Why does god ignore religious wars?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Directly responsible?

He didn't pick up arms and start shooting people, but he is just as guilty as any KKK leader who advocates white supremacy, even though he personally doesn't go out and kill, he is the leader and therfore the agent that started the process that led to killing.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I think we agree more than you know. I would NEVER "fight to the death if my leader said it comes from God". Our "leader" at the moment is George Bush and I wouldn't lift a slingshot if he told me Satan himself was walking down Pennsylvania Avenue. God would have to tell [i] me [/], in no uncertain terms, before i'd suit up and dig a foxhole. And it wo ...[text shortened]... Christians will fight if someone tells them it's God's will, etc. That's just rubbish.

One down, 4 billion to go🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
According to one story—

Adam and Eve had been imbued with “free will” (the ability to make choices) before they had any knowledge of good (tov) and bad (ra)—so they were incapable of any moral discernment whatsoever, including whether disobedience was a badder or a gooder thing for humans than obedience. They wouldn’t even know if “ ...[text shortened]... .

If God is not to blame for the outcome, neither are the children.

In that story, anyway.

god gave rules and free will. the humans chose to break the rules because they were promised a reward. they weighed the possible reward against the possible punishment from god and found the risk acceptable

so humans are responsible.

Originally posted by sonhouse
He didn't pick up arms and start shooting people, but he is just as guilty as any KKK leader who advocates white supremacy, even though he personally doesn't go out and kill, he is the leader and therfore the agent that started the process that led to killing.

I have not read the works of Luther. Exactly what did he advocate that you consider equivalent to KKK white supremacy? As I understand, he was horrified by the violence of the Reformation.

And whatever his prominent place in Protestant history, he was never a leader just a thinker. His ideas were certainly appropriated by Protestant movements but he was never on par with Hitler. Directly responsible? Doubt it.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I have not read the works of Luther. Exactly what did he advocate that you consider equivalent to KKK white supremacy? As I understand, he was horrified by the violence of the Reformation.

He advocated burning ALL synagogues and Jewish schools and burying anything that wouldn't burn.

To quote Martin Luther:

First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly_and I myself was unaware of it_will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.

He advocated burning ALL Jewish homes next:

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them the fact that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.

He goes on to suggest Rabbis be forbidden to teach/preach Judaism and to forbid them from being able to travel.

I think Hitler would have been proud.

Originally posted by vistesd
I’ve been trying for a snappy comeback, but I’m laughing too hard. I know you from way back, remember, Wule?

Okay . . . catches breath . . . Need to play the game here . . . For Wule . . . (who kinda cheated by editing away his “Revelations” reference) . . .


Oh the havoc played by our paltry minds,
when once we might believe that even mind ...[text shortened]... y ev’rything
we might come to think for any reason,
than to risk the season of goddess’ wrath.

What me cheat ?!? in the RHP forums !?! through judicious editing ...

Well played.


Thread 99738 has

Originally posted by Wulebgr
According to The Book of Revelations the anti-christ is: The anti-christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything is it OBAMA??

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
He advocated burning ALL synagogues and Jewish schools and burying anything that wouldn't burn.

To quote Martin Luther:

[i]First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, ...[text shortened]... Judaism and to forbid them from being able to travel.

I think Hitler would have been proud.

I see. But why does Sonhouse regard Luther as directly responsible for thousands of deaths?

Originally posted by Conrau K
I see. But why does Sonhouse regard Luther as directly responsible for thousands of deaths?

when a religious figure, with influence among the masses instigates to violence, then he/she is responsible.

key figures have a huge impact. imagine if elvis would have said "pick up a gun and go kill some wabbits." What percentage of the fans would have listened to him? 90%? 99%?

what i don't agree with sonhouse is the notion that god is responsible for the religious wars. just because murders are happening in ones name, if that one didn't specifically asked for those murders, but quite the opposite, asked for love and peace, how can you hold that person accountable?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
what i don't agree with sonhouse is the notion that god is responsible for the religious wars. just because murders are happening in ones name, if that one didn't specifically asked for those murders, but quite the opposite, asked for love and peace, how can you hold that person accountable?

If you are omnipotent, omniscient etc, then you should know the result of all your actions. Gods actions have been part of the cause of religious wars. He therefore must take some responsibility. Further, by not intervening he is guilty of negligence.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If you are omnipotent, omniscient etc, then you should know the result of all your actions. Gods actions have been part of the cause of religious wars. He therefore must take some responsibility. Further, by not intervening he is guilty of negligence.

only that he is not omnipotent and his omniscience is highly questionable if free will is real and not an illusion(and i don't think it is).


he already set the rules: you are free to do whatever you want and suffer the consequences.(free will).

how can you measure negligence? will you charge a person who didn't save someone drowning with manslaughter? is a parent who is not rushing to his child aid every time he bruises his knees negligent? is the US responsible for the genocides in the african countries because they do not intervene? one is responsible for his actions. not for someone else's actions.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
when a religious figure, with influence among the masses instigates to violence, then he/she is responsible.

key figures have a huge impact. imagine if elvis would have said "pick up a gun and go kill some wabbits." What percentage of the fans would have listened to him? 90%? 99%?

With any figure of leadership.

Even today, if you are in a position of leadership and you say something that you would reasonably believe would incite others to commit a crime then you are at least partially responsible for that.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
when a religious figure, with influence among the masses instigates to violence, then he/she is responsible.

key figures have a huge impact. imagine if elvis would have said "pick up a gun and go kill some wabbits." What percentage of the fans would have listened to him? 90%? 99%?

But Sonhouse is holding Luther directly responsible not for anti-Semitic pogroms but the Peasants' War and the hundreds of thousands of deaths involved. He has not explained why Luther deserves blame here. The Peasants' War was a religious conflict between Catholics and Protestants, to put simply. Now just because Luther advocated anti-Semitic attacks does not make him directly responsible for every bit of violence.

And even should his ideas have been appropriated by the peasants of the revolt, why does that make him directly responsible? Was Rousseau directly responsible for the French Revolution? Was Karl Marx directly responsible for the Stalinist purges?

Originally posted by sonhouse
One down, 4 billion to go🙂

It's not that bad. Since I'm just an ordinary average guy, I know there's a whole bunch more ordinary Joes who think the same way I do. Out of 4 billion (is that total number of people who believe is God?), the percent of the wackos who want to bring on the apocalypse is teeeeny-weeeeny---maybe in the dozens, I reckon.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Out of 4 billion (is that total number of people who believe is God?), the percent of the wackos who want to bring on the apocalypse is teeeeny-weeeeny---maybe in the dozens, I reckon.

One is enough, I reckon.

He who sits with the finger on the red button, whether his name is Bush or bin Ladin, doesn't matter. No teocratic leader should posess any nuclear weapons - or rather noone at all.

One is enough to destroy the world in the name of god.