davieG Posted 22 December 2012 Posted 22 December 2012 Something I've never come to terms with is the Church's support for military might, surely as Christians or any other religion they should be advocating and supporting alternative solutions to war, like many with their rich lifestyles and semi-god like personas it all seems so hypocritical. I can see their concern for the soldiers but surely that should be focussed on them not getting involved - thou shalt not kill! BBC Cuts to the number of full-time military personnel would "risk the safety of the nation", Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu has warned. In an interview with British Forces Broadcasting Service, Dr Sentamu criticised the government's plans to increase reliance on reservists. Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has said the Army will have to lose 20,000 regular soldiers by 2020. The Ministry of Defence declined to respond to Dr Sentamu's comments. During his Christmas message to servicemen and women serving overseas, the Archbishop said his "greatest anxiety" was the way in which the cuts were being carried out. "These defence cuts need to be done with far, far greater sensitivity because we live still in a world that is very fragile and there are people out there still, wanting to do harm to... many, many people. "To replace professionally trained, full time serving soldiers with part-timers, I'm afraid, for me. I don't think that can be the backbone of the British army," he added. Dr Sentamu called for the cuts to be carried out with 'greater sensitivity' Under government plans, the Territorial Army will double in size from 15,000 to 30,000 and be known as the Army Reserves while the number of full-time soldiers in the British Army is set to fall from 102,000 to 82,000 by 2020. Army, Royal Navy and RAF reservists will receive more training and increased opportunities for promotion in exchange for having to make a greater commitment to regular training and deployment. Responses to a consultation on the proposal will form part of a government White Paper to be published in the new year on the future role of reservists. The Archbishop also paid tribute to the work of British forces in Afghanistan, adding that he continued to pray daily for the troops serving away from home, whom he described as "the bravest of the brave". In the past, Dr Sentamu has questioned whether British troops are being cared for properly by the government. In 2009, he challenged whether troops serving in Afghanistan were getting the treatment they deserved from Whitehall under the terms of the military covenant. The covenant is an informal understanding between the government, society and service personnel, under which the nation is expected to support troops and provide fair treatment, respect and reward in return for the sacrifices associated with a life in the military. In 2008, the Archbishop raised £100,000 for the families of troops serving in Afghanistan by a sponsored parachute jump. Dr Sentamu has close ties to the Yorkshire Regiment who lost 10 soldiers this year serving in Afghanistan.
Finnegan Posted 22 December 2012 Posted 22 December 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChKfoe-RpFk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xWji92N8RM Basically any excuse, sorry.
Dr The Singh Posted 22 December 2012 Posted 22 December 2012 The title of the thread would be better and more correct as 'christianity and the military'. I can imagine the jains and the budhist of the world having a different perspective.
davieG Posted 22 December 2012 Author Posted 22 December 2012 The title of the thread would be better and more correct as 'christianity and the military'. I can imagine the jains and the budhist of the world having a different perspective. I accept your point and would happily change it only it isn't just Christianity is it?
Dr The Singh Posted 22 December 2012 Posted 22 December 2012 I accept your point and would happily change it only it isn't just Christianity is it? Sorry davieG, all I saw was the Archbishop of some christainity thingy. But on a wider note religion and armed forces have always come hand in hand as religion has extended to political use.
ithuriel Posted 22 December 2012 Posted 22 December 2012 Well, when i joined the Navy back in the late 80s they catered for a few religions. I was going athiest at the recruiting place but the officer kept pressing me to actually write a religion down so instead i had to put CofE. Remember seeing a few Sikhs in navy blue turbans instead of beret, very smart looking too.
davieG Posted 22 December 2012 Author Posted 22 December 2012 Sorry davieG, all I saw was the Archbishop of some christainity thingy. But on a wider note religion and armed forces have always come hand in hand as religion has extended to political use. I'm not to fussed about the semantics (is that the correct word - ironic ) as you say politics and religion (power over the people) are intertwined. Having had a very strong Christian (CofE) upbringing I find many aspects of it full of hypocrisy.
Dr The Singh Posted 22 December 2012 Posted 22 December 2012 I'm not to fussed about the semantics (is that the correct word - ironic ) as you say politics and religion (power over the people) are intertwined. Having had a very strong Christian (CofE) upbringing I find many aspects of it full of hypocrisy. In my experience and background, it's not necessary the religion but the people that advocate it that are hypocritical!!!
BunkMoreland Posted 22 December 2012 Posted 22 December 2012 Wonder if he's ever had a full peanut stuck I'm that gap between his teeth
Dr The Singh Posted 22 December 2012 Posted 22 December 2012 Wonder if he's ever had a full peanut stuck I'm that gap between his teeth I was thinking something alot worse!!
BunkMoreland Posted 22 December 2012 Posted 22 December 2012 Based on his job title I just took it as a given that he'd had several young boys penises stuck in there, the poor lads
Trav Le Bleu Posted 22 December 2012 Posted 22 December 2012 The title of the thread would be better and more correct as 'christianity and the military'. I can imagine the jains and the budhist of the world having a different perspective. I accept your point and would happily change it only it isn't just Christianity is it? Nor is it all Christians. It's fairly obvious that Christ was a man of peace, "he who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword" is a saying of Jesus from the Bible. Peace and meekness are mentioned in the beatitudes as qualities of a Christian and they are also mentioned as fruitage of the spirit by Paul. That corrupt men decided to ignore or twist these words in later years should be no reflection on the teachings of Jesus. There are a few Christian faiths who do not go to war - Jehovah's Witnesses, The Society of Friends (unfairly named Quakers for this very reason), Brethren, Seventh Day Adventists and Amish all do not go to war. During WW2 Jehovah's Witnesses were placed in concentration camps and some executed, for their refusal to take up arms for the Third Reich and some were arrested in Britain too as conscientious objectors. Even today there are hundreds of Jehovah's Witness youths in prison in South Korea for refusing the draft as conscientious objectors. Christianity has no place in war - other than perhaps trying to prevent it.
acooling08 Posted 22 December 2012 Posted 22 December 2012 Who cares what the church thinks? Outdated and irrelevant to modern society.
davieG Posted 22 December 2012 Author Posted 22 December 2012 Who cares what the church thinks? Outdated and irrelevant to modern society. They still have a significant influence in how we are governed The Church of England has a guaranteed presence in the upper house reflecting its position as the country's established religion. The Lords Spiritual of the United Kingdom, also called Spiritual Peers, are the 26 bishops of the established Church of England who serve in the House of Lordsalong with the Lords Temporal. The Church of Scotland, which is Presbyterian, is not represented by spiritual peers. The Anglican churches in Wales and Northern Ireland are no longer established churches and are therefore not represented either.
danny. Posted 22 December 2012 Posted 22 December 2012 Nor is it all Christians. It's fairly obvious that Christ was a man of peace, "he who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword" is a saying of Jesus from the Bible. Peace and meekness are mentioned in the beatitudes as qualities of a Christian and they are also mentioned as fruitage of the spirit by Paul. That corrupt men decided to ignore or twist these words in later years should be no reflection on the teachings of Jesus. There are a few Christian faiths who do not go to war - Jehovah's Witnesses, The Society of Friends (unfairly named Quakers for this very reason), Brethren, Seventh Day Adventists and Amish all do not go to war. During WW2 Jehovah's Witnesses were placed in concentration camps and some executed, for their refusal to take up arms for the Third Reich and some were arrested in Britain too as conscientious objectors. Even today there are hundreds of Jehovah's Witness youths in prison in South Korea for refusing the draft as conscientious objectors. Christianity has no place in war - other than perhaps trying to prevent it. Maybe the christians that go to war are following the example of the god of the old testament, who loved genocide, infant murder and rape, and not the new testament god who was way more chilled out?
Vacamion Posted 22 December 2012 Posted 22 December 2012 It's fairly obvious that Christ was a man of peace the provocation for more armed conflict, bloodshed and sectarian hatred in his name than Batman, Santa, The Tooth Fairy and Apollo put together. In fact, he has been the outright winner of the "imaginary dude who caused most killing award" every year since about 330AD. Corrected.
Rincewind Posted 22 December 2012 Posted 22 December 2012 The Hymn Onward Christian Soldiers says it all.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 22 December 2012 Posted 22 December 2012 Maybe the christians that go to war are following the example of the god of the old testament, who loved genocide, infant murder and rape, and not the new testament god who was way more chilled out? Oh yeah, I remember those bits And anyone who thinks that Jesus was an imaginary person - even on a secular basis, is frankly a fool. Might as well say that Mohammed, Buddha and Guru Nanak were imaginary people.
Vacamion Posted 22 December 2012 Posted 22 December 2012 Oh yeah, I remember those bits And anyone who thinks that Jesus was an imaginary person - even on a secular basis, is frankly a fool. Might as well say that Mohammed, Buddha and Guru Nanak were imaginary people. Not one document. Not one contemporaneous report of him (Josephus was 60 years later). Contradictory accounts - in the holy book, mind you, allegedly ghost written (pun intended) by the deity, of Jesus' ancestry, birth, life and death. His life is as provable as Batman's. The best proof you could offer is a dusty old book, most of which was written decades, if not centuries after the events it describes. To quote Christopher Hitchens: "I added that, for example, while there was little or no evidence for the life of Jesus, the figure of the Prophet Muhammad was by contrast a person in ascertainable history. " It's probably not the right thread to discuss this at length, but if you will insist on asserting that Jesus was real, I have to disagree that there is any concrete evidence of his life.
BoneDog Posted 22 December 2012 Posted 22 December 2012 Something I've never come to terms with is the Church's support for military might, surely as Christians or any other religion they should be advocating and supporting alternative solutions to war, like many with their rich lifestyles and semi-god like personas it all seems so hypocritical. I can see their concern for the soldiers but surely that should be focussed on them not getting involved - thou shalt not kill! It's always seemed a bit weird to me too. I read something about the Crusades, and on their way the Crusaders killed thousands of Christians in countries they had to travel through to to get to The Holy Land. Very hypocritical.
BoneDog Posted 22 December 2012 Posted 22 December 2012 Maybe the christians that go to war are following the example of the god of the old testament, who loved genocide, infant murder and rape, and not the new testament god who was way more chilled out? Some kings and corrupt priests of old in that area are known to have changed the words in The Old Testament, so I would imagine that any verses to do with infant murder, rape, corruption and similar were put there by those scum winkers. There is no doubt that the original Old Testament was a much more sensible and informative book than we now get to read, which is a shame. But I agree with your point that some modern Christians could read our versions of that book and get a bit confused.
danny. Posted 22 December 2012 Posted 22 December 2012 Some kings and corrupt priests of old in that area are known to have changed the words in The Old Testament, so I would imagine that any verses to do with infant murder, rape, corruption and similar were put there by those scum winkers. That sounds very convenient!
Jon the Hat Posted 22 December 2012 Posted 22 December 2012 I have never been able to understand why anyone would give a moments thought to the opinion of a religious leader on anything at all.
Rincewind Posted 22 December 2012 Posted 22 December 2012 Because if they do not they will suffer awful torture after death. So to avoid this they will torture others that do not believe as they do.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.