Probably about all of you are familiar with this quote:

"Gentlemen, do your duty!"

Throughout history, organized religion has been used as a weapon to exclude, terrorize, demonize, and kill those it deems to be "enemies."


What would you do when you are told to hate, repress, or kill?


Would you obey out of fear, or would you resist?


Or would you do nothing?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/05/2022 11:35AM by anybody.

Luckily I can pretend I don't speak or understand English...


I would like to think that I'd resist out of fear!

Political hate can do the same thing.
Stalin starved 10 million Ukrainians to achieve a political goal. Hitler also killed millions.
Hate comes in many different forms.
Yes religions have their moments also
just look at MMM.

I have, and several friends, find it confusing that it's okay to go to war and kill but the 6th commandment says, "thou shall not kill."

Religion slays me.

Bright shiny object.

Still remember the signs "Kill a Commie for Christ" at BYU during the few Anti-War rallies against the Viet Nam war.

The longer hair and public demonstrations made it easier for ROTC types to find who to go and "correct" after the rallies.

A silly question, isn't it?

All three of the Abrahamic religions are based on the principles enshrined in the OT, which demand on penalty of temporal and eternal death, that one kill one's enemies. In fact, those principles require that in some circumstances you kill your own children.

Kids should have their own religion!!

They have Santa, but due to energy costs kids in Europe are being deliberately naughty in hopes of getting a lump of coal.

Imma steal this one!

For some reason ("global warming, maybe?") the prevailing winds this year are from the northwest. Germany's optimal wind farms are situated to exploit winds from the northeast.

That's not tough. Most people are always convinced they are doing the right thing.

Obedience already comes with automatic justification. This is not rocket science.

No one has told me to kill anyone and I'm OK with that.

If someone did tell me to kill my enemies, I might just say "OK, but anyone that asks me to kill my enemies is my enemy."

"The enemy of my enemies is my enemy..."


...this is going to be a hard sell, metaphysically...

The enemas of my enemas are my enemas....metaphorically speaking.

I'm glad you weren't speaking meteorologically!

Roy G Biv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The enemas of my enemas are my
> enemas....metaphorically speaking.

If you are Brigham Young you Do It with Consecrated Oil.

I have to admit my bishop never asked me to kill anyone.

From NIV Bible:

Luke 6:27-31:

“But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you."

35: "But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back."


These scriptural thoughts (and similar ones in other scriptures) always spoke the loudest to me. I haven't given much thought to any that speak of war and death. As in the OT isn't my first go-to part of the Bible.

"God is Love" is pretty much the main message I responded to from an early age because, I guess, it reflects how I want to be myself.

Yeah, I'm pretty obviously not a Bible scholar.

That's all I've got.

Except, in terms of Christians going to war, there are also scriptures instructing followers to obey secular leaders. So if your country is at war and you are conscripted, as a Christian you are duty bound to go on that count, and any others that you hold as crucial to your own convictions.

I do somewhat identify with conscientious objectors though. It must be an excruciating moral dilemma for some people. I'd likely obey, train up, and then become cannon fodder because I'd hesitate to pull a trigger.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/05/2022 08:26PM by Nightingale.

Christianity is such a mixed bag. On the one hand, you are taught that God is love, and that Jesus is the epitome of love and compassion. But you are also taught that if you don't believe in Jesus as savior, you are not going to heaven, and that sins will be dealt with harshly. It's a wonder that anyone ever makes sense of it.

Honestly, Nightingale, I don't see you enlisting and dying as cannon fodder. I'd see you more as a medic because, 1. you work as a nurse, which means you've already had some training in medicine and 2. you'd be trying to do the opposite of killing people.

And if it makes you feel better, one of the reasons I chose to serve in the US Navy was because I didn't want to shoot people.

Thank you, ookami, for the kind comments. You seem to know me well!

I would be the medic in the crowd, for sure.

Fortunately you had a choice of which service to join. I don't blame you for wanting to avoid close combat, if possible.

I've often thought of all those who have been drafted, with no choice but to obey and then to die young. It haunts me. I could never stand to watch war movies but my parents liked them. I was always the one in the corner of the room with eyes closed and ears plugged. I recently watched a series that included some scenes of young men fighting in WW1 and 2. I didn't avoid them in time and I can't stop seeing the replays in my head. The movies are too realistic for me. I always identify with the soldiers who express fear. That would be me. Not to mention having to kill other young people in order to survive oneself. It's just horrific.

I would also be a sitting duck because I would believe it if an enemy soldier said "we come in peace". I'm a lost cause that way.

Having relatives in England who suffered the world wars makes it even more real. Maybe that's why it comes home to me so much.

I've always been afraid that even as a nurse I'd be out of place because (1) I'm squeamish and the wounds were ghastly and (2) I'd likely be closer to the action and I'd be too scared.

You'd think after two world wars that were enormously costly in every way possible we wouldn't do that again.

Sometimes it seems as though we haven't 'evolved' past a quite primitive stage.

That's partly too what drew me to religion at a young age. All I heard was the peace message. It was highly appealing. It suits my personality and way of being. However, as ample evidence indicates, religion is not a recipe for peace either. All too often quite the opposite. As is discussed in this very thread.

It's so very disappointing. And likely without a quick or easy solution for a long time to come.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/07/2022 05:27PM by Nightingale.

Avoiding close combat, a grandfather who sailed in World War II, and the desire to see the ocean worked too. Plus, there was no way I could pay for college without the G.I. Bill (you serve for at least two years and the government pays for four years of college. And the benefits can be passed to a family member). I was an economic conscript.

Some guys like Captain Kirk, others Captain America. I related to Captain Edmund Blackadder; battlefields are dangerous and should be avoided.

My theory on why we haven't learned from the horrors of both World Wars: the United States was only attacked once, so Americans tend to glorify that time period. Unfortunately, we tend to forget why that war started and some of the mistakes we made (the internment of Japanese Americans is part of the history some folks don't want taught).

Finally, attacks in the Navy are targeted to ships, so individual sailors had a low risk of being targets. This means, however, if the ship sinks and you survive, you might not be surviving long. It takes time for a rescue ship to come for you, they're having to look somewhere in the ocean, and the reverse osmosis filters in a life raft (to remove the salt from sea water and make it drinkable) can only last so long. And that's if you're able to fit in a raft. There's a reason the building US Navy recruits are trained in sea survival and swimming is named after the U.S.S. Indianapolis. I could have coasted by in the US Air Force, but no, I had to choose the beauty of the sea. At least I got some good stories and friends out of it.

The Priors find out the truth about their supposed "gods" and what they want them to do in their name...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_hfTEGMChs

From the SG-1 movie - The ancients' Ark Of Truth is finally opened, making the Priors and thus their followers learn the truth about the Ori, which makes Adria's powers diminish enough to be a fair match for Morgan Le Fay.

Depends on what scriptures you read. In the Old Testament it’s slaughter the pagans. In the New Testament it’s turn the other cheek and love thy enemy. In the Book of Mormon it’s off with the heads and arms.

Is the Book of Revelation in the Old Testament? Because it calls on the followers of Jesus to wage war against non-believers.

“Depends on what scriptures you read”

It’s all relative. It depends on the circumstances. Sometimes killing is viewed as a crime and other times you get medals and praise for killing. One person’s freedom fighter is another person’s terrorist. Life is a prism of perspectives. Everyone justifies what they do differently. The victors can write their version of the history.

At the end of the day, it’s about winning so your version of the story becomes the official narrative.

Yeah, there it is again. You said the OT preaches violence and the NT preaches peace. I pointed out that one of the most violent books in the Bible is in the NT and you try to obfuscate in reply.

The point that you insist on missing is that Christianity inherited the violent imagery and commandments of the OT as indicated by the inclusion of Revelation in the NT.

What you are now saying is that the believer gets a peaceful gospel from the NT if he ignores the violent parts of it, which is of course true of the OT and the Quran and for that matter Mein Kampf as well.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the believer gets
> a peaceful gospel from the NT if he ignores the
> violent parts of it

I can't argue with this.

We all have our favourite verses and concepts, I find.

It's what I do! The cherry-picking I mean.


NB: I deleted my last sentence in this post after LW responded to my comment because I wrote it mainly as a throw-away kind of remark that now I find a bit personal so I nuked it. I don't think its absence changes the main content of my other statements or opinions or positions. Also, it doesn't change the import or impact of LW's comments.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2022 08:26PM by Nightingale.

With the Crusades, the Inquisition, the European religious wars, and expansionist imperialism Christianity is responsible for vastly more violence than Judaism at least in an absolute sense and probably in relative terms as well. For Israel/Judea was never populous and strong enough to do any of the genocidal things YHWH ordered the nation to do.

Describing Christianity as "peaceful" requires as selective a reading of history as of scripture.

You could make the point that Revelations was written much later and for a different purpose. But yet, it was still included in the NT.

For those who need it, a brusher-up on the Bhagavad Gita:

Prince Arjuna, the rightful heir to the throne, is being opposed by uncles, cousins, brothers who claim it for themselves. Duty is clear: fight and kill the usurpers and retake control of your kingdom. "But they're relatives...how can I kill my family?" And so he sinks down in depression and refuses to fight. Up steps his chariot-driver, the God Krishna, who chides him and says, "Do your duty!" And explains why.

Because it's an allegory. Arjuna, the human self, finds his life taken over by all these pretenders to authority--his conditioned thoughts, feelings, habits, beliefs--things he grew up with and are so much a part of his identity that they're 'family.' But they're not: they are false identifications, and they are intent on running his 'kingdom.' To become enlightened, to be one's True Self, one must detach from and "slay" all the false selves, the alien voices trying to run your life. They masquerade as "you," but they are actually supplanting your Reality. So...do your duty as a Divine Self.

Richard Foxe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So...do your duty as a
> Divine Self.

That's not quite right. You are supposed to do your duty as THE divine self.

The last demon, the last passion tying the self to the cycle of reincarnation and pain is the desire to exist as an individual. True liberation occurs when the person surrenders the illusion of independent existence and merges back into the divine self.

It is the ultimate in personal, individual, self-destruction.

Most esoteric traditions, religious and theosophical, have the idea of a Divine indwelling principle, manifesting as a higher turn of individuality. Whether this persists as "turtles all the way up" to identification with Space itself, I certainly cannot say. That "personal, individual, self-destruction" then would not be some annihilating immolation but rather a "transcending and including" (Ken Wilber) of successive identifications in ever more inclusive holons.

But tell me when you get there!

Richard Foxe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That "personal,
> individual, self-destruction" then would not be
> some annihilating immolation but rather a
> "transcending and including" . . .

That is true. But whether it is good or bad is a matter of perspective. Recall that the term nirvana, shared under different names by all three of the big Indian faiths, means "extinguishment" or "extinction." The individual ceases to exist except as part of the cosmic self, Atman.

There remains no individual consciousness.

NT God just as much of a psychotic killer as OT God

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one's foes will be members of one's own household”
Matthew 10:34-36

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NT God just as much of a psychotic killer as OT
> God
>
> “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to
> the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a
> sword. For I have come to set a man against his
> father, and a daughter against her mother, and a
> daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and
> one's foes will be members of one's own
> household”
> Matthew 10:34-36

Not literal.

Jesus, Prince of Peace.

Sword is a bad interpretation of the Greek word which is machairon, a long knife for paring fish of meat. It is not a weapon of war. The reference is to the paring or separation in families when some respond to Christ's message and some don't. Peace among mankind is the desired end product of "peace on earth, goodwill to man" brought through reconciliation with God through Christ.

> Peace among mankind is the desired
> end product of "peace on earth, goodwill to man"
> brought through reconciliation with God through
> Christ.

Kentish, that's not quite right.

I believe Jesus may have been closer to the universal love you describe, but the NT is not. In fact, the phrase you quote is a mistranslation that made its way into the KJ version. What the earliest Greek texts said, and what the more modern and accurate versions of the Bible say, is quite different:

New International: "Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests."

New American Standard: "Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among people with whom He is pleased.”

Good News: "Glory to God in the highest heaven, and peace on earth to those with whom he is pleased!"

New Revised Standard: “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace among those whom he favors!”

English Revised: "Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among men in whom he is well pleased."

In other words, Jesus will bring peace to those who follow him and not to humanity in general. That formulation accords with your observation about Jesus saying he came to divide families and frankly with the fact that only the elect will be saved. Jesus spoke of the End Times, of an apocalyptic war between believers and those who do not accept the gospel, and of the damnation of those who reject his message.

The universalism of the Christmas card greeting sounds nice but what you describe as "peace among mankind" as "the desired end product" of the gospel does not apply to non-Christians.

LW I confess that I tread on eggs here when addressing topics like this given the board rules. You point out the realities that are but I was giving a broader goal in the belief of John 3:16 that " who so ever believes in him" is an invitation that gives everyone who hears an equal chance of peace or reconciliation with God. Obviously the reality is that will not include everyone because everyone has a choice. I claim no corner on scriptural rightness nor in my personal life. Just doing the best I can to be a peacemaker in my orbit.

And that is why I respect you.

Kentish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LW I confess that I tread on eggs here when
> addressing topics like this given the board rules.

I'm not sure if you're referring to "no preaching" or "no politics", kentish, but either way I understand your thoughtful reflection.


> Just doing the best I can to be a
> peacemaker in my orbit.

Yes. This is where I'm at too.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In other words, Jesus will bring peace to those
> who follow him and not to humanity in general.
> That formulation accords with your observation
> about Jesus saying he came to divide families

Are "those who follow him" and "humanity in general" necessarily exclusive. I thought of some genius who comes up with a sure cure for cancer--for humanity in general--but only those who follow the prescription and actually take the medicine or treatment will be cured. It's not the genius doctor's discrimination or divisiveness that determines the outcome but people's own willingness to change, to accept something new, to go through with it.

Seems common sense, but who sees it in terms of going beyond one's ego, doubts, prejudices (as forms of 'cancer'). Just look at all the divisiveness Covid vaccinations, treatments, etc., have caused in the country!

> Are "those who follow him" and "humanity in
> general" necessarily exclusive.

Only if you accept the Bible as true. You know, the wheat and the tares, the elect and the damned. The gospel of John is explicit about the condemnation that will befall most humans.

Sorry, I forgot the question mark after that sentence (it's there in the reading of it, as you probably recognized). No, I do not see them as mutually exclusive or oppositional. The cancer-cure example should demonstrate that.

If "the Bible" has any lasting wisdom in it, it needs to be understood fresh by each generation, even each person. No going back to the "Founding Fathers," who saw and spoke in the tropes of their own times. That is also in line with the cancer example. People must and assimilate the Bible themselves, not framing it on the wall like a doctor's prescription but not buying and taking the medicine.

I have no problem with a personal faith inspired by the Bible but separate from it.

Honesty, however, requires that one recognize that that is no longer a Biblical religion. Put simply, the entire Bible presumes an "in group" and an "out group."

That comes across as spinning apologetics in my view.

What the passage says, no matter how the word is interpreted, is DIVISIVENESS. Dividing those who accept Christ's message from those who don't is in itself a way to foment hate and yes, justify killing. That takes even less spin to see, IMO. It is anything but peace. Christians won't agree but history shows people being killed over religion nonstop, partly because of passages like that.

Jesus could have come to teach that family (and everyone) should avoid "paring" (with any kind of symbolic knife) and avoid separation over beliefs in an afterlife. All the "love others" talk gets flushed once you realize the bigger requirement He has for everyone. Believe or else.

He chose divisiveness- us vs. them- which is the underlying cause of preventing peace. If Jesus only taught things about being kind, maybe your interpretation could be justified. He could have dropped all the "believe in me or die in the afterlife" BS. That alone shows divisiveness and the intent to kill people who don't play along.
I mean, believers invented hell for people who don't accept Jesus! That's NOT peace. That is killing, at least in intent if they are OK with that plan.

All of the good things Jesus taught were undone once I realized the bigger divisive motive. It's not all benevolent.

The divisiveness was also the origin of Christian antipathy towards the Jews (which religious leaders to their credit have tried their best to combat in recent times.) The narrative used to be, "The Jews killed Jesus." Which is not at all what Jesus would have wanted, since he spent his life trying to help his own people.

Why should I care what the bible says ?

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why should I care what the bible says ?

You shouldn't if you don't want to.

Is anybody here saying you should?

Your name gives a slight clue as to your position on this. :)

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why should I care what the bible says ?

Because, whether we like it or not, it is members of religious groups that run this and almost every other country in the world. And these religious people are the same people who make the rules and laws that you and I and everybody else have to live under.

One of the things that ghawd has going for him is that he doesn't have to justify anything . . .

There are apparently humans who feel the same way.

Which at times makes me wish there really was a ghawd.

Statements given to NPR reporter Daniel Estrin in Israel about the incoming Israeli administration's possible changes towards Palestinians both inside and outside of Israel may, I think, assist in answering the question you've posed. While I think the entire interview is pertinent, I'm only copying over the statements made that directly affect this topic. Above them is the link to the entire interview transcript (you can also listen to the interview from this page).

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1141047753

From the transcript:

"Summers: And you started at perhaps the most combustible place, the Al-Aqsa mosque compound.

ESTRIN: Yeah. This is the most revered holy site in the Holy Land. It is often the eye of the storm here. This is a place that's sacred to Muslims around the world. It's associated with the Prophet Muhammad. It's also sacred in Jewish tradition as the spot where the ancient temple stood in biblical times. And nationalist Jewish groups have been asserting their presence at the Al-Aqsa mosque compound more and more. They want the right to pray there. Whenever
we've seen that Palestinians perceive Israelis are encroaching on this site, we've seen violence, and that violence spreads.

And there is the chance that the potential for violence could be higher under the incoming Israeli government. Itamar Ben-Gvir has been a long time proponent of Jewish prayer at this Muslim-run site. He is tapped to oversee the police as the minister of national security. And so nationalist Jewish groups who visit there every day are feeling really good right now. They're feeling that they're going to get more rights at what they consider to be the Temple Mount. I was there with them recently.

SUMMERS: So who were you with, and what did you see there?

ESTRIN: Yeah. I was with a group of 20 Orthodox Jews. They walk the perimeter of this compound every morning. And when I spoke with one of the Jewish activists, Rabbi Shimshon, Elboim, listen. Our strategy is baby steps. He's hoping that this new Israeli government might start with allowing them more expanded visiting hours for Jews, maybe eventually leading to Jewish prayer. I asked him, could Jewish prayer at this Muslim-run site inflame the entire Middle
East?

SHIMSHON ELBOIM: (Non-English language spoken).

ESTRIN: And he says, you know, Israel the country also came into being through war. No one gives up their dreams just because it comes with a price."

And further down the transcript:

"SUMMERS: I'm curious. What about inside Israel? How could this new government affect relationships between Palestinians and Jewish Israelis who sometimes are sharing the same towns?

ESTRIN: That's right. We're talking about the 20% of Israel's citizens who are Palestinian Arab. And this is a big question that Israel faces. Can it be a Jewish state and still protect democracy and equal rights for its Palestinian citizens? These are people who frequently face discrimination in Israel. And this new Israeli government is going to be prioritizing Israel's Jewish character.

So a good place to imagine how these tensions might be playing out is a city called Lod. This is a city where Arabs and Jews literally live in the same apartment buildings side by side. Last year, when there was tension at the Al-Aqsa mosque, Palestinian citizens in Lod protested, and there were street
fights. I was there. I saw burned-out cars. I saw synagogues and mosques that were damaged and attacked. Arab and Jewish neighbors in this city were killed. And when I went back to that city last week to ask people about this new Israeli government, I met a rabbi there, Hagai Greenfield. His synagogue was damaged last year, and he is happy about the new government.

HAGAI GREENFIELD: The story is a struggle between identities, the Jewish identity and the Arab identity. It won't be solved by regular civilian riots. It cannot be solved by that way. It has to be solved by showing the Arabs that the Jews are the ones that rule over."

In other words, whatever group holds the power will rule how it wishes and will justify that rule how it wishes and will get away with it. Religion works by its leaders justifying whatever actions its leaders take, whether constructive or destructive, to either keep the current power structure in place (if their group is on top) or overturn that power structure (if they are not). I would argue that what these two Jewish leaders are saying is universal and that in the broadest strokes, we are seeing these ideas play out in the good old U.S. of A.

I was disappointed that Israel picked Benjamin Netanyahu to make a comeback as Prime Minister. It's hard for me to believe they want to improve anything there.

I don't know how to say this without getting this series of posts deleted so read it while you can.

In both the recent Israeli and U.S. elections, the percentage points (and sometimes the actual numbers) between the winning and losing candidates were very small. When polling is done in both the U.S. and Europe on both political candidates and issues, the results show a growing polarization on both sides of controversial issues, polarizations that are sometimes reflected by comments on this very Board. What I am saying is that in both the U.S. and Israeli elections, many of the candidates won by very slim margins, both in percentages and in real numbers, and these margins reflect a growing divide between peoples on some major issues, some of which are pertinent to subjects related to this Board, including this one.

Yes, that is true. Maybe it is human nature. Maybe it is hard wired to lean hard one way or the other. I do know that religion gets used to influence the outcomes.

I'm reminded of the quote by Diderot:
"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

It is hard to separate politics and religion, that's for sure.

"In other words, whatever group holds the power will rule how it wishes and will justify that rule how it wishes and will get away with it.

"Religion works by its leaders justifying whatever actions its leaders take, whether constructive or destructive, to either keep the current power structure in place (if their group is on top) or overturn that power structure (if they are not).

"I would argue that ...(this) is universal and that in the broadest strokes, we are seeing these ideas play out in the good old U.S. of A."

--Blindguy, December 07, 2022 at 5:26 a.m.

Damn Straight! Plus 8 BILLION---one for every person on the planet suject to "what is".