Three Seas Forum

the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

Holy war: the ultimate blasphemy posted 08 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionHoly war: the ultimate blasphemy by Ashmael, Candidate

I think the worst blasphemy is that of all of those who claim they're justified in discriminating, persecuting. killing and waging war because "God" has sanctioned or authorized those acts. So Bin Laden thinks Allah blesses him in organizing the killing of thousands of innocents. The satanists sects member thinks the pityless killing of a trusting friend is a sacrifice to his demonic deity, and thus is justified. Torquemada thought that torturing and burning heretics was an homage to God. And what's Holy War, or ,to arabs "Jihad"? It's the sanction of countless murders and destructions, allegedly provided by God. But Holy War is an oxymoron. No war could ever be holy. Jesus, our Loving Sweet Saviour, bade us love each other. He wants mercy, not sacrifice. Those who claim God approves or foster hatred and killing are nothing but blasphmers. view post


Holy war: the ultimate blasphemy posted 08 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionHoly war: the ultimate blasphemy by Deerow, Auditor

I agree. War is essentially the antithesis of anything considered "Holy." I don't think anyone can actually critically examine what they are doing in such cases and come out with the contention that what they are doing truly is holy. But I guess that is part of the problem. Some people are easily lead (the Inrithi are a perfect example...they were hyped for their war before they even knew who it was against!). view post


Holy war: the ultimate blasphemy posted 09 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionHoly war: the ultimate blasphemy by H, Auditor

Like Marx (i'm pretty sure it was Marx) said, I've found that usually, the 'religious' or 'holy' or even 'moral' reasons for a war, in the end the reasons are economical, or some other 'mundane' reasons.

The fact that violence winds up being condoned by some religions is a testament to, human desire to engage in violence because it is perceived as a solution, and human ability to justify almost any atrocity. Bin Laden has a personal grudge with the United States government. He has used Islam to further his persoanl vandetta. Even the First Crusade was begun for less than 'holy' reasons.

When taken out of context, almost any scripture can condone almost anything. For example, St. Augustine (and subsequent Christian theologians) use of the fact that Jesus told Peter to stay his sword, not discard it, as proof that Jesus would have wanted him to use it for a Just Cause, or Just War.

Simply put, religion has been used, many times, to further an individual's agenda, under the guises of divine right. The fact is, most people will be violent if put in the right situation, and given the proper justification. view post


Holy war: the ultimate blasphemy posted 09 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionHoly war: the ultimate blasphemy by AleoMagus, Commoner

Those who claim God approves or foster hatred and killing are nothing but blasphmers.


...and we all know what god says we should do to blasphemers...

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death. Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished. Anyone who blasphemes the LORD's name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD's name will surely die. (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)


Then again, maybe those who claim god approves or fosters killing aren't blasphemers. Maybe they have just been reading and living by the teachings of the bible.

Regards
Brad S view post


Holy war: the ultimate blasphemy posted 09 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionHoly war: the ultimate blasphemy by White Lord, Subdidact

Just a quick comment.

While I think war shouldn't always be the first and only solution to the problems that arise when any two or more human groups compete for something, I find those who believe war can be totally eliminated from the stage of human endeavor either incredibly naive or plain stupid! <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) --> As you know, you have to let the steam out at times, if not you risk the explosion that no one really wants.

I'm sure I'll add some more comments. I'm waiting to be lynched in the meantime . . . <!-- s;) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;) --> view post


Holy war: the ultimate blasphemy posted 09 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionHoly war: the ultimate blasphemy by AleoMagus, Commoner

Yes, holy war does seem like any oxymoron, but there was also that time god ordered holy war against babylon...

"Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction". (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT)


and that time he ordered the holy war against Ai...

Then the LORD said to Joshua, "Do not be afraid or discouraged. Take the entire army and attack Ai, for I have given to you the king of Ai, his people, his city, and his land. You will destroy them as you destroyed Jericho and its king. But this time you may keep the captured goods and the cattle for yourselves. Set an ambush behind the city."


yeah, god seems to like killing....

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)


Uh oh! When was the last time you worked on the sabbath? Know anyone who has, because god has some clear instructions for you...

The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)


Know any homosexuals, cause I have more orders from god to relay...

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)


How about non-virgins on their wedding night?

But if this charge is true, and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)


People who commit adultery?

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)


Sometimes you can even kill your slaves, if done properly...

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)


...

Food for thought anyways.

Regards
Brad S view post


Holy war: the ultimate blasphemy posted 09 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionHoly war: the ultimate blasphemy by Ashmael, Candidate

Thas was the oldTestament. Jesus abrogated that. And in any case, it was not God, only men pretending to convey the willof God. view post


Holy war: the ultimate blasphemy posted 09 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionHoly war: the ultimate blasphemy by AleoMagus, Commoner

Thas was the oldTestament. Jesus abrogated that.


Ah yes, the old testament was wrong, it's the new testament that is right now. Though Jesus himself does say...

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill


“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)


Besides, my Bible has 1056 pages, and 808 of them are old testament. You would have christians just disregard all that? Thankfully Jesus helps us with this one...

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)


Whes you said...

And in any case, it was not God, only men pretending to convey the willof God.


Tht got me thinking that maybe some of the old testament might be wrong. It's good that you think you can interpret scripture how you like, otherwise you might be out gunning down mall employees on a sunday but Jesus does have some helpful words in this regard...

"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)


Finally let me offer just one example of Jesus himself advocating killing...

"Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)


Yes, anyway you slice it, your god seems to love death, killing and violence. And if you think he doesn't you are worshiping a different god altogether (thankfully, I suppose). In fact most christians today are, because most of them know nothing about what the bible REALLY says.

Regards
Brad S view post


Holy war: the ultimate blasphemy posted 09 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionHoly war: the ultimate blasphemy by Tol h'Eddes, Auditor

Quote: &quot;Ashmael&quot;:1irzusuv
Jesus, our Loving Sweet Saviour, bade us love each other. He wants mercy, not sacrifice.[/quote:1irzusuv]

I hate to bring you this news, but Christian religion isn't white as snow either.

I seem to remember that there were three crusades declared by the Popes in Middle Ages.

And that the Inquisition burned a lot of people because they were different (of belief, of colours, etc.)

Before Christians' Holy Wars, the Arabic civilisation was far more advanced than the European one. I recall reading that while Europe was plunged into darkness, Arab cities were lighted by street lamps. They had libraries, they knew advanced mathematics. A lot of things created by them was later brought into Europe by the returning crusaders.

And they faded into darkness after three centuries of war with Christians.

If a lot of them are fanatics today, if they have a lot of suicide-bomber, and declare Jihad against the rest of the world, I think it 's because Christians destroyed their civilisation, raped their women, killed their children and left them with nothing else than their faith...
But that is my opinion.

Also, more on the subjet, Holy Wars are never sanctioned by Gods.

Holy Wars are declared by men with power who want to rally the small folks. You tell them that the enemy believes in everything you hate and that they hate everything you believe.

It's the easiest way to have all the man-power you need. view post


Holy war: the ultimate blasphemy posted 10 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionHoly war: the ultimate blasphemy by Nansurium, Commoner

Woohoo, a discussion I can join. (People here have way more intricate views on the series than my "Booooo Kellhus boooooo!").

My main objection is that you should replace European with Western European. Constantinople was for a long time among the greatest cities in the world, and could hold its own against Muslim culture in a number of fields. Also Islam hardly faded after the Crusades -- I doubt they had that much effect on it at all. The Ottoman Empire was a powerful force in that part of the world long after the Crusades. With modern European colonialization, I'd be more inclined to agree with you.

About Holy Wars in general, my branch of Christianity (Orthodoxy) has a very ambivalent view towards them (the 4th Crusade after all did a whole lot of damage to Orthodox civilization but none at all to Islam), so I do not entirely understand them from within a Christian perspective.

From the Muslim perspective on the other hand, I can understand the logic, at least as it has been explained to me by Muslims. If you believe that God has revealed to you the laws of a perfect society and war is a common occurence, it seems natural to believe that it is your duty to gain control of all power in the world so you can implement this perfect society for the good of all humankind. There were few forced conversions in the earliest days of the Muslim expansion, so it doesn't seem like the original Jihad was to destroy the infidel. view post


Holy war: the ultimate blasphemy posted 15 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionHoly war: the ultimate blasphemy by Harrol, Moderator

I must comment on some matters here. Not to defend the positions of the Popes to lead a holy war against the muslims. In fact I have no desire to defend any pope. Yet I must point out the muslims weren't peacefully living in their lands and all the sudden these meany Franks by order of the pope attacked them. The muslims previous to the crusades conquered Spain, Sicily and were invading southern Italy on regular intervals. In fact in 800 A.D. a pope watched muslim invaders kill several hundred Anglo-Saxon pilgrims right outside the Vaticant. Also it was the Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire who asked the pope to help him after the Seljuk Turks conquered Antioch. The first crusade was led through Constantine and defeated the Seljuk army sent to destroy it. In fact the niece of the Emporer stated the the charge the Frnaks led against the Turks would have shattered the walls of Babylon. So yes the Orthodox Greeks wanted at least the first crusade to ease the pressure on them. What the Emporer did not want was the amazing success the first crusade had. In fact the next emporer became so jealous that he had his navy kidnap the King of France while he was returning from the failed second crusade. That is all I will say for now. Please comment. view post


Holy war: the ultimate blasphemy posted 15 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionHoly war: the ultimate blasphemy by H, Auditor

Harrol, you are correct in stating the the First Crusade was not 'unprevoked' in the sense that there had never been hostility between Islam and Christianity. However, most of the propaganda of the day was painting a picture of Islam persecuting pilgims journeying to Jerusalem, and those who were under their territorial control. While there were documented instances of each of these two things, none were as widespread nor as brutal as they were portayed by Urban II.

Additionally, there was little 'immediate' threat presented in the East (at Constantinople), or in the West (in Iberia). In fact, by the 11th century, the Nothern Spaniards were reluctant to oust the Mulsims becasue they were extorting huge ammounts of money from them, in return for 'protection'. And also, by 1097 Sicaly was in the hands of Southern Italian Normans (although i'm not sure if they had retaken Malta). You are correct that Byzantium had lost territory (Antioch and Nicaea, being the most important of them, as keep to Asia Minor), but there was no army marching upon Constantinople that would ever have been able to break the city (at that time) which was still nearly the largest ancient city ever. The Byzantine Navy was still quite intact, making an amphibeous assault accross the Bosphorous Straits sheer sucide.

Alexius I Comnenus did request aid from the West, but he neither expected, nor wanted such a huge force. Plus, the internal turmoil of the area further meant that Constantinople was in little danger at the time. In fact, this turmoil was the main reason why the First Crusade was even remotely as successful as it was.

It's really not that Alexius didn't want the Crusade to be successful, it's that he wanted former Byzantine territory back. The Franks nor the Normans (in their lust for booty) didn't exactly like the idea of giving back the cites to the Greeks who (under Taticius) had left the siege of Antioch long before it fell. And the same Greeks who didn't reinforce them after Antioch fell (thinking they would be wiped out by the Muslim reinforcements marching on the city).

That being said, i don't see how that makes war any more excusable. Christiandom was not 'under siege' by 1097, in fact, Muslims were quite busy killing each other (remember, Jerusalem changed hands to the Fatimads just before it was conquered by the Crusaders). Real Politik is really not a good reason why one should try to spiritually justify war. Especially when there is little to no threat actually being posed. A 'relief force' of 1,000 knights could have held Constantinople for years.

I'm not even going to touch the anti-Semetic acts undertaken by the 'People's Crusade' or by the other Crusaders, before they even got out of Europe proper, becasue those are simply unjustified under any pretenses. view post


Holy war: the ultimate blasphemy posted 15 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionHoly war: the ultimate blasphemy by Harrol, Moderator

Thanks H. I see what you mean as far as what actually was happening. Also as a disclaimer I was not trying to religiously justify war. That is a weight of accountability i would not want to carry. Thanks for your statements as it is a very well rounded veiw. <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) --> view post


Holy war: the ultimate blasphemy posted 18 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionHoly war: the ultimate blasphemy by Nauticus, Auditor

Quote: &quot;Ashmael&quot;:2n2ak5iy
I think the worst blasphemy is that of all of those who claim they're justified in discriminating, persecuting. killing and waging war because "God" has sanctioned or authorized those acts. So Bin Laden thinks Allah blesses him in organizing the killing of thousands of innocents. The satanists sects member thinks the pityless killing of a trusting friend is a sacrifice to his demonic deity, and thus is justified. Torquemada thought that torturing and burning heretics was an homage to God. And what's Holy War, or ,to arabs "Jihad"? It's the sanction of countless murders and destructions, allegedly provided by God. But Holy War is an oxymoron. No war could ever be holy. Jesus, our Loving Sweet Saviour, bade us love each other. He wants mercy, not sacrifice. Those who claim God approves or foster hatred and killing are nothing but blasphmers.[/quote:2n2ak5iy]
I agree, but for argument's sake, not every religion follows Jesus' word. According to the Koran, the Holy book of Islam (which, I may add, is equally as credible as the Holy Bible), a Muslim can kill a heathen and secure himself and his family forever, in the afterlife. view post


Holy war: the ultimate blasphemy posted 18 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionHoly war: the ultimate blasphemy by Deerow, Auditor

Indeed. We are judging from our perspective (I'm going to assume an overwhelming Judeo-Christian upbringing) and thus we cannot comprehend of any type of murder as being seen as a good thing in the eyes of God (except in the Old Testament God, of course).

However, who are we to judge another religious perspective? I personnally think the concept of God saying "Yeah, kill that person and you'll get into heaven" is pretty strange. Hands up if you think the hijackers from 9/11 are in heaven right now?

*looks around...counts no hands*

Thought not. But for many Muslims (Note: Not all Muslims) that was an act of faith, one that brought the favor of God upon them and they are martyrs. view post


Holy war: the ultimate blasphemy posted 19 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionHoly war: the ultimate blasphemy by Harrol, Moderator

I realize this post will be very biased and I hope to not anger anyone. As I believe the God of the Old Testament is still the God of the New Testament. But is there such a thing as a Holy War? I can only answer from what I understand from the Bible. Which is what I base my understanding of holiness. Again I realize there are many that do not hold this veiw. So for the record I am not trying to force my view only to explain it. No where in the Bible does it say Holy War nor does it call those that fought holy for fighting. King David was forbiden to build the Temple because of the wars he fought. What I understand is no war is holy, but at time a needed act, to perserve ones people for example. I believe if a war was to be holy God would have to take a side. From the example I see of Joshua speaking to the Captain of the Lord of Hosts outside of Jericho God does not take the different sides that man does. The Crusades and all the Jihads were not of God and certainly can not be considered holy. I know that there is much to comment on so please do. view post


Holy war: the ultimate blasphemy posted 21 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionHoly war: the ultimate blasphemy by Super Frog, Candidate

Quote: &quot;Ashmael&quot;:vtarv92v
No war could ever be holy.[/quote:vtarv92v]

Why not? The bible is filled with acts of horrific violence, often sanctioned by God himself.

“But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against his people, till there was no remedy. Therefore he brought upon them the king of the Chaldees, who slew their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion upon young man or maiden, old man, or him that stooped for age: he gave them all into his hand” (2 Chronicles 36:16-17). view post


Holy war: the ultimate blasphemy posted 23 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionHoly war: the ultimate blasphemy by Harrol, Moderator

SF I see that you point to God use of the Babylonians in war. I would hardly think that God considered that war or it's soldiers holy! There were wars ordered by God for a purpose. People who hate God and the Bible cite all the cases in which God speaks of war. I find that intersting considering the fact that most people who hate God spend a lot of time trying to disprove the very Bible that they quote from. view post


Holy war: the ultimate blasphemy posted 23 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionHoly war: the ultimate blasphemy by AleoMagus, Commoner

I find that intersting considering the fact that most people who hate God spend a lot of time trying to disprove the very Bible that they quote from.


It's actually not that interesting at all.

It's simply a matter of deriving a logical contradiction from another person's assumptions to show that at least one of their assumptions MUST be incorrect.

For example, I might assume the following assumptions (ALL of which are perfectly reasonable in the context of this thread):

1. God does not sanction killing
2. The bible is true
3. According to the bible, God sanctions the killing of Blasphemers
Then the LORD said to Moses, "Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death. Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished. Anyone who blasphemes the LORD's name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD's name will surely die. (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)

---------------------------
4. therefore, god does and does not sanction killing

I beleive this is called a reductio ad absurdum argument, and it is quite valid. Take your pick which of those assumptions you want to throw out.
#3 is a simple fact, so it has to be either #1 or #2. So, either god does sanction killing, or the bible is false. Or both.

Now I cans ee that you may be ready to conceed that god does sanction killing, but that this is not 'holy'. After all, you did say:

There were wars ordered by God for a purpose


well, this might work, but I'll put together another argument for you. this one is a simple syllogism:

1. there were wars ordered by God for a purpose
2. All that god would have us do is holy
Just as He who called you is holy, so you are to be holy in all that you do" [1 Peter 1:15 NIV].

--------------------------------------------
3. There were wars that were holy

QED

Now, do I believe this? Of course not. This conclusion just fits into a part of another reductio ad absurdum argument. Do I need to spell it out?

Regards
Brad S

PS - I don't 'hate' god (the christian conception of god) anymore than I hate Clifford the big red dog. But if someone tries to tell me Clifford is real, I might just try to convince them otherwise. view post


Holy war: the ultimate blasphemy posted 24 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionHoly war: the ultimate blasphemy by Harrol, Moderator

Brad, I see where you come from on people stating that God does not sanction killing. I do not believe that I stated any such thing. If I did it was in error and I apologize. My point is this. Most people who have declared a holy war or jihad heard only from their own booket book or their own hate not God. I realize that you do not believe in a Christian God. No problem I do not wish to argue the point with you. Hopefully it does not appear that I am. Yet I must add that not every war spoken of in the Bible was a direct order of God. In other words those that did it did not go to war for God's sake. Therefore they committed a self-intersted act and did not do the will of God. Just to make it clear not every war fought by Isreal or Judah was holy. Certainly the wars fought by the Syrians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians or the Greeks. Yes God used them for His own purpose, but they were not holy. Sorry for going on and on. This is my personal belief and it is not stated to push anyone or to offend. If I have offended I am sorry but know it is not on purpose. view post


Holy war: the ultimate blasphemy posted 24 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionHoly war: the ultimate blasphemy by AleoMagus, Commoner

Most people who have declared a holy war or jihad heard only from their own booket book or their own hate not God


Agreed

Yet I must add that not every war spoken of in the Bible was a direct order of God.


Agreed

Your posts are not offending at all. Don't apologize so much. As for pushing your beliefs, I'd be offended if you weren't trying in at least some way. After all, isn't the consequence of my disbelief in your worldview something like a lake of fire and lots of gnashing teeth. You are right, I am not a christian (anymore) but I totally understand the urge to spread the 'word'. Lord knows if I was a christian and believed that something like 2/3 of the world was all going to hell, I'd be shouting it from the rooftops. Annoying as they are, I TOTALLY understand those missionaries who knock on my door.

So anyways... On to the part of your post, and this thread that I think so many are still missing...

When you said:

Yes God used them for His own purpose, but they were not holy


It almost sounds to me like you are saying that though god did use wars for some or other purpose, they were not holy. If you are saying that this is true of most wars in the bible, I could probably agree. Trouble is, it is not true of ALL wars in the bible. Some wars very much seem to be endorsed by god, and he does seem to take sides now and then.

By definition, all that god does is holy, and all that god would have us do is holy. It can only follow then that if god wants us to wage a war, it must be a holy war.

Not even getting into other issues about why I think the bible or christianity is untenable, I just want the christans on this forum to admit that yes, there are holy wars. Maybe even only a few, but SOME. To suggest otherwise is to deny a LOT of passages in the bible.

the title of this thread after all, implies that the very concept of a holy war is blasphemy!

Because I like clean concise arguments, I'll put this all another way

1. There are times in the bible where god ordered his people to wage war. Times where he quite clearly favored one group of people and saw war as a kind of 'judgement ' for the unfavored side. A couple examples:

Then the LORD said to Joshua, "Do not be afraid or discouraged. Take the entire army and attack Ai, for I have given to you the king of Ai, his people, his city, and his land. You will destroy them as you destroyed Jericho and its king. But this time you may keep the captured goods and the cattle for yourselves. Set an ambush behind the city."


"Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction". (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT)


2. All that god would have us do is holy. At very least, everything that god does is holy, and his purposes must be holy.

Just as He who called you is holy, so you are to be holy in all that you do" [1 Peter 1:15 NIV


----------------------

3. Conclusion. There are holy wars

Looking back, this is very very similar to the argument in my last post, but I guess it just bears repeating. If one is to truly consider themself a christian, it's hard to avoid this conclusion. The only way to do so would be to deny the truth or accuracy of the bible.

Maybe you agree with this and were just making the more point that MOST wars in the bible were not, in fact, holy. I just want to be clear whether or not you beleive that any of them were. Actually this is not just directed at you either. It is directed at all the people who claimed that 'NO war can be holy' within the context of a christian worldview.

Regards
Brad S view post


Holy war: the ultimate blasphemy posted 25 June 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionHoly war: the ultimate blasphemy by Harrol, Moderator

To answer the question were wars ordered by God? Yes, they were. As you pointed out with Joshua, King Saul, King David and so on. If these men had not fought then yes they would have been outside of the will of God. I can not explain this compared to the commandments given by Jesus. All I know is to be holy one must obey God and love Him with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. One more point to add. David without dispute in the Bible was a man of God. We know he fought multiple wars and killed many people in the role of protector of his people. As stated before he was a man of God, in fact a man after God's own heart. Yet because of all his killing he was forbidden to build the temple for God. Only a man of peace his son Solomon could build the temple. I do think that gives us some perspective. To the original topic of God ordering a war is it Holy. I believe in the cases of Joshua, Moses and David that yes they were a holy war. I lack understanding on many of these things but Aleo is right if God orders it it is holy. view post


Holy war: the ultimate blasphemy posted 19 January 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionHoly war: the ultimate blasphemy by Nauticus, Auditor

Yes, that would be reasonable. It would be unreasonable to make the argument that God does not issue 'Holy' wars. If the blessings and rules God presents are in fact 'holy', then what distinction separates wars from that?

Where's the line between what is 'holy' and what is not?

If killing people is bad, then why does God ask it of several of His followers? view post


Holy war: the ultimate blasphemy posted 19 January 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionHoly war: the ultimate blasphemy by Harrol, Moderator

The Biblical definition for holiness is to be set aside exclusively for the purpose of God. That in mind people who were called of God and ordered to go to war by Him and did so with the right heart and mind would be considered holy men. Their purpose would be holy and the war would holy. What about the point that killing is bad? How can God order such an evil act? It is simply a matter of purpose and perspective. God has ultimate authority and judgement, therefore He has the right to order death and war. I on the other hand am just a man with selfish motives and purposes that are evil. There is no way that any murder or war that I could cause would be holy. view post


Holy war: the ultimate blasphemy posted 10 February 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionHoly war: the ultimate blasphemy by Vetinari, Commoner

If God sanctions the war, then it's Holy; thus a Holy War.
It's not all that semantically different from "Holy Matrimony".

As for God wanting the People of Israel to go out and destroy their enemies/neighbours, no doubt about it since it's all Witten.
Now, what one has to consider is this: did God really say "Go forth and slay and pillage and rape and enslave!" or was that the priests' and King's and aristocrats' interpretation of the innards of some goat and their own desires for more power?
The Crusades originally started when the Pope elaborated on a request for mercenaries by the Byzanthine Emperor. And the Pope is God's representative (or something in that way) on earth, at least that's what he's been telling us for the last two thousand years or so, so if the Pope says it's Holy, then it IS Holy.
The same goes for the Muhammedanians who blow themselves and others into bits of charred flesh; some imam or mullah probably says, along with how this will strengthen the Cause, that it's a Blessed thing to do.
In certain "pagan" religions it was a Holy thing to sacrifice children, slaves, women, etc. to the gods. In the RCC it's bad to use condoms to protect yourself against HIV/AIDS. According to the Talmud, it's not a sin to cheat a non-believer.
It all comes down to what the individual is willing to accept as a Truth. Of course, the Truth is a lot more appealing if there's some advantage for yourself in it. Like plunder, or higher profit margins, etc. Unfortunately, what most seem to be getting is a premature ticket to Heaven. view post


  •  

The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown