Christianity’s Perpetual Support of War

Art48

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 Christianity’s 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 Trump—arguably a poster boy for the seven cardinal sins—is 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.

It’s easy to suspect Christianity doesn’t 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 aren’t saved. Catholic? If Baptists are right you aren’t saved. Jesus supposedly came to give us the “means of salvation” but apparently did such a poor job of it that Christian denominations can’t 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? It’s 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 you’d 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 I’m not a Christian theologian.) Augustine’s “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 Reese’s Cup.

P.S. My thanks to the Russian Orthodox Church for providing more evidence for my views.

Ciceronianus

The Roman Empire even got to name its God: "Jesus" is a Roman name like Brutus, Aurelius, etc. — Art48

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.

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. — 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.

Moses

↪Ciceronianus

Always a pleasure to read your posts. I always pick up some history. I can't add to your historical understanding but maybe I can provide a countepoint to some of your theology.

[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.

Ciceronianus

. 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. — Moses

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.

ThinkOfOne

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). In sum, I think Christian violence in that period is reasonably understood as the continuation of the Gospel and not in contrast to it. — Moses

Many Christians take that verse literally and out of context, as you've done here, as a justification for Christian violence.

Matthew 10
34“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35“For 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 MAN’S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD. 37“He 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. 38“And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39“He 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
51“Do 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. 53“They 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.

Moses

↪Ciceronianus

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.

Jesus is in no way advocating violence here. The sword is a metaphor. Jesus is speaking of division. — ThinkOfOne

↪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.

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.
2 minutes ago — Moses

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.

Paine

This topic reminds me of the time when I was at school, reading Aquinas' argument regarding what was a just war. The reaction of one of my colleagues will always stay with me. "With this, the patience with suffering has been abandoned."

I haven't seen any improvements upon the observation.

Tom Storm

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. — Moses

Like Cain and Abel?

Moses

Like Cain and Abel? — Tom Storm

↪Tom Storm

Cain was immediately condemned and sentenced, by God, to a life of misery.

Some endorsement of murder that is.

god must be atheist

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. — ThinkOfOne

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.

Tom Storm

Cain was immediately condemned and sentenced, by God, to a life of misery.

Some endorsement of murder that is. — Moses

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:

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. — Moses

Foundational narratives about a dud siblings are not rare.

Moses

↪Tom Storm

Cain is not a founder of the Hebrew people. You're grasping at straws here.

jorndoe

Well, it's a characteristic of such texts that they often enough can be "read" as whatever is presently convenient or whatever. :shrug: Nothing new. Great political tool, by the way.

God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule
God
The Onion | Alerts
Sep 26, 2001, 15:00 New York time

Tom Storm

↪Moses

You made an amusing choice of wording and you seek to walk it back. I understand, Comrade, it’s not really that significant.

Moses

Well, it's a characteristic of such texts that they often enough can be "read" as whatever is presently convenient or whatever. :shrug: Nothing new. Great political tool, by the way. — jorndoe

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.

You made an amusing choice of wording and you seek to walk it back. I understand Comrade, it’s not really that significant. — Tom Storm

↪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.

ThinkOfOne

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. — god must be atheist

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.

jorndoe

I will interpret it as "I'm too intellectually lazy to actually read the Bible and try to understand it." Nothing new. — Moses

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.

ssu

One of the primary services of religion to the State is to help the State wage war. — Art48

And this is common with other religions too. The link even far more obvious in Islam.

P.S. My thanks to the Russian Orthodox Church for providing more evidence for my views. — Art48

Thank the KGB for patriarch Kirill.

javi2541997

And this is common with other religions too. The link even far more obvious in Islam. — ssu

:up: :fire:

god must be atheist

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. — ThinkOfOne

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?

Cuthbert

Jesus is in no way advocating violence here. The sword is a metaphor. Jesus is speaking of division. — ThinkOfOne

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.

Cuthbert

God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule — jorndoe

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.

Tom Storm

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. — Cuthbert

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

Cuthbert

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. — Tom Storm

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.

Tom Storm

↪Cuthbert

Ok, but I would venture there is nothing in the gospels that is true or actually happened. I think we can safely chuck all of it out. :wink:

Cuthbert

Gosh, I didn't realise it was that bad. Does that apply to all the first century folk - Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio Cassius? Hopefully things got better after 100 CE.

Moses

↪jorndoe

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 doesn’t mean that it is endlessly flexible.

Tom Storm

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. — Cuthbert

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?

Tom Storm

↪Cuthbert

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.

Ciceronianus

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. — Moses

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.

Christianity’s Perpetual Support of War

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions