``Religion is the cause of most wars and death``

reply to post by HamrHeed


Here I thought most wars were caused by bath salts.

What? Too soon?

Originally posted by flashtrum
reply to post by HamrHeed

 

Here I thought most wars were caused by bath salts.

What? Too soon?

On face value I would say that it is not too soon.....just not funny.
I know.....I'm going to hell for that one.

reply to post by Sparky63


My dog liked it. He then instructed me to make him some scrambled eggs.

Agree that most wars are caused by power but as Firefly says, religion validates the excuse.

Interesting to read that bankers were the cause of most wars, the Templar knights were the first bankers!

As for death, this is mainly power subjugating the masses - although religion has something to do with keeping the ignorance of science. I do hold pope Jean Paul II - who was cannonised - personally responsible for the numerous agonising deaths of African catholics though their ignorance of AIDS; and their lack of protection

reply to post by EyesWideShut

Why Can't Israel get along with it's neighbors.

Because Israel is an apartheid state.

Why can't India & Pakistan get along

Because India and Pakistan are divided on cultural and political lines.

What's a Jihad?

There are many meaning for this word. In the west it's holy war it also means "struggle" or "effort," or "to strive," "to exert," "to fight," depends on the context.

What caused The Thirty Year's War?

They were a religious war among Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists. Ferdinand II and, to a lesser degree, his primary ally Maximillian I represented the re-Catholicizing zeal of the Jesuit Counter-reformation, while Frederick V of the Palatinate represented the equally militant forces of Calvinism.

What caused the 1948 Arab-Israeli War?

This war was started by Israel when they decided to start ethnic cleansing the land of both Muslim and Christians.

What caused Lebanese Civil War?

This was a war between Christians and Muslims. So you could say religion.

What caused the War in Darfur?

The conflict's origin goes back to land disputes between semi-nomadic livestock herders and those who practice sedentary agriculture.

Since the population of Darfur is predominantly Muslim, the conflict may not be only about race or religion, but about resources as the nomadic tribes facing drought are going after the territory of sedentary farmers.

The quotes in my signature come from genuine men of Faith.

To blame a religion for the actions of people who claim their faith but don't follow it is absurd on it's face. It's always an indicator that the person saying it is bigoted towards all members of a faith, based on the actions of people acting outside of their claimed faith. It's just another tool used by those who hate.

The hate expressed by those who hate religion is the same as the hate which is the true cause of wars.

Political ideologies like those of Marxists, Leninist, Communists and others, the antithesis to Faith, have caused more death and suffering than any other single thing. Hundreds upon hundreds of millions dead at the hands of secularists. The evidence is overwhelming that if you remove religion from the world, it would be worse.

reply to post by Blaine91555

To blame a religion for the actions of people who claim their faith but don't follow it is absurd on it's face. It's always an indicator that the person saying it is bigoted towards all members of a faith, based on the actions of people acting outside of their claimed faith. It's just another tool used by those who hate.

I agree with you in this sentiment. Too often it appears that religions are defined by the actions of their worst followers. For example, Christian fundamentalists or Muslim terrorists become the straw men to attack the religion whilst ignoring any of the more respectable elements.

Political ideologies like those of Marxists, Leninist, Communists and others, the antithesis to Faith, have caused more death and suffering than any other single thing. Hundreds upon hundreds of millions dead at the hands of secularists. The evidence is overwhelming that if you remove religion from the world, it would be worse.

I disagree that the world would be worse without religions. They may well have helped us on the way to where we are now, but are they necessary any more? Do we need moral guidance from scripture? Empathy and morality can be seen in the actions of intelligent animals and very young children. Could it be that religions are like the stabilisers on a child's bike? Now we are older, perhaps it's time to remove the stabilisers and see if we can make progress without them. A few scratches and scars could be worth it.

I could cite a few political ideologies that have saved lives but that's not the point I'm trying to make.

Human nature, in my opinion, should be afforded a moment in the spotlight. Naked and raw, without the cloak of religion. Maybe then, we'll get a clearer picture of what drives humanity?

Originally posted by Blaine91555
The quotes in my signature come from genuine men of Faith.

To blame a religion for the actions of people who claim their faith but don't follow it is absurd on it's face. It's always an indicator that the person saying it is bigoted towards all members of a faith, based on the actions of people acting outside of their claimed faith. It's just another tool used by those who hate.

The hate expressed by those who hate religion is the same as the hate which is the true cause of wars.

Political ideologies like those of Marxists, Leninist, Communists and others, the antithesis to Faith, have caused more death and suffering than any other single thing. Hundreds upon hundreds of millions dead at the hands of secularists. The evidence is overwhelming that if you remove religion from the world, it would be worse.

You are very well read my friend. Thank you for speaking up in these trying times. Excelllent post

"Human nature, in my opinion, should be afforded a moment in the spotlight. Naked and raw, without the cloak of religion"

It already happened in the past man (eden)

reply to post by HamrHeed


Here's a video that would put things into perspective...where my fence is sitting under me.

Very glad to see some real insight into the truth from Blaine and others...

Found an article that exposes the hidden CORE that is BEHIND the smoke and mirrors. Highly recommended reading, it clearly shows the connections between war, religion and money, be warned it is long.

The usual investigative method that says “follow the money trail” does NOT work with the Illuminati. It leads investigators into endless loops and cul de sacs. Quit picking off little leaves and twigs, and go to the real source at the CORE. The Illuminati is a RELIGIOUS movement. The religion is PAGANISM . Source

So, if researchers into the subject want to get past the leaves on the tree, and get to the core, to the root, the source, look at the RELIGIOUS goings on. When you are studying what they have done in the field of banking, dig yet deeper, into the RELIGION of the banker, or, the religion he is hiding BEHIND his religion (Yes, it’s true, the Illuminati teaches its devotees to PRETEND to be members of respected religions, publicly). If it is the Trilaterals or the architects of the UN you are looking at, look deeper. Look for their pagan RELIGION. It is THERE that you will find the true leaders of the underground, the PRIESTS of the old religions. THEY are running the show. THEY are the ones pulling the puppet-strings on the bankers and the politicians who are involved in the conspiracy. Draw back that curtain and look at the real situation and you will see the facts. They have tried to comprehend it as a political or financial machine, and have overlooked the fact that it is at the heart really a RELIGIOUS movement. Source

So again, don’t just look at the outward public face of the Conspiracy. Don’t just look at the surface, such as international bankers, the CFR, Trilaterals, the Treaty of Rome, the U.N., socialism and the European Union, look at who the leaders teachers are, who their priests are, who their philosophers are.

Don’t stop short and point at some world banker. Find out who his shaman is. Find out who does his astrology chart. Look at who taught him Gnosticism, theosophy and syncretism, and you will find yourself looking squarely at the Illuminati itself. For instance, Gregory Rasputin was one. He was the occult shaman sent in by the Gnostic secret society, the Klysty, to spy on, undermine, and subvert the House of the Romanovs. He was the Illuminati’s man in the Czar’s Palace.

Source

Another article that is worth reading:

"War is the principal means by which Lucifer's disciples, the Cabalist (satanist) central bankers, "change the world."

"...most wars/conflicts are orchestrated by this satanic cult. In other words, an Occult Elite is waging war on humanity and we don't even know it. Our political life is essentially an illusion."

How They Control the World

i missed the part of the Bible where Jesus says love your neighbour, then invade his ass and steal his oil.

Originally posted by randomname
i missed the part of the Bible where Jesus says love your neighbour, then invade his ass and steal his oil.

If you think iraq was about religion, you're running a ditch

Originally posted by randomname
i missed the part of the Bible where Jesus says love your neighbour, then invade his ass and steal his oil.

You also missed several posts in this thread that already covered this in detail, I can understand why so MANY people completely throw in the towel on ATS when they spend HOURS writing in a thread only to be completely ignored by other posters. Seems as though some here have absolutely NO interest whatsoever in the TRUTH.
Makes as much sense as the very WARS we are talking about here. Time to LOSE the PJ's...

Religion doesn't cause wars. Money does. Either you have the money to fight or you don't.

If no one had the money to make weapons, there would be no wars. At least, not nuclear ones...

Originally posted by Astyanax

If you read first-hand accounts by people like Geoffroy de Joinville or Geoffroi de Villehardouin, you'll discover that religion was indeed a very great motivator for many Crusaders. These men were not 'low front soldiers'; they were noblemen. Joinville was a close personal friend of King Louis II, himself a deeply religious man. We in our secular modern world cannot have any intuitive understanding of the power religion exerted over such men. We see the political and economical aspects of their religious wars and movements, the partisanism and self-interest associated with them, and often we cynically assume that the religious aspect was merely a fig-leaf to cover all of that. We would be greatly mistaken to do so.

The problem was that they were basically doing everything against what their religion preached them to do, so how can we say it was some generic religious reason?

I fail to see Power, Greed, Corruption, land grab, rape, pillage and plunder etc... as part of the moral foundation of religions, and as far as I know most religions see this all as evil acts that will get you a direct ticket to hell.

The thing with religion is that when it is kept at a social level it does great things, but when it becomes a institution of control it really isn't religion anymore. It is a hard argument to win if one suggests that the catholic church in the dark ages were living and preaching the teachings of Christ, as example.

Man will corrupt anything for personal gains.

What religious idea or concept initiated the First and Second World Wars?

Hitler said he was doing God's work, and aryanism itself could be seen as a religion.

Not to mention that many of the people that fight are religious and that is often used to coax them to fight. Just look at how many christians (and muslims) today want us to bomb every other country on earth.

reply to post by Xtrozero

They were basically doing everything against what their religion preached them to do, so how can we say it was some generic religious reason?

Did you forget the part in the Bible where it says, 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth'?

Mediaeval Christianity was nothing like Christianity today. Instead of arguing further, I would urge you to familiarize yourself with the period before you make pronouncements about it. Don't make anachronistic judgements about history. Read the sources I mentioned, as well as Arab ones like Al-Athir, Usama and Baha Ad-Din – all men who were experienced the Crusades at first-hand – and see what you think afterwards.

I fail to see Power, Greed, Corruption, land grab, rape, pillage and plunder etc... as part of the moral foundation of religions, and as far as I know most religions see this all as evil acts that will get you a direct ticket to hell.

I suggest you read your Bible more closely, and with a more critical eye. Quite apart from the land grabs, rape, pillage and plunder with which the books of Kings, Judges, etc., are replete, read the story of the rise of the prophet Samuel with a sceptical attitude and you will see power, greed and corruption dripping from the page. I'm serious; try it. Imagine that all the things God is supposed to have said (in private, always) to Samuel were never said, and see what shape the story takes.

The thing with religion is that when it is kept at a social level it does great things, but when it becomes a institution of control it really isn't religion anymore. It is a hard argument to win if one suggests that the catholic church in the dark ages were living and preaching the teachings of Christ, as example.

This is somewhat naive. Man didn't invent religion; it was, if anything, more the other way round. We don't control it; it controls us, and it manipulates us for its own survival and propagation like any other selfish meme.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Did you forget the part in the Bible where it says, 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth'?

Kind of like "do to others what you would have them do to you"? Ya, I know we can all pick and choose quotes to fit our rational. but this doesn't mean invade and conquer. Well it does if that is what you want it to mean, and that is my point, Man will use whatever means they have at hand, and manipulate it beyond all recognition of its true purpose.

If I take a hammer and kill people it is now an evil deadly weapon that needs to be banned even though the vast majority of the time it used only for building. Have I not corrupted it for my own personal agenda? Isn't the hammer still just a building tool?

This is somewhat naive. Man didn't invent religion; it was, if anything, more the other way round. We don't control it; it controls us, and it manipulates us for its own survival and propagation like any other selfish meme.

Religion is a by-product of Man's ability to think in the abstract. The ability of abstract thoughts is what makes Man, Man, and so as long as we have this ability religion will always be there too. Man is not very nice, we even need to threaten people with laws to stop them from doing harm to each other, but Man is smart and understands this and so he strives for better morals and values. Religion is one of these processes to achieve this but morals and values have been quite different in the past than it is today. When we take religion in context with the era it was written in it has always been on the cutting edge of man's best morals and values even though view in context with today's standards it may look wrong at times

reply to post by Xtrozero

Man is not very nice, we even need to threaten people with laws to stop them from doing harm to each other, but Man is smart and understands this and so he strives for better morals and values.

Value judgements are helpful to individuals trying to work out what is the right behaviour in any situation. They are unhelpful and gravely misleading when we apply them to the objective study of human behaviour and institutions – or anything else, for that matter.

Mankind is neither nasty nor nice; it is simply a species of intelligent being with an unusually wide repertoire of behaviour. Some of this behaviour promotes the welfare of the individual at the expense of other members of the group. Other behaviour promotes the welfare of the group, sometimes at the expense of the individual. By and large, 'nasty' behaviour falls into the first category, 'nice' behaviour into the second. It is not our 'smartness' but our sociable instincts, augmented by the threat of punishment, that promote the second kind of behaviour.

Often it would be 'smarter' from the individual perspective to behave in a 'nasty' way, except that social retribution is very likely to follow.

If we are going to be amateur anthropologists (the thread topic is a subject in social anthropology), it is probably best to conduct ourselves like good students and not make moral judgements about the individuals and societies we are discussing, since such judgements are an extreme form of observer bias reflecting our own social training.

Unless you can recognize this, you are simply another 'defender of the faith' and there will be little point in our continuing this conversation.

Now we've got that out of the way...

Religion is one of these processes to achieve this.

Religion is indeed a coercive factor most often used used to promote behaviour that favours the group – and is invariably hijacked to reinforce the hierarchical structure that exists within all social groups. Whether or not you think it promotes real morals and values in a given society depends wholly on whether or not you think the values of that society are the same as yours. You acknowledge this when you go on to say

Morals and values have been quite different in the past than... today.

Actually, they vary not only historically but geographically. In the society from which I spring, for example, loyalty to one's extended family takes precedence over conformity with the laws of the land. This is not overtly acknowledged – on the contrary – but it is tacitly approved and almost universally practised. So when you assert that

religion... has always been on the cutting edge of man's best morals and values even though viewed in context with today's standards it may look wrong at times.

you are simply re-phrasing in unhelpfully moralistic terms the rather obvious point I make above, namely, that religion is a coercive factor used to promote behaviour that favours the group over the individual.