The Bible

The French Revolution was a religious war. A war against the Church. This movement threatened to upset the social order in other nations.

Napoleon actually ended the "dechristianization" process for political reasons but he was no friend of the Church and was excommunicated at one point.

The Revolution in France resulted in battles with other nations - afraid of the societal upheaval that started in France.

 

OMG, the French Revolution was not a religious war.

It happened over taxes and a multitude of other reasons with none of them involving God.

Did any of you guys actually go to school?

 

I do not believe it is that easy to identify an event as being divorced from religion. Our Christianity gives us justification in those things we choose to do.

Every human is subject to beliefs such as those below. And, the cause can be nearly anything - slaughtering Vietnamese, killing wedding parties in Pakistan, Israelis stealing the personal property of citizens of West Bank, Americans slaughtering "savages" and hanging African Americans for being the wrong skin color - the damned of the Bible.

"We sang "Onward, Christian Soldiers" indeed, and I felt that this was no vain presumption, but that we had the right to feel that we were serving a cause for the sake of which a trumpet has sounded from on high. When I looked upon that densely packed congregation of fighting men of the same language, of the same faith, of the same fundamental laws, of the same ideals ... it swept across me that here was the only hope, but also the sure hope, of saving the world from measureless degradation."

— Winston Churchill

 

Following my logic? My 'logic' shows that you cannot say either way as no-one really knows. Did the Assyrians invoke Ishtar as the reason for invading Babylon? And vice versa. Did Cyrus invoke Marduk as the reason for invading Babylon? Did the Sumerians invoke their god/gods when invading Eastern Mesopotamia? When the Israelites were attacked in 1948 and invaded Egypt etc. and killed many Arabs, was it in the name of Jahweh, or simply in self defence?
Were you there at any of the above? Did they pray to their gods for victory?

History isn't the last few centuries, neither is religion. Both go back millemia.

"We slaughtered the Indians and they had a different religion so those were religious deaths". Your logic - not mine.

 

The Church’s revenue in 1789 was estimated at an immense – and possibly exaggerated – 150 million livres. It owned around six per cent of land throughout France, and its abbeys, churches, monasteries and convents, as well as the schools, hospitals and other institutions it operated, formed a visible reminder of the Church’s dominance in French society. The Church was also permitted to collect the tithe, worth a nominal one-tenth of agricultural production, and was exempt from direct taxation on its earnings. This prosperity caused considerable discontent, best illustrated in the cahiers de doléances, or ‘statements of grievances’, sent from throughout the kingdom to be discussed at the meeting of the Estates-General in May 1789. Calls for the reform or abolition of the tithe and for the limitation of Church property were joined by complaints from parish priests who, excluded from the wealth bestowed upon the upper echelons of the Church hierarchy, often struggled to get by. When crowds began to gather in Paris on 13 July 1789, the religious house of Saint-Lazare and its neighbouring convent were among the first places searched for supplies and weapons. The Catholic Church may have been the church of the majority of the French people, but its wealth and perceived abuses meant that it did not always have their trust.

The Nationalisation of Property
On the eve of the Revolution, the French state was on the verge of bankruptcy. Repeated attempts at financial reform had floundered but the Revolution opened the way for a new approach that, from the beginning, involved the Church. On 4 August 1789, when the remains of France’s feudal past were abolished in a night of sweeping reforms, the clergy agreed to give up the tithe and allow the state to take over its funding. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, adopted on 26 August, made no recognition of the special position of the Catholic Church. With all authority located henceforth within the nation, the Church now found itself open – and vulnerable – to further reform. On 2 November 1789, France’s new National Assembly, known as the Constituent Assembly, passed a decree that placed all Church property ‘at the disposition of the nation’. Talleyrand, the bishop of Autun and one of the few clerics to support the measure, argued that all Church property rightfully belonged to the nation and that its return, by helping to bring about a better society, should therefore be viewed as a ‘religious act’.

https://www.historytoday.com/gemma-betros/french-revolution-and-catholic-church

 

The French revolution was incredibly complex and took place over a significant period of time. It ceretainnly was not a simple affair such as our own revolution. There were a number of steps, some of which looked like they miight be lasting solutions, but that then fell to continued conflict.

Religious leaders had the power of the people and held special status and wealth. They absolutely did play a part in the revolution.

 

All societies have religious leaders but it was not a religious war.

 

You obviously don't understand what killing in the name of God actually means.

To put it simply it means you are going to war with a people simply because you believe that's what God wants you to do.

Its not about territory, money, or power, its simply for God.

You will be hard pressed to find many wars that fit that definition.

As I said, Charlemagne and the Crusades are the big ones simply because of their large death tolls.

Others such in Ancient history did not have enough casualties to really be a factor in the total count.

 

Ashurbanipal

hamash-shum-ukin was no more pleased than he had been before at being his brother’s puppet, however, and in 652 BCE openly rebelled. He took Assyrian villages and outposts and claimed them in the name of Babylon. When Ashurbanipal responded by marching his army to the region, Shamash-shum-ukin retreated behind the walls of Babylon where he was besieged by the Assyrian forces for the next four years. Inscriptions from the time relate what the defenders of Babylon endured behind the walls: “They ate the flesh of their sons and daughters because of starvation.” When the city fell, those who had survived so long were cut down by the Assyrian soldiers and, Ashurbanipal writes, “The rest of those living I destroyed…and their carved-up bodies I fed to dogs, to pigs, to wolves, to eagles, to birds of the heavens, to fishes of the deep.” Shamash-shum-ukin set himself on fire in his palace in order to escape capture. Ashurbanipal then set an Assyrian government official named Kandalu on the throne of Babylon

Ashurbanipal succeeded Esarhaddon in 668 BCE and ordered a great coronation festival for his brother’s ascension to the throne of Babylon. In his inscriptions he writes how Shamash-shum-ukin was welcomed to Babylon “amidst rejoicing” as the statue of the great god Marduk (taken from Babylon in 689 BCE by Sennacherib, who sacked the city) was returned to the people. He elevated Babylon to its former status as a great city and refers to Shamash-shum-ukin as “my favorite brother”. Once he saw that Babylon and the southern territories of his empire were secure, he led his armies south toward Egypt to finish what his father had begun.


Ashurnasipal II.
'Their men young and old I took prisoners. Of some I cut off their feet and hands; of others I cut off the ears noses and lips; of the young men's ears I made a heap; of the old men's heads I made a minaret. I exposed their heads as a trophy in front of their city. The male children and the female children I burned in flames; the city I destroyed, and consumed with fire'.

Try reading the Annals of Ashurnarsipal. He conquered many cities and those which defied him, he mostly destroyed - with its soldiers and population. And we only have the part that was written on a Palace wall. This text gave the various names and titles of the king, spoke of his relationship with the gods and summarized his military conquests.

To put it simply it means you are going to war with a people simply because you believe that's what God wants you to do. That's your definition. That means that the worst murderers were the Jews in the OT who, at the command of God, destroyed cities and nations, down to the last innocent child. Or was it God who murdered them?

Others such in Ancient history did not have enough casualties to really be a factor in the total count. Have you read the ancient history of Mesopotamia? 14 centuries of wars between many nations.

Again I ask you. How many ancient rulers went to war without doing it in the name of their God. In the Assyrian nation/empire the king was accounted as the chief priest of the nation's God. In many ancient countries it was the rulers responsibility to maintain the main Temple to his God. One reason why the Temples were often richly adorned. As was Solomons.


I repeat. No figures can be authoritative. We just do not have sufficient information except in special cases.

 

Their populations were minimal.

lol

More people died in a single day in the American civil war then the population of some of their biggest cities.

That's why they are irrelevant.

As for the worst murderers there is no such thing, murder is murder in God's eyes, just like no sin is greater than another.

Its really sad how incapable you are of grasping the concept of killing in God's name compared to plain old war.

Given that you sound educated (or very good at Googling) I would have expected more from you.

Such a disappointment.

 

It was a revolution in which religious officials and their constituancies played an important part.

 

Of course they did but the revolution was never about religion.

It was about replacing the rulers for a number of reasons.

That was my point.

They did not create the revolution because they didn't like their leaders religious beliefs. They started it because they were suffering and were inspired by the US and how we stood up to tyranny.

 

I think you're unaware of what went on during that period. It wasn't even slightly as clean and simple as you imply. There were a good number of constiuenciies, and the many relationships were not at all stable.

You may have missed that at one point during the fighting between the various groups the government of record declared all church wealth and property as belonging to the state.

 

How does that make it a religious war?

It doesn't.

Tell me this, why did the people rise up against the government?

 

I didn't ever suggest it was a "religious war".

There were a good number of reasons for the French revolution.

I just don't believe one can suggest that a significant action such as a war or revolution can only be "religious" or "not religious". In some cases it might be clear - the crusades and Stalin, for examples. But, in general people are advocating actions based to some extent on their religion. They may do it overtly (Israel) or maybe not so overtly (perhaps the Mongols weren't conquering in the name of their god, but their religion could have justified a view that the lives of others were of no value).

In the case of the French revolution, the church was one of the many parties involved and they had a significant constituency.

 

Given that you have such a poor understanding of the ancients it's not unexpected. When I started studying the Bible and its background there was no such thing as a computer. We studied from books. For 65 years of my life I had no computer. All my studies were from books. Only in the last 15 have I used the internet.
Known 'Civilisations' stretch back 14,000 years. That is the known. How many have we yet to discover covered by sands, forests, water. Space Photography is showing places lost for millennia.

Even those wars for territory were often done in the name of their God. The Bible shows that. Why did the Philistines take the Ark and place it in the Temple of their God. To show the victory of their god, Dagon, over Jahweh. Though it didn't work, did it.

Read the Poem of Pentaur - the Egyptian poem about the Battle of Kadesh. Note when things were going wrong for Pharaoh he calls upon Amun for help

:Cut off the way behind,
Retreat he could not find;
There were three men on each car, (Hittites)
And they gathered all together, and closed upon the king.
"Yea, and not one of my princes, of my chief men and my great,
Was with me, not a captain, not a knight;
For my warriors and chariots had left me to my fate,
Not one was there to take his part in fight."
Then spake Pharaoh, and he cried:
"Father Ammon, where are you?
Shall a sire forget his son?

Ancient leaders often called upon their god in battles. That's why we have so many accounts written on ancient Temple walls.

I've given you 2 examples of peoples who were conscious of their god in their wars. Another - Cyrus was led by Marduk who had become less important at the time. He promised to make Marduk great again. With the peoples help he overthrew Belshazzar, who was reigning in place of his father, Nabonidus. Nabonides had left the throne for 10 years to concentrate in rebuilding and repairing the Temples to his god - Sin.


More people died in a single day in the American civil war then the population of some of their biggest cities.

You're not thinking straight are you. How long did the Civil war last? 5 years.The cost 600,000+ lives. Compare that with the Middle East history and the countless wars in 14 centuries. No one knows how many were killed. Or how many were killed in the name of a god.

God ordered the murder of thousands in the OT. In these days that's called aiding and abetting.

Incidentally - I'm from the UK.

 

Of course they did. Where do you think this revisionist history comes from?

The Narrative is the foremost thing, not accuracy, truth, or facts. As long as everything can be viewed through this anti-christian lens, where all the evils in the world are attributed to 'religion!', which they mean as 'Christian!', then the agenda is safe, and the Narrative is furthered.

Deception is rampant in Progresso World.. truth and facts are irrelevant. The Agenda is all that matters.

 

It is not the intent or goal, of any of the writers of the biblical canon, to prove the existence of God. That is presumed, and the reader can deduce the belief in God from the writers.

The scriptures have many functions, in the life and faith of those who follow them:
1. Primarily, they reveal the Nature of God.
2. They reveal the nature of man, and his separation from God.
3. They chronicle the revealing of the Messiah, who would redeem lost mankind.
4. They are useful and necessary, for instruction about the redemption process, and the reconciliation of man to God.
5. They are useful and necessary, for correction from error and deception, which is rampant in this world.
6. They chronicle the dealings of God with the chosen people, and the opening up of that status to all mankind.
7. They contain the only known record of the life and teaching of Jesus.

But nowhere do i see any persuasion directed towards atheists. They are mentioned a couple of times, in the psalms, but not in an intellectual debate.

 

Too much is made here about 'killing in the name of God!'

Practically everyone who has been killed by another human being, for all of human history, has done it for their own reasons.. or god..

Some may hide behind a larger worldview, to justify their atrocities, but unless an ideology is expressly promoting violence to attain their objectives, it cannot be blamed. Communism and Islam, for example, clearly justify violence in achieving their agendas, while Christianity and Buddhism do not.

..and btw, atheism is just as much a worldview, ideology, or religion as any supernatural beliefs about the universe. Marxism is based on atheistic naturalism, and the agenda of managing the human collective. It has a clear history of violence, and it is part of the ideology.

It is just the false narrative, promoted by progressive indoctrinees, that 'Christianity is the source of all bigotry and war!' The opposite is true, but that does not deter the propagandists from their lies.

Whatever your heart clings to and confides in, that is really your God. Martin Luther

 

Primarily they reveal mans idea of God - from the Christian point of view. They have moral standards - from the Christian point of view. Redemption - from the Christian point of view. ETC. ETC.

It is just the false narrative, promoted by progressive indoctrinees, that 'Christianity is the source of all bigotry and war!' The opposite is true, but that does not deter the propagandists from their lies.

The 'narrative' was that religion was the problem.
.

 

I already addressed both points..

Obviously, from the atheistic point of view, there can be no God, moral standards, or redemption. There is only lifeless matter, with an occasional accident of life, arising for no reason. Good, beauty, right and wrong are empty platitudes for delusional people who cannot face the emptiness of their own existence.

Man is a useless passion. It is meaningless that we live and it is meaningless that we die. Jean-Paul Sartre

 

What a Christian attitude? What gives you the right to say that atheists and agnostics have no morals?
Sartre is a philosopher. His conclusions have no relationship to many atheists and agnostics. Your morals are based on the theory that there is a god who has revealed himself. But so claim the Jews, the Islamists, the Jehovah witnesses, the Mormons and other religions - some far more ancient that Judaism and Christianity. Your morals are based on the 10 commandments. The Sumerians based theirs on the Code of UrNammu.

 

You distort my words. I did not say atheists have no morals.. i say they have no basis for absolute morality. The only basis they have is for situation ethics and relative morality. They do have morals, which belies their stated beliefs, indicating an inconsistency or conflict of what many of them claim.

This is a growing consensus, especially in Progresso World. There is no meaning, point, or morality, only expediency and situation ethics.

There can be no 'beauty', or 'good', either, as everything is just random matter, assembled by chance, with no higher Cause.

This is the only logical conclusion for a godless worldview. Good, beauty, right, wrong, and calling are empty, meaningless concepts for delusional people.

..perhaps a deeper philosophical discussion of morality, natural law, and their basis would be in order.. preferably in a topical thread.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/morality-absolute-or-relative.441782/

 

Obviously, from the atheistic point of view, there can be no God, moral standards, or redemption.?

 

Congratulations on reaching 80. You've seen a lot.