Bless to kill!

[bazarov]

Reading other thread on this forum, something (again) crossed my mind. Some people, actually a lot of them; including Voltaire, (one of the greatest minds ever lived who wrote about that in Candide), finds priests bless of army and soldiers before battle very hippocratic. Priests are blessing both sides so on who's side God is? I am not concerned about normal people, Voltaire is concerning me: how could be that....stupid:D? Do you also think that priest before death penalty is hippocratic too?
Also, why many ''good'' Christians like ''eye for an eye'' quote when it actually doesn't concerns them?
First two questions also considers Christians, but they could be seen as general.

Thank you.

[Pendragon]

Reading other thread on this forum, something (again) crossed my mind. Some people, actually a lot of them; including Voltaire, (one of the greatest minds ever lived who wrote about that in Candide), finds priests bless of army and soldiers before battle very hippocratic. Priests are blessing both sides so on who's side God is? I am not concerned about normal people, Voltaire is concerning me: how could be that....stupid:D?

Read Mark Twain's "The War Prayer". It'll pay!


Do you also think that priest before death penalty is hippocratic too?
Why? Did he sentence the person to die?


Also, why many ''good'' Christians like ''eye for an eye'' quote when it actually doesn't concerns them?

To quote another book, "Revenge is sweet. Saccharine sweet!" And "To err is human; to forgive, divine!" comes to mind also!




First two questions also considers Christians, but they could be seen as general.

Thank you. God Bless

Pen

[blazeofglory]

Reading other thread on this forum, something (again) crossed my mind. Some people, actually a lot of them; including Voltaire, (one of the greatest minds ever lived who wrote about that in Candide), finds priests bless of army and soldiers before battle very hippocratic. Priests are blessing both sides so on who's side God is? I am not concerned about normal people, Voltaire is concerning me: how could be that....stupid:D? Do you also think that priest before death penalty is hippocratic too?
Also, why many ''good'' Christians like ''eye for an eye'' quote when it actually doesn't concerns them?
First two questions also considers Christians, but they could be seen as general.

Thank you.

If any religions say eye for an eye, such religions lead to profanity, and they are not religions at all.

Non violence must be the principles of religions, and if any religious ideas breed animosity and envy and covetousness such religions become corrupt.

[bazarov]

Mon ami, I am a Christian and I approve those things. I am just curious why people who are against that find it wrong, in religious or moral aspect.
Twain will have to wait; Dostoevsky in The Idiot and Hugo in Les Miserables made it also perfectly clear. :)



If any religions say eye for an eye, such religions lead to profanity, and they are not religions at all.

Non violence must be the principles of religions, and if any religious ideas breed animosity and envy and covetousness such religions become corrupt.

In Old Testament is written ''eye for an eye, tooth for tooth''. I understand if a Jew quotes it, by why Christians do that often?

[Pendragon]

In Old Testament is written ''eye for an eye, tooth for tooth''. I understand if a Jew quotes it, by why Christians do that often?Especially when Jesus makes it clear in the New Testament that this is not the way!

[Virgil]

Baz, I think Abraham Lincoln has said something to the effect that we do not pray for God to be on our side but pray that we are on God's side. The distinction is very significant. What the proper role of ministery in war should be is certainly contentious. But if anyone is potentially going to their death than a blessing for their soul seems appropriate, removed from whatever actions they may do. Even a condemned murder facing execution recieves some sort of priestly absolution.

[mazHur]

Especially when Jesus makes it clear in the New Testament that this is not the way!

it doesn't seem to have much in common with religion-it's a page from the 'code of life' and simply emphasizes 'justice'. In our colloquial don't you call it ''tit for tat''!

Ashoka the Great, among others, adopted the policy of non-violence and consequently couldn't pull along a mile with his regal march. If non violence was a good thing then all the terrorists would be rendered scot free to do whatever they liked and the victims would just sit with their hands crossed!
Steps taken in Self defence and execution of law and justice are fair in their entirely and ought to be practised whenever the need arises, otherwise why starve the people in the name of huge spending on 'defense' and waging 'war' against the terrorists?

[The Atheist]

Reading other thread on this forum, something (again) crossed my mind. Some people, actually a lot of them; including Voltaire, (one of the greatest minds ever lived who wrote about that in Candide), finds priests bless of army and soldiers before battle very hippocratic. Priests are blessing both sides so on who's side God is? I am not concerned about normal people, Voltaire is concerning me: how could be that....stupid:D? Do you also think that priest before death penalty is hippocratic too?
Also, why many ''good'' Christians like ''eye for an eye'' quote when it actually doesn't concerns them?
First two questions also considers Christians, but they could be seen as general.

Thank you.

(Sorry, mate, not trying to be too pedantic, but note spelling. "Hippocratic" would relate to Hippocrates and the Hippocratic oath that doctors used to use. "Hypocrite" and "hypocritical" are the words you're after.)

Maybe god decides which side is right on the basis of "might is right", because in wars, the strongest side almost always wins?

I think "hypocritical" isn't right, because the priests and religions justify the war, even when it's unjustifiable. (Iraq & Vietnam being two excellent examples.) This is the entire problem with the christian bible - there are 1001 different interpretations and some sects even use it as justification for homophobia or racism. Using it to justify even an unjust war is a piece of cake. How that differs from telling terrorists they will get 72 virginal handmaidens in heaven totally escapes me.

I disagree with you on the death penalty though, where my ire is reserved for doctors who administer lethal injections. If the first tenet of doctors is "first, do no harm", then doctors involved in killing people must have missed that day!

In the case of priests & capital punishment, I don't see a conundrum for the priest - the convict is going to die anyway and the priest is just doing his rightful work, giving solace to the intended corpse and leaving the judgement to his god.


Mon ami, I am a Christian and I approve those things. I am just curious why people who are against that find it wrong, in religious or moral aspect.
Twain will have to wait; Dostoevsky in The Idiot and Hugo in Les Miserables made it also perfectly clear. :)

In Old Testament is written ''eye for an eye, tooth for tooth''. I understand if a Jew quotes it, by why Christians do that often?

To appease their own need for retribution?

The point is, do they accept Jesus' tenet of "Justice/vengeance belongs to god", or the OT version? Lots of evangelical christian churches preach the OT as factual, so if that's the case, the preachers are only preaching what they believe to be right.

As in wars, justification is everything. This is easily verified by checking the official positions of various religious sects, where the shining example is Anglicanism and Rowan Williams - consistently anti-war except in self-defence and 100% anti-capital punishment.

I must confess as a personal view, believing in an omnipotent god who holds the sole right of law on morality and eternity, then using the death penalty on earth, seems a bit like double-dipping.

[NewDiscovery]

did Jesus carry guns, knives and bombs.....
yes/no/maybe?

these ''priests'' are not from the church of the Living God - comanded by the Prince of Peace- but are from the church of the 'carnalmindedness of man''.
''the warmongering church''. The ''army of the Lord'' does not consist of these earthly cowards and hypocrites.
People follow these men, adore them and do as they advise, therefore the religious masses are just as evil minded as their priests, yet claim to be ''followers of the Prince of Peace''.

ummmmm.....what a puke.

[Redzeppelin]

The "eye for an eye" thing is specifically and contextually connected to the nation of Israel's exodus from Egypt. After 400 years of servitude, some basic laws needed to be instituted in order to create order. People in institutions often develop a form of "learned helplessness" created by being in a place where all decisions were made for them. Something similar probably occurred in Egypt, and God laid down some basic laws. As Pen pointed out above, the New Testament revised that law.

Second, that both sides pray to God does not mean that both sides correctly understand God's will.

[bazarov]

Virgil, Pendragon and Redzeppelin; I totally agree with you and understand it, I am confused about the ''others side'':) I will repeat, I am a Christian and approve those things.


it doesn't seem to have much in common with religion-it's a page from the 'code of life' and simply emphasizes 'justice'. In our colloquial don't you call it ''tit for tat''!

It's very important quote from Bible so it is very religious.



Ashoka the Great, among others, adopted the policy of non-violence and consequently couldn't pull along a mile with his regal march. If non violence was a good thing then all the terrorists would be rendered scot free to do whatever they liked and the victims would just sit with their hands crossed!
Steps taken in Self defence and execution of law and justice are fair in their entirely and ought to be practised whenever the need arises, otherwise why starve the people in the name of huge spending on 'defense' and waging 'war' against the terrorists?

Self defence is totally irrelevant now; of course it has different basis; although some humans rather decided to die then taking someone's life...Also, this is more about Christianity.



Maybe god decides which side is right on the basis of "might is right", because in wars, the strongest side almost always wins?

I think "hypocritical" isn't right, because the priests and religions justify the war, even when it's unjustifiable. (Iraq & Vietnam being two excellent examples.) This is the entire problem with the christian bible - there are 1001 different interpretations and some sects even use it as justification for homophobia or racism. Using it to justify even an unjust war is a piece of cake. How that differs from telling terrorists they will get 72 virginal handmaidens in heaven totally escapes me.

(Thanks:sick:Well, psychology and physical is my favorite - similar spelling but totally different meaning:D)

I don't believe God chooses side, in war both sides are almost equally wrong. Like Tolstoy says: When two are in argue; they are both guilty. Also, I don't believe that any religion in it's essence justifies war; 72 virgins is totally totally wrong and well used interpretation of Kuran by some fools. And sects are not religion; some fool find another fools and dozen of fools is not a religion.




I disagree with you on the death penalty though, where my ire is reserved for doctors who administer lethal injections. If the first tenet of doctors is "first, do no harm", then doctors involved in killing people must have missed that day!

In the case of priests & capital punishment, I don't see a conundrum for the priest - the convict is going to die anyway and the priest is just doing his rightful work, giving solace to the intended corpse and leaving the judgement to his god.

Totally agree.






The point is, do they accept Jesus' tenet of "Justice/vengeance belongs to god", or the OT version? Lots of evangelical christian churches preach the OT as factual, so if that's the case, the preachers are only preaching what they believe to be right.

As in wars, justification is everything. This is easily verified by checking the official positions of various religious sects, where the shining example is Anglicanism and Rowan Williams - consistently anti-war except in self-defence and 100% anti-capital punishment.



You cannot accept Jesus on OT version. Christianity is based on NT, Jesus clarified it and corrected OT more then few times. OT is just prophecy that Jesus or The Savior will come. So it must be: Romans 12:19

19Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord.


Especially when Jesus makes it clear in the New Testament that this is not the way! Exactly!

Matthew 5:39


39"But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

[Kent Edwins]

I don't have anything to add. But Bob Dylan does:

Oh my name it is nothin'
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I's taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And that land that I live in
Has God on its side.

Oh the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side.

Oh the Spanish-American
War had its day
And the Civil War too
Was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes
I's made to memorize
With guns in their hands
And God on their side.

Oh the First World War, boys
It closed out its fate
The reason for fighting
I never got straight
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead
When God's on your side.

When the Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now too
Have God on their side.

I've learned to hate Russians
All through my whole life
If another war starts
It's them we must fight
To hate them and fear them
To run and to hide
And accept it all bravely
With God on my side.

But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side.

In a many dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.

So now as I'm leavin'
I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin'
Ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If God's on our side
He'll stop the next war.

[mangueken]

Even though I am an atheist, I studied history and have always had a certain fascination with religion. I think one of the reasons why there is no contradiction for many religions on questions of war is that underneath what ever clothing the religion and its followers put on, there is a fundamental belief in the sanctity of the people who believe. In other words, they are sacred, they live in their sacred area and have their place to worship. Outside of this is the other, the profane. Why would the god they believe in not be on their side?
As far as it concerns Voltaire I don't think it was hypocritical as much as, possibly, a contradiction to support war.
But then, how many times have we seen that before, people rally to the war cause when war starts. It's so common in history to see people who speak against war in times of peace do a complete turn around when war starts. I don't know if a similar expression exists in other countries, but we Americans have the "October surprise", a kind of verbal proof of how easy it is to rally people to war. The holy "we" must defeat the unholy "them"
The debate of OT vs NT stuff reminds me of the scene with Susan Sarandon in Dead Man Walking, where she says something to the effect that even the Devil could find a scripture in the bible to justify his work.

[JBI]

They pray to god because they believe themselves right. IF you believe yourself right, than god naturally will see it fit to bless you. Them acknowledging god is another way of seeming more 'right', and thereby being in god's favor.

It isn't just Christians - many Jews pray for god to vanquish the enemy, and bring destruction to the foes. The exact prayer that comes to mind is The Prayer for Peace in Israel, which is more of a prayer for the destruction of the enemies of Israel.

That being said, he who wastes time praying is putting himself to that disadvantage. Priests more likely would just pray, as they always do, and tell the soldiers that they are in gods favor, and god will make them win, as a way of convincing them to go and butcher the enemy/be butchered by the enemy.

The best criticism on this is not Voltaire, I would say, but rather Marx, who simplifies matters, and questions why we pray, and what the church really does for us. As wrong as his solutions seem to be to us now, Marx's criticisms are actually amongst the best ever written.

[mazHur]

water flows from a higher level to the low level.
WE need God's blessings, He doesn't need ours!