Christianity & War--a discussion at work.

[Delarage]

I brought up the subject of Christianity and war with a fundie at work. Specifically, I asked how she could love Bush so much when he seems very pro-war. Part of war is killing, and the Bible says "Thou shalt not kill." Seems pretty clear to me. Also, the Bible talks a lot about Christians being oppressed/suppressed/killed and reminds them that the afterlife holds their rewards. So, what would the true Christian response be to a terrorist attack?

BTW--the fundie rambled on about "an eye for an eye" before I reminded her that that statement was changed after Christ was born to "turn the other cheek."

Not that it matters, anyway. She truly believes Bush was made our leader by God himself.

[Cats Against Frist]

1. I can't decide whether it's good or bad that I don't know any of these

people. On one hand, it makes my existence much more blissful. On the other, I don't know what to look for. I hear these crazies look like everyone else.

[Delarage]

2. I think I can sense their presence

I guess it's "Repukedar" or "Fundiedar" but I'm convinced I can tell if someone is a repuke or not. I wish I could verify my suspicions somehow , other than asking them.

I guess I could set up surveillance like Ashcroft and track their every move. :shrug:

[jobycom]

5. Maybe it's the bloodlust in their eyes, the arrogance in their voice

The attitude that they are always right in all things and no one else even deserves to breath?

[Delarage]

7. I do think it's a large part arrogance

Like "You can stand there and tell me all the facts you want, but I know you're a liberal so you'll never change my mind" and then some sort of follow-up along the lines of "John Kerry shot himself because he knew he was going to run for office someday and it would look good"

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. Hell, in my neck of the woods

they ARE everyone else.

[Taxloss]

3. So how did she respond?

eom

[Delarage]

6. Oops....

she told me to go consult with another person on the staff who also happens to be some sort of minister and who, of course, voted for Bush despite saying he's a Democrat. So I'm not really interested in what he has to say because I've already talked to him and he makes no sense.

I've actually thought about asking my own minister the very question: When, if ever, does the Bible condonce military action?

[Taxloss]

11. Well, Jesus overturned the tables of the moneylenders in the temple.

That's often taken as an invitation to military action, since it's the only vaguely violent thing Jesus did. However, that was all about ending the defilement of a holy place with commercialism, something that might be lost on the customers of the megachurches as they leave with their T-shirts and bumper stickers.

[leesa]

51. Exactly. The only "violence" (turning over tables is violent?) Jesus

had in him was toward the Pharisees, who today are the Christian Right.

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. All the justifications for war are pulled from the old testament,

which, although it is a collections of dozens of books by possibly a hundred different authors, and is a collection of a mixture of history, poetry, philosophy and hebrew myth, is supposed to be taken absolutely literally -- no matter which bad translations you happen to be reading.

As you may have noticed, I am not a literalist.

[jobycom]

4. Turn the other cheek, love thine enemy, forgive

There is absolutely nothing in Christianity that justifies war. One of the reasons the early Christians were fed to the lions was because they opposed war, and would not fight for Rome (the first America).

Now and then fundies will claim that Jesus chasing the moneychangers out of the temple was proof that he got angry, and that justifies war. Not sure how. Jesus didn't kill them. And funny how a story that even a three year old in Sunday school will everytime identify as being against greed and exploitation of religion somehow escapes the concept of fundies. The story was about Pat Robertson, Billy Graham and Bob Jones, yet these fucking idiots will claim it justifies these hate mongers.

I'm an atheist, so I don't care about the religion anyway, but fundies shouldn't use the word Christian to describe themselves. They are the complete opposite. They are the ones Jesus came to rebuke. One of the pillars of my atheism is that if there were a God, George Bush, Billy Graham, and all these murdering vermin would not be allowed to exist. The Bible is full of God's wrath raining down on people for much less than these evil dogs have done.

Sorry, I'm in a bitter mood tonight. Not that my opinion changes when I'm in a good mood.

BTW, one thing: The original commandment doesn't really translate as "Though shall not kill." It really translates more like "Don't commit murder." The word is, from what I understand, more specifically about the crime of murder than about killing.

Oh yeah, and one more thing: Christians sling that phrase "an eye for an eye" around as though God were giving them permission for revenge. Quite the opposite. He was also saying "No more than an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Since Iraq was at peace with us, then there was no justification in any way. The Bible does not say "If you fear a man, kill his sons and all of his neighbors, including the children and the elderly, but only arrest the man you fear and keep him in jail for a show trial when you need the boost in popularity."

[Delarage]

8. Thanks.

Maybe we should run that commandment by Alberto Gonzalez and get his interpretation. Maybe it's "quaint" now, I don't know.

Either way, I'd still say there are people being murdered and killed in Iraq because of Bush's unjustifiable and un-Christian actions.

[Purple Clematis]

13. Christians were fed to the lions was because they opposed war

Uhmm, that's not true. The Christians were falsely blamed for the burning of Rome, both actions done by Ceasar.

[jobycom]

21. Umm...

No, the burning of Rome was during Nero's time, and some people think Nero did it himself. There is no conclusive evidence. But that was only one incident of the persecution of Christians. They were persecuted from shortly after the time of Jesus, and including Jesus, actually, until Constantine legalized Christianity in the fourth century.

In the early days there were three main complaints against them, all centered around patriotism to Rome: One, they denied the other gods, which undermined the control of the temples and of the emperor himself, Two, they did not honor Rome itself, and three, they refused to fight for Rome. Persecution was sporadic: some emperors hated them worse than others, and some times were worse than others, depending on how things were going. If there were droughts, military losses, or anything bad, Christians were blamed because they would not pray to the gods. When things were going well, people didn't notice them so much.

[Purple Clematis]

41. My bad

...Yes, I did cite the wrong emporer's name. Nevertheless, it had nothing to do with Christians opposing war.

[jobycom]

44. It wasn't the name of the emperor

You are boiling down three centuries of Christian persecution and applying one moment as an excuse for all of it. And that moment is not even the beginnings of the persecutions. I assure you, as an historian who has spent a lot of time reading what was being said at the time, that the Christians were persecuted, and executed, in part, for opposing war, and refusing to fight. War was an almost sacred duty to the Romans, and the Christian message of peace was not well received. As it isn't under the current Caesar.

[RaleighNCDUer]

31. Nero ruled for something like 12 years. The christians were

persecuted for 300. I don't think it had that much to do with the buring of rome.

[Senator Lamb]

39. I respect your views

and the context of your vote. But what would be the point if God didnt allow those people exist? or for that matter any liar, or evil person? you view it as absence of God. I view it as a challenge by God, for mankind on its own free will to truly live by the principles that Jesus spoke of. In order to do that we must be given obstables and struggles, such as people who distort his message. In the process we will spiritually evolve ourselves as our faith strengthens

[CAG]

9. Christian "criteria" for war

There is some kind of official criteria that religious leaders refer to measure if a situation justifies war, and I can't remember what its called (too late, lack of caffeine).

As a christian, looking back, in my mind it seems like the following wars were justified in US history: the american revolutionary war, the US civil war, WWI, certainly WWII, afghanistan.

Not so much: Vietnam, Gulf war, wars against native americans, and the current village idiots war in Iraq.

Too late, lack of caffeine and knowledge of history to have too much opinion on: Korea "police conflict", and all of the other really little wars.

[Taxloss]

12. Welcome to DU, CAG!

:toast:

[JVS]

32. Why do so many people think that our participation in WWI was justified?

The best thing about our participation in that war was that it came so late that we weren't involved in the senseless slaughter for very long

[jobycom]

57. I don't know why Woodrow Wilson is so popular

He was a liberal in some of his speeches, but not often in his actions. He waged wars in Central America much like Reagan did, he opposed the right of women to vote, until pressure eventually made him support it. He was a former roommate of the man who wrote "Birth of a Nation" (not DW Griffith, the book), and when the movie was made, he encouraged the revival of the KKK, and praised the message of the movie. (This is better than Warren G Harding, who was inducted into the KKK on the White House lawn). He locked up opponents of WWI, including journalists, some of whom spent the whole war in jail for daring to speak out against the war.

He did make pretty speeches after WWI and he did prevent Europe from splitting up their conquests as spoils of war, but that may have been as much American self-interest as any liberal ideology-- he didn't want one powerhouse in Europe to become too strong, so he kept them split.

Not a great man. Helen Keller said when he finally left office that he had shown great promise but had been a great disappointment, and part of the reason Warren G Harding was elected was because of people's distaste for Wilson and his hand picked candidate.

Read "Lies my Teacher Told Me" for a good summary of his dark side.

[Purple Clematis]

10. War, self defense, & Christianity

As a Christian, violence is never the first answer. As far as killing goes, there is a difference between killing and murder.

It doesn't sound like you are a Christian, so you should know that 'turning the other cheek' should always be a Christian's first response. That doesn't mean that us Christians should sacrifice ourselves to an enemy that would do us harm.

See these following texts from the Bible:

"If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him," Exodus 22:2. Next verse, "If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."

1 Samuel 25:13: "And David said unto his men, Gird ye on every man his sword. And they girded on every man his sword; and David also girded on his sword: and there went up after David about four hundred men; and two hundred abode by the stuff."

Judges 5:8 tells what happened to a foolish nation that choose to disarm: "They chose new gods; then was war in the gates. Was there a shield or spear seen among forty thousand in Israel?"

The answer to this rhetorical question is clearly, 'No'. The people rebelled against God. They put away their weapons of self-defense.

David wrote in Psalms 144:1, "Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight. "

And Jesus said, "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one," Luke 22:36.

... So it sounds like neither you nor your co-worker are really knowledgeable to even be debating this topic.

[Delarage]

14. Oh, I see now....thanks!

I'm "not a Christian" because I don't understand how the war in Iraq is justifiable, in moral terms? And I didn't claim to be knowledgeable enough to "debate"--I simply asked a co-worker who does, in fact, claim superior knowledge in this realm (much like yourself) what her take was.

There's lots of stuff in the Old Testament that I bet even great Christians such as yourself don't do. Lesser Christians such as myself aren't as literal, aka fundamentalist, as you because we see, with our untrained eyes, some contradictions and gray areas.

[Purple Clematis]

15. Doh!

I never defended the war in Iraq. You seemed to argue the case for war in terms of Christianity. ...So I gave you some direct quotes is all.

BTW --- I don't have any "support the troops" stickers. I don't need them. They don't do my brother any good.

[Delarage]

16. Fine.

Old Testament stuff. I was just insulted by your "you don't seem to be Christian" comment. I want your brother to be safe. I also want the people in Baghdad, Mosul, etc. to be safe.

[Purple Clematis]

20. I also want the people in Baghdad, Mosul, etc. to be safe.

Don't get pissy, my family is making me write this under duress...

Do you think the people in Baghdad were safer under Saddam?

Be nice, they're watching over my shoulder.

[Cats Against Frist]

23. The Mossad is in Chicago??? n/t

[jobycom]

27. Yes, they were safer under Saddam. The world was safer

with an America that still believed you did not invade a nation at peace. Saddam was a cakewalk compared to what we are doing.

[leesa]

50. Yes. There is no doubt they were safer under Saddam.

They were working, going to school, etc...now they can't even go out of the house, they have no water, no food, no jobs...

[oneighty]

52. I think all Christians

should band together and pray this war away.

I will join them in prayer. That oughta work.

180

[thecrow]

19. And, Purple, if you read further....

49 When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?

50 And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.

51 And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.

52 Then Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, which were come to him, Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves?

53 When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness.


I have no idea what your unrelated quotes from the Old Testament were about,possibly to comvince us that Christ approved of war? , but with Christ came the age of grace and we he bid us to be a peaceful people.
as in Luke chapter 22:
26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.

I am a Christian and I do not believe in war or warfare.
I believe that is how Christ wanted it... after all, he is the Prince of Peace.

[Purple Clematis]

29. Put in context, Mr. Crow

Yes, it's in Luke, but a totally different situation irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

I am offended that you mock me by citing the bible out of context, while totally ignoring Jesus' quote, "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

You ignored it and tried to confuse the issue with text from the betrayal of Judas.

Jesus IS the Prince of Peace. I did not ever say that Jesus was "pro" war - only that there is cause for self defense in the Bible and even from Jesus.

I'm sorry that you find the Old Testament so "unrelated". I guess then that you don't adhere to the 10 Commandments?

[thecrow]

54. Gee, it was in the same chapter.....duh

And, yes, Jesus came to change the law.
I'm sure you could look that up yourself if you took the time.

[Cats Against Frist]

22. Right, next you'll be telling me

that the "eye of the needle" is a small door, and that "meek" means to make a lot of money and boss everyone around, a lot.

:hi:

The fact is, it's contradictory -- so cherry pick what you want to believe, just like everyone else does.

[jobycom]

26. The eye of the needle

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Actually, there was a gate called the eye of the needle, and a camel could go through it. Know how? He had to take all his belongings off his back and crawl through on his knees. Christians don't always understand the metaphor.

[jobycom]

24. Blessed are the peacemakers

You can pull versus out of context all day long, but the bottom line is that Jesus's overwhelming message was forgiveness, love and humility. War is the opposite of all three. The Bible was never meant to be an I Ching, with random versus yanked out of it like fortune cookie sayings to justify whatever you feel like justifying at the moment. It is a collection of old law codes, history, love poems, and advice in the forms of Proverbs and various letters. As a whole, the message of Christ was love, not war.

As for the claim that "turning the other cheek" was only the first response, you obviously didn't read far enough. Jesus is asked how often a Christian is supposed to forgive a wrong. Seven times? Seventy? I'm sure you remember his answer...

In the final days there shall be false Christians who will lead even the elect astray. You know the true Christians by their fruits, not by how many times they scream the name Jesus while quoting random versus. Bush is one of those false Christians, as are the preachers who support him. That's clear from their fruits. Even turning the other cheek doesn't justify slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people who have never harmed us in any way. Those are the fruits of an evil tree, and Jesus would spew those folks from his mouth faster than he would spew tepid water.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jobycom]

43. Actually, he did, didn't he?

You ask if Jesus would have you succumb to a deadly attack rather than fight for your life? He did. And he chastised the man who tried to fight to defend his life, didn't he?

Think you need to think a little more about why you believe what you believe, and whether it is more about Jesus or Purple Clematis.

[RaleighNCDUer]

30. All the verses you list, other than Luke, are old testament,

the book that Christianity supplanted.

Luke is the only one that mentioned the 'go buy a sword' bit; the other three gospels don't mention it at all. In fact, the only mention of the diciples havings swords is when an unnamed follower, in Mat & Mark, Peter in Luke & John cut off the temple servant's ear. That being the case, perhaps whoever wrote Luke decided that an explanation was needed for why the followers of a pacifist rabbi would be carrying swords. The explanation doesn't help much, because he never said what they were to do with the swords after buying them, and in fact when told they had two said that was sufficient. Sufficient for what? It seemed that the entire focus of having a sword was so someone could maim a temple guard, so that he could then heal him, and tell his guys to put up their swords. Today, that would be called a PR ploy. Why would a rabbi who preached 'turn the other cheek' suddenly tell his followers to buy swords.

The bible was written by people with agendas. Look at all the different interpretations put on F-9/11, something that presumably all of us have seen. And we can drop it in the DVD player anytime. Trying to interpret words written decades after the fact in a different language, in a different culture, translated by people who have their own agenda is a fools errand, at best. The only thing we can do is look at the overall trend and say Jesus was a strong pacifist.

[Purple Clematis]

34. Yeah, you're right

...Throw the Old Testament and the 10 Commandments out the frickin' door! We don't need those Jews no more!

Now that you brought it up, I think that the swords were more of a fashion statement, ya know? Bling, bling back in Jesus' time.

Total PR all the same. You need a pacificist Jesus to counter balance all the violence in the Bible. It's not all hearts, flowers, & rainbows, ya know.

[jobycom]

48. Why do we need the Ten Commandments?

First of all, your verses are all out of context. Most of your quotes are about David, and are the words of David. They are a history text describing his wars and conquests. Taking those words as the commandment of God to Christians is silly. The Bible is full of commandments: usury is condemned, which destroys most of our economy, eating shellfish is condemned, we are supposed to stone women who are raped, we are supposed to never marry the widow of our brother, but in a later verse, we are required to marry the widow of our brother if he died without child.

In one passage Isaac visits a prostitute, and then discovers that she is the wido of one of his sons, and is about to kill her when she explains that he never gave her one of his other sons, as he was required, so she tried to get a son from him. He spares her. Which message are we supposed to take from that story? Prostitution is okay, since Isaac is never condemned for it?

The Bible is not a collection of fortune cookie sayings. It is not meant to be treatedas though each line could be taken out of context and applied to justify something unrelated 3000 years later. Even the Ten Commandments are made unnecessary by the examples and teachings of Jesus. He forgave those who tried to kill him, when he could have rained fire and brimstone down on them to make Bush get penis envy. He hung out with the dregs of society, and shunned the wealthy, the powerful. He came to condemn the Pharisees and the Saducees-- a clear parallel to the bankers and televangelists today. The Bible isn't a collection of proverbs, it is a collection of stories, and the stories are meant to be taken as a whole, not cited as you do.

Might interest you to know that for over a thousand years of Christian history the Ten Commandments were barely mentioned. When Christians in Europe talked about sins, they talked about the Seven Deadly Sins, and the worst sin, the sin that caused all other sins, was pride. Not arrogance, but Pride. When we say we are proud to be Americans, we are committing the deadliest of the Seven Deadly Sins. The reason Pride was the worst is because it put us on the level of God. It gave us a sense of superiority over others, and that superiority led us to covet, to lie, to steal, to kill. The pride of a ruler could cause the deaths of thousands. Humility in all things was the ultimate commandment. The Decalogue was just a bit of history, with no more force than the commandments of Leviticus or Numbers, which banned eating shellfish, and gave proper instructions on how to sacrifice animals. In other words, Christians until more recent times saw the Bible as a guide book, not a rule book.

Christians claim God inspired the men who wrote the Bible. But he created human beings directly. He created us, our brains, our logic, our reason. So which should we trust more? A book inspired by him? Or the logic and compassion he created inside of us?

I believe most Christians in America treat religion as nothing more than Voodoo. You say the right prayers, you quote the right passage, and voila, you are a Christian. It takes no work on your part, just a good Biblically-based legal defense. I believe the opposite. I believe that good and bad aren't decided by following a set of laws, but by loving and respecting all humans, and for me, all animals as well. I believe that if you read the Bible as a whole, rather than desperately seeking out passages to defend whatever evil you want to commit, that you get that same message-- don't worry about specific rules, love your neighbors, love your enemies, and forgive them all wrongs, even to the point of being crucified for it. Peter tried to take your route-- defend yourself and your friends by attacking others. Jesus sternly rebuked him, and undid what Peter's wrong.

I wish I believed in all of this literally, so that God could heal the grieving families of the murder victims of Bush in Iraq, to correct the evils done by this monster and those who claim to be followers of the most peaceful messenger the world as ever seen.

[dolo amber]

49. Huzzah!

Perfect. :toast:

[More Than A Feeling]

35. Self delete

My point was already brought up. Should have read more carefully.

[noamnety]

25. More on turning the other cheek

There's a good article called Why Turn the Other Cheek here: http://www.spiritualityhealth.com/newsh/items/article/item_9283.html

If you're going to quote it in arguments, it's good to know some background on it - and it really is a good article, especially the bit about the outer garments and undergarments. Spiritual jujitsu.

[Purple Clematis]

37. Turn the other cheek

So what should have the Armanious family have done?

You know, that Christian family that was slaughtered in New Jersey? Did they turn the cheek far enough?

[RaleighNCDUer]

42. A fascinating, and subversive, article. Loved it. nt

[VPStoltz]

28. Selective reading

One can hardly be surprised. Just as "*" selects which parts of the constitution and just plain civil behavior it wants to observe, most of its lackies read only those few excerpts from the Good Book that support the framework of their narrow minds. Or is it just that they don't want to read a book all the way through to get its real meaning?

[Purple Clematis]

38. Select parts

You do not disprove my proof, nor do you provide any of your own counter arguements. You choose to be negative and criticize without any evidence.

You, yourself, have obviously have not gotten the 'real meaning' of the Bible, else you would not be such a hypocrite.

[thecrow]

55. You seem very judgemental Purple

I'd take a long look at that and stop calling people names.
It's not a very Christian thing to do.

[jobycom]

58. Why should he bother?

You quit answering my arguments when I did provide proof and counter arguments.

[roguevalley]

36. My take is simple. If you are not Jewish the Old Testament, which

according to Christians became irrelevant or fulfilled after the birth of Jesus is not your book. A Christian received instruction from the books of the New Testament and to flip back and forth is not only incorrect, in my opinion, but scriptually flawed. Either you are a Christian or a Jew and you hew philosophically to the book that is your
spiritual guide. To try and reconcile two irreconcilable tomes to make
your own hypocracy palatable is a sin.

How about that for a retort?

[Purple Clematis]

40. Retort

Hmmm.

Since you choose to ignore the Old Testament, including the 10 Commandments, my only retort is that you will answer to Him yourself.

And I will work "really" hard to reconcile the fact that my King and Lord is a Jew.

[G_j]

45. Bush: better than Jesus!!

Jesus must have been a 'false prophet' because obviously these people think Bush is greater. He has condradicted and gone against ALL of Jesus's core teachings, but since W is God himself I guess that's just wonderful!

[Disturbed]

46. A few Old Testemant statements

Old Testament


Slave Quotes

Psalm 123:2
As the eyes of slaves look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid look to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the LORD our God, till he shows us his mercy.

Ephesians 6:5
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Ephesians 6:9
And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Colossians 3:22
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Colossians 4:1
Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

1 Timothy 6:1
All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered.

Titus 2:9
Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,

1 Peter 2:18
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

[CAG]

53. Slaves, servants, masters, etc

These were written in 30-120 AD or something like that. The terms of slaves/servants/masters were used because thats what the southern european and middle-eastern societies looked like back then. If the author would have written "union member factory worker obey your boss" or "dilbert cubicle worker honor your supervisor" he would have been looking 1900 years into the future, and his audience wouldn't have understood what he was talking about.
If jews and christians took these terms literally today, then I understand why you would be "disturbed", but they don't; they try to interpret what these teachings mean in the world they currently live in.

[Squeech]

47. God doesn't want the Jews to make war either.

I'm a Jew, and the Old Testament is the book I was brought up on.

Yes, there's a lot of stuff in there about all the glorious battles Moses and Joshua et al waged to give the Jews their foothold in Canaan.

But here's something else I was taught. Consider King David, who was for all intents and purposes the holiest man in the Old Testament, anointed personally by Samuel, wrote the Psalms, so singularly blessed that the prophesied Messiah was to be his direct descendent.

And yet, Jehovah did not command him to build the Temple. That task was reserved for Solomon.

And the reason for this, I was taught, was that David had blood on his hands: he fought wars. Even just wars are tainted in the sight of the Lord. And that makes sense to me: I do believe war contradicts the will of God.

At this point in the debate, your typical cafeteria believer will bring up Jehovah's curse against the Amalekites. It is instructive, therefore, to remember exactly what the Amalekites did to incur the Lord's wrath: during the forty years the Jews wandered in the desert, the Amalekites attacked them-- and they attacked the women and children and baggage train, instead of the head of the column where the armed men were, which was a huge violation of the conventions of warfare at the time. Amalek committed the Biblical equivalent of a war crime, and that's why they earned Jehovah's special contempt. Shock and aew, anyone?

[ultraist]

56. How sad that religion is used to kill and oppress

Religion has the capacity to create social order, inspire, and encourage humans to help/love/support/forgive/tolerate/respect one another yet has a long history of being used to kill and oppress peoples of differing religions.