Does islamic, christianity, or jeudism justify war?

R

RickyH

Valued Senior Member
Do you guys think that any of these religions make war justifiable

If so give your opinion


My opinion is if its war land, converting, or money or if your muslim then your jehad (not sure how it is spelled excuse me if it is spelled incorrectly) Then yea i guess so.... but does the bible contradict any of these reasons?
 
Religion in general doesn't justify it.


The bible is split into two parts. The old testament and the new.

I think it is pretty common knowledge that the old testament was very much about war because of Expansion and Enemy Erradication.

The new testament or Christ's teachings didn't teach war as the answer.
 
Defense of religion and culture is often citied as a cause for violence. If someone were trying to suppress or wipe out your religion, I think some violent action might be justified.
 
It's difficult to ask things like this about "Christianity" as there are literally tens of thousands and seperate denominations that all believe slightly different things.

Catholocism, and some 'older' Christian denominations (Orthodox, Anglican...) do have Just War Doctrines, which outline very specific things that must take place in order for the doctrine to take effect.

As far as Catholocism goes, the following can be said in regards to Just War Doctrine:

JUST WAR DOCTRINE TODAY

"The most authoritative and up-to-date expression of just war doctrine is found in paragraph 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It says:

The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

* the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
* all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
* there must be serious prospects of success;
* the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good."

~from Catholic Answers website. For further explanation as to the specifics of these 'requirements' go to: http://www.catholic.com/library/Just_war_Doctrine_1.asp
 
Well lets say your christian and there is a country 1500 mile's away who beleives in a different prophet (i.e The Cruisades)(just with different reasons) They have done nothing wrong except being a different religion. Is it just to bare arms and slaughter them?
 
Ricky Houy said:
Well lets say your christian and there is a country 1500 mile's away who beleives in a different prophet (i.e The Cruisades)(just with different reasons) They have done nothing wrong except being a different religion. Is it just to bare arms and slaughter them?
Click to expand...

No. Was it right for christians to try to convert the "injuns" by bully tactics either? No it wasn't right. Doing something in the name of the religion doesn't automatically mean that it is endorsed by that religion. ie. Muslim Terrorists. Most Muslims disagree with their tactics of blowing themselves up and killing as many christians as possible in the name of allah. The Terrorists do it in the name of religion, but it isn't in general endorsed by that religion. Muslims preach that they are a peaceful society and believe in peace

Ricky,

What exactly are you trying to get to? It seems you want a justification for war endorsed by religion, but it seems justification for war is now the job of governments.
 
If you payed attention to the "requirements" of Just War Doctrin that I presented, the Crusades wouldn't be considered by Catholics as being Just Wars. Consider the fourth requirement, "the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated." This alone discounts the Crusades as Just War, because terrible atrocities took place.

WHY the Pope at the time declared the first Crusade, originally (ie, prior to the actual warfare, thus atrocities on the european side hadn't yet taken place), as Just War, I can't say, I simply don't have the historical knowledge of the time.

What I do know is that present-day understanding of the Crusades is heavily biased. At the time, the land occupied by Islam stretched from northern India, all the way to the Atlantic coast of Africa. Islam was accepting of Jews and Christians, because they were regarded as the forebearers (so to speak) of the (incomplete) message of Allah. However, they were still to be set as subordinates to Muslims. Well, this was the stance taken early after Muhammad's death, but I can't say what their stance was about Jews and Christians by the time of the Crusades. However, take note that Muhammad, during his rule of Medina, actually set to execute a whole Jewish community, but was persuaded otherwise, and instead banished them. This happened twice, with two separate Jewish communities (I can't remember their names right now). It also happened a third time, but this time, the Jews WERE executed, and the reason was because they (along with the two prior) had rejected Islamic rule.

They dealt with Pagans more harshly, however. Pagans were not tolerated, and they were either executed or banished from Muslim territory. They were the true infidels.

From what I understand, Muslim territory was expanding.

Now, as I said, I'm not versed enough in the history of the era to say anything for certain, but it seems to me that the Crusades would not have merely been for the sake of retaking the Holy Land. That might have been a front, but one of the calculated effects of announcing the Crusades was the unification of the European Nobles, who had been fighting each other for decades. Had the Crusades not been put into effect, the european city-states would have been caught in-fighting and weak as Islam expanded its empire into Europe.

No, the Crusades are not considered Just War, now, in hindsight of the atrocities that took place by those in battle, on both sides. However, I don't think it was a move that was made lightly and without careful consideration. Certainly, the Pope of the time would not have foresaw the slaughters that would take place under the name of Christianity. When he did, he regretted having called for the Crusades! And rightfully so! But, that's the thing about history... we only see it in hindsight.
 
I sort of get what you are saying. At the time, there probably was more of a noble purpose and a more "thought out" approach to the crusades, but they sure didn't turn out as expected and regretfully, it looked really bad on the Church. Is that what you were getting at somewhat or am I way off base?
 
Ricky Houy said:
Well lets say your christian and there is a country 1500 mile's away who beleives in a different prophet (i.e The Cruisades)(just with different reasons) They have done nothing wrong except being a different religion. Is it just to bare arms and slaughter them?
Click to expand...


Very briefly only to clarify the historical background of the crusades as it might pertain to a just war. Europe before the crusades was full of internal strife too many professional warriors and at times plenty of work (result lots of warfare and much death and destruction) other times not enough work (result widespread banditry with a good deal of death and destruction). Since the fall of the roman empire the pope was the one unifying authority in europe but try as he may he couldn't quell the constant bloodshed which resulted from the situation above. What is a pope to do? :(

Enter an urgent request for aid from the emperor of the eastern roman empire, Alexei. Since shortly after the death of muhammed one after another christian kingdom had fallen to the advancing armies of islam.
636 Battle of Yarmuk: The Byzantine army was defeated by the Muslims
637 Battle of Qadisiyya: The Sasanian army was defeated by the Muslims.
639-641 Egypt conquered by the armies of islam
etc. etc.
After the Muslim victories over the Byzantine and Sasanian armies, christian, Palestine, Syria, and Egypt fell under muslim control. Also largely zoastrian Iraq, and Persia fell under Muslim control. Islamic expansion continued westward (all the way to poitiers France)and eastward but the eastern roman empire(byzantium) to the north continued to resist. In 1071 muslim armies finally managed to deal a decisive defeat to byzantium at manzikert taking possesion of a huge part of christian byzantine territory. Alexei pleaded in a letter with pope Urban to help him and at the same time save christianity. With this letter the pope saw an opportunity to do just that and extend the churchs' influence over the eastern orthodox church and rid europe of the many freebooting warriors. Long story short some specific rules, or exceptions to the christian churchs' ideal of non-violence were drawn up and the crusades were off.
Point is, it wasn't simply out of the blue that the first crusade came christendom had been under attack for centuries before any real response was made. Pope Urban II may have found a way to assuage his conscience but I believe the NT is quite clear that war and killing is unjust always
 
Quigly said:
No. Was it right for christians to try to convert the "injuns" by bully tactics either? No it wasn't right. Doing something in the name of the religion doesn't automatically mean that it is endorsed by that religion. ie. Muslim Terrorists. Most Muslims disagree with their tactics of blowing themselves up and killing as many christians as possible in the name of allah. The Terrorists do it in the name of religion, but it isn't in general endorsed by that religion. Muslims preach that they are a peaceful society and believe in peace

Ricky,

What exactly are you trying to get to? It seems you want a justification for war endorsed by religion, but it seems justification for war is now the job of governments.
Click to expand...


The only reason i started this thread where to listen to other peoples views on the matter.... Please continue on with this thread but leave me out of it

I am trying to get at peoples opinion on the matter...

I want to know how war can be justified but murder can not unless it being by self defense
 
Ricky Houy,

Islam urges people into war and Jews believe that they should fight for their "promised land".

Christniaty is not a war mongering religion.
 
But then why would many country's with a nature of being strong in there christianity have held some of the most bloody battle's known ot man?
 
AgentGenev said:
Islam urges people into war and Jews believe that they should fight for their "promised land".

Christniaty is not a war mongering religion.
*************
M*W: Bullshit.
Click to expand...
 
Ricky Houy said:
Do you guys think that any of these religions make war justifiable

If so give your opinion


My opinion is if its war land, converting, or money or if your muslim then your jehad (not sure how it is spelled excuse me if it is spelled incorrectly) Then yea i guess so.... but does the bible contradict any of these reasons?
Click to expand...

Justifiable war is Not a teaching of Jesus. Well not Justifiable to His followers True Christians. Of course God can wage war He is not under the commandments He gives us Christians. Justifiable war was a doctrine that had to be created by a man who needed to twist the teaching of Jesus to make it.

So whilst God can wage war and can use war as an implement of His wrath. Christians are under the orders of our Lord and Redeemer The Messiah Jesus to love our enemies and to take no part in carnal (physical) combat.


Matthew 5:38-39
38 "You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. 39But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.


Matthew 5: 43-48
43 "You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.


Romans 12:17-21
17Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. 18If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. 19Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. 20Therefore "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head." 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.


Matthew 5:9
Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God.


II Corinthians 10:3,4
"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds."


Ephesians 6:12
"For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places."


Ephesians 6:4
"And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord."


Revelation 13:10
He who leads into captivity shall go into captivity; he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
Ricky Houy said:
But then why would many country's with a nature of being strong in there christianity have held some of the most bloody battle's known ot man?
Click to expand...

correction:

They have the reputation of being strong in the version of "christianity" that serves their elites worldly objectives.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
"Religion prevents our children from having a rational education; religion prevents us from removing the fundamental causes of war; religion prevents us from teaching the ethic of scientific co-operation in place of the old fierce doctrines of sin and punishment. It is possible that mankind is on the threshold of a golden age; but, if so, it will be necessary first to slay the dragon that guards the door, and this dragon is religion."

Bertrand Russell
 
stretched said:
"Religion prevents our children from having a rational education; religion prevents us from removing the fundamental causes of war; religion prevents us from teaching the ethic of scientific co-operation in place of the old fierce doctrines of sin and punishment."

Bertrand Russell
Click to expand...

I'm glad it's only your opinion and not fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top