Holy War

R
Most people do not even comprehend the religious text of their specific religion, passing it off as too difficult to understand save for the conepts of dedication and commitment.

But are they all religously motivated or is that just superficial? Are some religions more prone to it than others? Can they ever be justifed? What do they mean for the modern world?

Religion has not be actually religious for a thousand years. Most people do not even comprehend the religious text of their specific religion, passing it off as too difficult to understand save for the conepts of dedication and commitment.

I completely agree. I recently committed myself to an objective review of religion and each church service I went to had several elements of brainwashing techniques used through out the complete history of psychology

Religion is used as a cover up for personal matters but in all honesty, religion is an enabler. Through the word of "God" many terrible things have been done for money, greed, power, land, control. But it is this "God" which enabled these tyrrants to gather people to their causes.

Religion has not be actually religious for a thousand years. Most people do not even comprehend the religious text of their specific religion, passing it off as too difficult to understand save for the conepts of dedication and commitment.

I completely agree. I recently committed myself to an objective review of religion and each church service I went to had several elements of brainwashing techniques used through out the complete history of psychology

An intresting view, could you elaborate? All religions in the past thousand years? (I know you were generalising as regards time) How do the concepts you mention dominate religous thought as you see it?

Alot of what people seem to be saying here, and stop me if I'm making too many assumptions, seems to stem from their impressions of an American view of faith and war, which I would adjudge a relativly reasonable one. But what of a more historical look at christianity and war? What is everyones take on the crusades?

In 1100 AD, religion was used as a control for the population by several cultures globally. When this occured the basis of religion, that is the foundation of the ideas, became a for of control vs. a path through life. This was a rapid change instituted through fear of state as well as of God. Now, certainly this is not true for all religion. I am specifically talking of monotheistic religions which seem to have a more strict code of conduct according to a single authoritative figure such as the pope. I am not generalizing to religion however. There are many governments which are still, to this day, based in the religion of their choice and they use this religion as a code of conduct for their people. These "religious" rules are now punished through harsh physical means. Once you generate fear of physical consequences, the person is no longer a willing subject to the religion but more a slave to it. This is where religion began to fail.

You use the example of the pope and central authority, but did the catholic church really have any more failings than any fairly centralised system? Did it not manage to civilise warfare to some extent by its encouragement of the code of chivalry, just war theory and the 'peace of god'(effectivly a ceasefire)? Does not religion form the bedrock of every culture? Are religous and cultural wars one and the same?

Icon - The Crusades was not a war about religion, but a war over trade routes in the Mediterranean and in the Holy Land. The fighting between Jews and Palestinians is not a war about religion, but a war over the land itself and who has the right to govern that land.

Religion, in these instances, is the justification used by the power brokers not the cause of the conflict.

The Crusades are complicated, and each Crusade had a myriad of causes. However, we can still make the generalization that the Crusades were economic, not religious, conflicts.

Because the Turks attacked the Byzantine Empire, trade with Byzantium was threatened. Because Christian pilgrims were banned, western Christian merchants lose money transporting and caring for said pilgrims. The Crusades go back to money, pure and simple.

Icon - The Crusades was not a war about religion, but a war over trade routes in the Mediterranean and in the Holy Land. The fighting between Jews and Palestinians is not a war about religion, but a war over the land itself and who has the right to govern that land.

Religion, in these instances, is the justification used by the power brokers not the cause of the conflict.

Further, Jews and Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God. Their respective Gods evolved from the same source, but they are not the same deity because each tradition worships in a different way and has different theological understandings of their deities.

The God is the same but the method of worship varies slightly. The general practice has very few differences though. They still pray in similar fashions, still have mass at specific times, still follow a doctrine of faith based on the same original understanding of the same diety. By all rational accounts, they worship the same god.

But the crusades were fantasitically expensive, and while the gains could be lucrative, the potential for disaster was also vast.

This is my point. Religion is not religious. These wars were fought for reasons other than religion because religion would not condone war.

The God is the same but the method of worship varies slightly. The general practice has very few differences though. They still pray in similar fashions, still have mass at specific times, still follow a doctrine of faith based on the same original understanding of the same diety. By all rational accounts, they worship the same god.

This is my point. Religion is not religious. These wars were fought for reasons other than religion because religion would not condone war.

It's not only the gains that they fought for, the Christians were fighting, especially in the First Crusade, to defend what they already had, which they thought was being threatened.

Going to war is a judgment that leaders make, regardless if their decision is a good one or not. The judgment was made to go to war to protect and further financial interests.

Okay, but this does not make your point that religion is not religious. Take a look at my earlier response to your argument.

With respect to the Crusades, recall that one example or even a thousand examples of the misuse of religion do not in any way make the argument that religion is not religious. These examples do show that sometimes religion can be used in nonreligious ways, but this is quite different from your thesis.

No, the God is not the same. Again, the various faiths have different theological understandings of their deities. Even among Christians (or any other of these three monotheisms) we can find more than one notion of God - that is, we can find Christians worshiping Gods which are, theologically, incompatible with one another. For some, God is loving, for others God is vengeful, for still others God is both loving and vengeful.

I agree that they are ultimately trying to point toward the same thing, but this does not mean that the Gods being worship are the same.

For example, are Indra and Zeus the same God? The obvious answer is no, despite the fact that they both cast lightning bolts. Why are they different? Well, Zeus evolved out of Indra, and this evolution means that Zeus sheds some Indra-like qualities and adopts some non-Indra like qualities. Similarly, the God of Islam is not the same as the God of Christianity - both evolved from the same source, but in the process of this evolution these Gods became distinct deities with their own rites of worship, their own scripture and their own theological notions.