The "Second Coming" gives those in power an excuse to wage war perpetually

a reply to: DISRAELI

The mass of organized religion is not promoting this sequence of logic, and I don't see evidence of political authorities exploiting it

Flush out your head gear…

Its on the dollar "In God we trust". It (was) in the pledge of allegiance (One nation under God). The red, white and blue flag (white stripes being Righteousness).

It is implied every time they blame muslims for the problems in the world. It is implied when they talk of Israel (the Holy Land) and the Jews as (Gods Chosen)

Defend that Holy Turf…

originally posted by: intrptr
Its on the dollar "In God we trust".

Remember, the "sequence of logic" that we're talking about is this, from your earlier post;

The ideology promoted by organized religions is that due to the wars being waged now, Armageddon will come, Christ will return and the world will end in a cataclysm. Religion uses the threat of this to start the war...

Nothing in the phrase "in God we trust" implies that sequence of logic.

It (was) in the pledge of allegiance (One nation under God). The red, white and blue flag (white stripes being Righteousness).

Nothing in the pledge of allegiance says anything about the sequence of thought quoted above.
Nothing in the word "righteousness" suggests it either.

It is implied every time they blame muslims for the problems in the world. It is implied when they talk of Israel (the Holy Land) and the Jews as (Gods Chosen)

Even those beliefs do not necessarily amount to "we must have wars, or else Christ will not return".
And remember that my comment was made about "the mass of organised religion".
There is more to the Christian world than the minority of American fundamentalists who loom so large in your eyes.

I expect Christ to return. I see nothing in the New Testament suggesting that war is a "prerequisite" for that.
That has been the case historically, in the viewpoint of the church in general. Wars are seen as a feature of the troubles of that age, along with famine and earthquakes. Nothing more.

And I don't know of any wars in history which match your claim that "religion uses the threat of Armageddon to start a war".
Neither do you.

originally posted by: Develo

originally posted by: Tangerine

Why should we worry about what Muslim fundamentalists believe in?

Because unlike American Christian fundamentalists, Muslim fundamentalists have:

- A transnational political organization (supported by super wealthy states like S.A. and Qatar)
- Decent military power
- A common agenda
- A plan to achieve said agenda.


Christian fundamentalists can dream all they want, it's not them who control the American govt.

What they believe in is of interests for Americans, but the rest of the world honestly doesn't care about them because compared to Muslim fundies, they are anecdotal.

I suggest that you do some research about Christian Reconstructionism and their stated plans and goals. I suggest that you research how endemic Christian fundamentalism is in some branches of the military, especially the Air Force, Marines and Special Forces to the degree that not conforming to that belief system is a career-killer and sometimes dangerous. I suggest that you recall that both presidential candidates (Obama and McCain) submitted to an unconstitutional religious test performed by fundamentalist nutcase pastor Rick Warren. I suggest that you become aware that, in violation of the Constitution, there is a Faith-based Office in the White House placed there by G.W. Bush and kept by Obama. I suggest that you make yourself aware that there are 12 million members of the Religious Right who have a theocratic agenda. I suggest that you do some research about Council for National Policy, the Religious Right think tank and policy group that consists of 400 invitation-only powerful members with international ties and a totalitarian agenda. I suggest that you read the manifesto of COR (a core group of Religious RIghters all members of Council for National Policy). Their manifesto calls for replacing democracy with theocracy "by any means necessary". If you think these people are not dangerous and don't pose a direct threat to democracy, you are kidding yourself. There's more, but that's a good start.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: DISRAELI

You misunderstood what my OP was saying. I never said those in power use Jesus specifically as an excuse to start wars, they use other things for that, what I was saying was that their wars aren't stood against as much as they should be because believers believe war will bring Jesus back. The doctrine of the Second Coming enables them in a way to fight these wars because the majority (yes the majority are of the Abrahamic faith) believe the war will bring Jesus back.

The Crusades and Inquisition were justified by being carried out in the name of Jesus, that's two examples of "wars" being fought in Jesus' name.

Do believers want Jesus to come back? If so, they want war because it is a prerequisite of his return.

Those who don't grasp that are willfully ignorant. No amount of explaining will stop them from being willfully ignorant. Bush openly stated that attacking Iraq was a crusade.

a reply to: Tangerine

Eh Tangerine, in your opinion are fundamentalists more passionate "believers" of their religion then those who are described as moderates?(I realize this is going off on a tangent)

originally posted by: dffrntkndfnml
a reply to: Tangerine

Eh Tangerine, in your opinion are fundamentalists more passionate "believers" of their religion then those who are described as moderates?(I realize this is going off on a tangent)

If you define passion as zealotry, yes. Moderates allow for questioning and disagreement and their lives are not consumed by religion. Fundamentalists are unyielding, unquestioning literalists whose lives are consumed by religion. They're potentially very dangerous.

a reply to: originally posted by: works4dhs
I see no evidence that Christians want more war/chaos, but apparently some muslims think this is a good idea.

(response) You need to talk to more fundamentalists.


I have NEVER heard ANYONE in ANY Christian church (Evangelical, Mainline, Catholic, Pentecostal, etc) who has EVER, even ONCE,

ADVOCATED

more war. never. not once. Not to bring about the end times. Not for any other reason.

I have been attending churches since the 1970s, from Maryland to Florida to Tennessee to Massachusetts, from military chapels to prison chapels to tent meetings to living rooms, and no one has wanted any war, nor has anyone advocated any violence on a personal level. Nor have I heard any on the internet or on tv.

originally posted by: works4dhs
a reply to: originally posted by: works4dhs
I see no evidence that Christians want more war/chaos, but apparently some muslims think this is a good idea.

(response) You need to talk to more fundamentalists.


I have NEVER heard ANYONE in ANY Christian church (Evangelical, Mainline, Catholic, Pentecostal, etc) who has EVER, even ONCE,

ADVOCATED

more war. never. not once. Not to bring about the end times. Not for any other reason.

I have been attending churches since the 1970s, from Maryland to Florida to Tennessee to Massachusetts, from military chapels to prison chapels to tent meetings to living rooms, and no one has wanted any war, nor has anyone advocated any violence on a personal level. Nor have I heard any on the internet or on tv.

www.countercurrents.org...

www.washingtonsblog.com... o-rile-them-up-to-justify-war-against-iran.html

www.washingtonsblog.com... o-rile-them-up-to-justify-war-against-iran.html

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Develo

So the majority of Christians do not believe Jesus will literally come back and that it is an internal process? I highly doubt that.

That's literally what I mean.

The "second coming" is a typically American belief, like the end times, creationism, and everything consisting in reading the bible literally.

For many, the Church is the mystical body of Christ and "prophecies" can be interpreted as the story of the Church. Many believe the persecution and then victory of the Church already happened, around the first century. I consider this is a very interesting and elegant interpretation. Much more than the gross literal and materialistic ones.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Develo

originally posted by: Tangerine

Why should we worry about what Muslim fundamentalists believe in?

Because unlike American Christian fundamentalists, Muslim fundamentalists have:

- A transnational political organization (supported by super wealthy states like S.A. and Qatar)
- Decent military power
- A common agenda
- A plan to achieve said agenda.


Christian fundamentalists can dream all they want, it's not them who control the American govt.

What they believe in is of interests for Americans, but the rest of the world honestly doesn't care about them because compared to Muslim fundies, they are anecdotal.

I suggest that you do some research about Christian Reconstructionism and their stated plans and goals. I suggest that you research how endemic Christian fundamentalism is in some branches of the military, especially the Air Force, Marines and Special Forces to the degree that not conforming to that belief system is a career-killer and sometimes dangerous. I suggest that you recall that both presidential candidates (Obama and McCain) submitted to an unconstitutional religious test performed by fundamentalist nutcase pastor Rick Warren. I suggest that you become aware that, in violation of the Constitution, there is a Faith-based Office in the White House placed there by G.W. Bush and kept by Obama. I suggest that you make yourself aware that there are 12 million members of the Religious Right who have a theocratic agenda. I suggest that you do some research about Council for National Policy, the Religious Right think tank and policy group that consists of 400 invitation-only powerful members with international ties and a totalitarian agenda. I suggest that you read the manifesto of COR (a core group of Religious RIghters all members of Council for National Policy). Their manifesto calls for replacing democracy with theocracy "by any means necessary". If you think these people are not dangerous and don't pose a direct threat to democracy, you are kidding yourself. There's more, but that's a good start.

Like I said, all Americans.

Don't believe the rest of the world cares about Americans having issues with their Christian extremists. The rest of the world already have problems of their own.

Christian fundamentalism is an American problem for Americans.

Muslim fundamentalism is a worldwide issue.

a reply to: Develo

No, extremist Muslims are a Middle East problem. The MSM may be saying they're a worldwide threat but so far they are mostly contained in the Middle East.

The Lord's Resistance Army are Christian extremists in Africa. Heard of them?

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Develo

No, extremist Muslims are a Middle East problem. The MSM may be saying they're a worldwide threat but so far they are mostly contained in the Middle East.

Lol sure, they cause no issues in Africa, nor in Asia, nor in Europe, not even in the US. Whatever dude

Yeah Christian fundies are also a thing, but like I said, anecdotal.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

If a house divided cannot stand, why does Jesus tell us to hate our families (members of our house)?

There is a clear divide within Jesus' words here.

These are traditions. Family's were larger tribal communities. The "family" separates "the family"

Jesus is pointing out that the love for the family is what separates and divides.

If the house of the family of mankind is divided, (into familys) it can not stand.

Under the sky there is but one family. (Divided)

a reply to: Develo

The same could be said about Christian extremists, they're in all of those places you mentioned as well. Mostly in America and South America though, just as most Muslim extremists are in the Middle East.

a reply to: DISRAELI

And I don't know of any wars in history which match your claim that "religion uses the threat of Armageddon to start a war".

You are missing the OP's and my attempts to explain it. Through religion, World leaders use Armageddon and the "Second Coming" as an excuse to start wars.

What people blinded by religious dogma don't seem to realize is that they are programmed to accept war this way. After all, its Gods will…

Onward Christian Soldiers, marching as to war.

With the cross of Jesus, going on before.

originally posted by: intrptr
You are missing the OP's and my attempts to explain it. Through religion, World leaders use Armageddon and the "Second Coming" as an excuse to start wars.

What I am noticing with the OP and yourself is;
Stage 1; A dramatic argument was put forward linking war with the doctrine of the Second Coming.
Stage 2; You found it impossible to find any practical examples of what was being claimed.
Stage 3; You were obliged to fall back on the old faithful standby, "wars caused by religion", and try to use that as a substitute. Thus the argument gets a little desperate as you look for non-existent connections between the evidence you put forward and the original over-hyped case.

The argument presented in the opening post has been found indefensible because it was overstated for dramatic effect.
You cannot find concrete examples of war related to the doctrine of the Second Coming, because it hasn't been happening.

originally posted by: Tangerine

Bush openly stated that attacking Iraq was a crusade.

I've always had the opinion that the general situation in the Middle Eat is on the part of a crusade...but if Bush calls it a Christian thing, that it is in God's name, then he isn't going to fool me. Having said that, if the Church of England cannot openly condemn genocide being committed in the name of its religion then I do have to seriously consider my own position when it comes to faith.

I dunno, but I think you might have been pointing out that religion, specifically fundamentalism in this case, is forced upon people. Aside of your own, another common example is having to swear upon the Bible when testifying in a court of law. I realise you don't like scripture, but this is certainly relevant here...

But above all things, my brethren, swear not;
neither by heaven,
neither by the earth,
neither by any other oath;
but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay;
lest ye fall into condemnation.

~ Matthew 5:35

Thus, giving oath in such a manner may be incompatible with the scripture.
 

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Develo

The same could be said about Christian extremists, they're in all of those places you mentioned as well. Mostly in America and South America though, just as most Muslim extremists are in the Middle East.

And? I said they exist, yes, and are completely anecdotal when compared to Muslims extremists fighting all over the globe for the Jihad.

When was the last time Christian fundies bombed a mosque, attacked a village or made a military coup?

You can't be serious if you truly compare Christian and Muslim fundies. Christian fundies are merely an annoyance.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Stage 1; A dramatic argument was put forward linking war with the doctrine of the Second Coming.

You don't get it.

The argument is that its used as an excuse to start wars.

Lets not start a religious war over it.

Last reply.

originally posted by: intrptr
The argument is that its used as an excuse to start wars.

And you've never been able to quote any examples of the Second Coming being used as an excuse to start wars.
Religion in general, yes.
The Second Coming, no.
As I observed in a much earlier post, this was abstract theorising not based on real events.