best 'examples' being decapitated and their skulls brought back for display. (The Smithsonian has thousands of human skulls in its vaults)

Compare this with the Christian missionary John Patton who, in the same era, went to preach the Gospel to the peoples of Papa New Guinea. The people here were cannibals, already having killed many who went over before. However by the end of his life, tens of thousands of these people, who evolutionists said were subhuman, had turned to Christ, many going on to be preachers themselves.

I know which belief I'd rather be 'corrupted' by

[dawkins]

I dunno lighter, I want you to address the fallacy of your own arguments but you keep going off in weird (but interesting) directions.

I must admit I've never heard about evolutionists hunting people for sport. I wonder if you could provide some background so that I can check it out. The racist claim is exactly what I mean concerning corrupting darwinism:

Evolution theory says that the human race is one species. Genetically speaking we can trace the evolution of migrant populations as they radiated from africa. In-fact, evolutionary genetics shows us that you or I are as closely related to an african or aboriginal australian as we are to each other. Evolution is a naturalistic explanation of life. Evolution theory cannot be racist unless you declare racial groups as separate species. and declare that evolution is hierarchical. Evolution theory does neither of these things.

The ku klux clan. A white protestant born-again christian group (of which we do have evidence) are racist white supremacist, anti-catholic, anti-jew and anti-darwinist. I would consider the KKK to be a corruption of christianity. I don't tar all christians with a KKK brush but if I adopted your reasoning I might. I thought christianity was supposed to help you to see the best in people and avoid judgement!.

E=MC Squared: The equation that opened the door to the atomic bomb. I was wondering if in light of Einstein's equation being misused by a christian you would be pronouncing einsteinism evil and spread the word that einsteinists travel around looking to kill and maim at any opportunity? After all it can't be christian harry trumans fault for deciding to press the button.

[Lighter]

Hi Dawkins -
I'm not sure about evolutionists hunting aborigines for sport, but aborigines were shot for research purposes. Thousand of bodies were shipped back to Britain and the US in the search for a 'missing link' (as Darwin had said, the lack of such would debunk his theory).

Several world fairs, in Europe and America had evolutionary displays of live aboriginals, pygmies etc, the most famous being a man called, (if I get the name right), Ota Benga, a married man with children who was caught and displayed in a zoo!

Is it not also true that evolutionists believed that whites, blacks and chinese etc evolved from different types of monkey/apes?

[dawkins]

This is getting tedious lighter, you ignore my points, hell, you ignore everyone's points: I think you'll find that Otto was caught by a christian slave trader (king leopold 2 of belgium) and sold to a christian missionary who was in africa collecting 'Exhibits' for the world fairs. Not very christian behaviour by the missionary but then he was probably fortified by Exod. 21:20-21 which condones slavery. Similar arguments to Exod.21:20-21 were put forwarded by churches in their support of slavery perhaps because Jesus failed to condemn slavery in examples such as: Matt. 24:45-46. Why did jesus fail to condemn slavery? Similar justifications through calvinist teachings of predetermination propped up south african apartheid. Dutch reformed churches even built separate churches for 'black,' 'coloured' and 'white' congregations. Then we have 'the curse of ham' used by many christian groups including the mormons as justification for slavery and a bar on interracial marriage and playing an important role in maintaining racial segregation in the southern US into the 1960's. And this was mainstream church thinking in the mid twentieth century. So, we have both protestant and catholic faiths, and old school and born again christians indulging in extreme racism well into the twentieth century claiming biblical justification. Its not surprising because religion hightens differences and gives an excuse for intolerance. Should I tar all christians with the same brush?