The "Second Coming" gives those in power an excuse to wage war perpetually

a reply to: Develo
Religious fundamentalism, by the very definition, means strict adherence to scripture. A religious fundamentalist is an extremist. It's extreme because scripture is extreme. To adhere to it is both extreme and fundamental. Those religious folk that are not 'extreme' means they don't adhere to the entirety of their scripture.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Develo
Religious fundamentalism, by the very definition, means strict adherence to scripture.

Nope, religious fundamentalism means literal interpretation of religious texts.

Even to the Church fathers it was clear many passages in the Bible are symbolic. Strict adherence to the early interpretation of the scriptures is more like othodoxy.

The literal interpretation of the whole Bible is a modern and American invention (around 19th century). It has no basis in history. Scriptures themselves are not as extreme as you claim. Literal reading of them is extreme though (and unnecessary).


Extremism/fundamentalism do not represent a "better" adherence to the texts and often display incoherence as a result of a literal reading. Extremism/fundamentalism represent a twisted and distorted interpretation of the text.

That such movements encourage judgement, segregation and violence against those who believe differently tells you all you need about them. It's not spiritual/religious anymore. It's only political.

originally posted by: Develo

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: works4dhs
I see no evidence that Christians want more war/chaos, but apparently some muslims think this is a good idea.


"

You need to talk to more fundamentalists.

They don't even represent 1% of the world population. Why should we care about what American fundies believe in?

Why should we worry about what Muslim fundamentalists believe in?

originally posted by: Tangerine

Why should we worry about what Muslim fundamentalists believe in?

Because unlike American Christian fundamentalists, Muslim fundamentalists have:

- A transnational political organization (supported by super wealthy states like S.A. and Qatar)
- Decent military power
- A common agenda
- A plan to achieve said agenda.


Christian fundamentalists can dream all they want, it's not them who control the American govt.

What they believe in is of interests for Americans, but the rest of the world honestly doesn't care about them because compared to Muslim fundies, they are anecdotal.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Sorry about the delay.

The standard argument that "religion causes wars" is not enough to make the case stated in the OP.

Wars may not begin because of the "second coming" but they always end in disaster for everyone. Yes, nations are destroyed , it is the end for some.

The ideology promoted by organized religions is that due to the wars being waged now, Armageddon will come, Christ will return and the world will end in a cataclysm.

Religion uses the threat of this to start the war, (they will invade and burn our churches unless we do something) and then again to continue it (God is on our side)..

It always ends badly.

Some feuds that are religious in nature are ongoing for centuries.

Deny that.

Jews and Christians against Muslims, (The Crusades, the war on terror and Israel vs.Palestine)

Catholic vs. Protestant (Ireland)

Hindu vs. Muslim (Pakistan and India)

a reply to: DISRAELI

Those in power don't have to say it, people already think it through their religious institutions and doctrines.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I challenged you earlier to name ONE war which was started on the basis of "we need to have this war and wars like it for the sake of the second coming".

originally posted by: intrptr
Jews and Christians against Muslims, (The Crusades, the war on terror and Israel vs.Palestine)

Catholic vs. Protestant (Ireland)

Hindu vs. Muslim (Pakistan and India)

All actually political conflicts and not really religious.

Religions don't want to start wars per se. Only religions manipulated by extremists to fulfill a political agenda.

originally posted by: intrptr
The ideology promoted by organized religions is that due to the wars being waged now, Armageddon will come, Christ will return and the world will end in a cataclysm.

The mass of organised religion is not promoting this sequence of logic, and I don't see evidence of political authorities exploiting it

Religion uses the threat of this to start the war, (they will invade and burn our churches unless we do something) and then again to continue it (God is on our side).

This is abstract theorising not connected with reality.
Start naming some actual examples of wars which have been started on this basis.

Some feuds that are religious in nature are ongoing for centuries.
Deny that.

Irrelevant.
This thread is specifically about "the Second Coming" as a cause of war.
I've said it once, and I repeat it; showing a connection between religion in general and war does nothing towards the specific case presented in the opening post

a reply to: DISRAELI

And I said that those in power don't have to say it because believers have seen war as Jesus' coming.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
If you are going to claim that the doctrine gives those in power an excuse, you ought at least to show them using it as an excuse.
Otherwise, the fact that one fragment of the population in one part of the world might approve of wars for that reason has no great significance.
It certainly wouldn't add up to the doctrine being a "cause of war" in any sense.

The New Testament also predicts earthquakes, as part of that sequence of events.
I trust you're not going to suggest that religious fanaticism is the cause of earthquakes, using the same reasoning.

a reply to: DISRAELI

You misunderstood what my OP was saying. I never said those in power use Jesus specifically as an excuse to start wars, they use other things for that, what I was saying was that their wars aren't stood against as much as they should be because believers believe war will bring Jesus back. The doctrine of the Second Coming enables them in a way to fight these wars because the majority (yes the majority are of the Abrahamic faith) believe the war will bring Jesus back.

The Crusades and Inquisition were justified by being carried out in the name of Jesus, that's two examples of "wars" being fought in Jesus' name.

Do believers want Jesus to come back? If so, they want war because it is a prerequisite of his return.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
The doctrine of the Second Coming enables them in a way to fight these wars because the majority (yes the majority are of the Abrahamic faith) believe the war will bring Jesus back.

Being of Christian faith is NOT the same thing as "believing that war will bring Jesus back".
That form of logic is not the standard Christian view.
In the opening post, you were arguing that this logic has been operating and supporting war.for two thousand years. I doubt that it has existed even as a minority view for anything like that length of time.
Isn't it a product of modern American fundamentalist literalism? Was anyone offering that theory before the internet age?

The Crusades and Inquisition were justified by being carried out in the name of Jesus, that's two examples of "wars" being fought in Jesus' name.

That is irrelevant, because they were not being fought in the name of the Second Coming.

Do believers want Jesus to come back? If so, they want war because it is a prerequisite of his return.

Believers in general don't think like that.
War is mentioned in Matthew not as a "prerequisite", but as an example of the troubles of the age, along with famines and earthquakes, and I don't think the church historically has taken any other view.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
The doctrine of the Second Coming enables them in a way to fight these wars because the majority (yes the majority are of the Abrahamic faith) believe the war will bring Jesus back.

There's one crack in your argument:

The majority of believers are not fundamentalists and thus do not believe in a literal second coming.

I've been raised a Christian, and like many Christians I know stuff like "the end times", "the armageddon" and the "second coming of the Christ" are either already fulfilled (preterism), either allegories of personal and internal transformations.

So no, the majority does not believe in a literal second coming of Jesus/Mahdi/Messiah. Only Christian, Muslim or Jewish fundamentalists, which are minorities.

a reply to: Develo

So the majority of Christians do not believe Jesus will literally come back and that it is an internal process? I highly doubt that.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I was religious once. For a while, I believed an attack on Israel was a part of the end times. Of course, I'm agnostic atheist now. But my upbringing gives me a unique perspective. Personally, I think religion doesn't excuse war, it just helps to explain it. I was terrified back then of the end times. I didn't want it to happen. I won't lie and say it didn't influence who I thought was the enemy. Of course, I knew Israel was going to betray God. Yet I also knew Israel was a target in the end times, so any country wanting to destroy Israel is probably not good. Especially one which harbours unto a false God, like Allah.

I think war would happen without religion. First, it's Oxytocin:
www.sciencedaily.com - Neurobiological cause of intergroup conflict: 'Bonding hormone' drives aggression towards competing out-groups...

(...)
The research team at the University of Amsterdam, directed by Dr. Carsten de Dreu, wondered why oxytocin would promote altruistic behavior. Whereas classic economic theory has difficulty accounting for altruism, an evolutionary perspective suggests that altruism functions to strengthen one's own group, from which the individual benefits in the long run. Because aggression towards competing out-groups helps one's own group to become relatively stronger, aggression is an indirect form of altruistic, loyal behavior towards one's own group.
(...)

So it's a method of our evolution that we sacrifice for our group and war with out-groups who threaten us. This could be a problem in the modern world when more and more groups are bordering each other closely.

And this:
www.psychologicalscience.o rg - Why Do People Defend Unjust, Inept, and Corrupt Systems?...

(...)
System justification isn’t the same as acquiescence, explains Aaron C. Kay, a psychologist at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business and the Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, who co-authored the paper with University of Waterloo graduate student Justin Friesen. “It’s pro-active. When someone comes to justify the status quo, they also come to see it as what should be.”

Reviewing laboratory and cross-national studies, the paper illuminates four situations that foster system justification: system threat, system dependence, system inescapability, and low personal control.
(...)

So what's that mean? It means we instinctively act a certain way when we live within a system. We tend to support a system, if: the system is threatened, or we're dependent on it, or we can't easily escape, or our personal control is low.

This "prejudice" is irregardless of the system. However, knowing the principle actors of our instinctive prejudice means we can manipulate it. For example, by reducing dependency on a system, we can reduce 'system justification'. But to be effective, all of the actors must be cordoned and addressed.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

We are powerless to end it, the Christians unless you did not notice are a minority these days with many claiming to be Christian but not actually so and most wars like I say are about resources and money, greed and power so driven by those who inwardly at least definitely do not believe in God as they are seeking to make themselves into petty god's by taking this power.

Ain't that the truth? I'm so sick of it! I wish they would STHU! They shouldn't even call their musings discussing it the 'second coming', they should call it their 'second guessing'. Utter BS, all of it.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I challenged you earlier to name ONE war which was started on the basis of "we need to have this war and wars like it for the sake of the second coming".

If the second coming is coming, why wait? Lets get it on.

Did that help?

a reply to: intrptr
And which war, exactly, was started on that basis?
If you are quoting the exact words of some President's message to Congress, please give more details for the sake of the non-American readership.