Religion and Peace

[Thread Killer]

The stagnant and lazy sit around obsessing over Evil Corporations, Government, bad parents, old boyfriends, artificial sweeteners... on and on...
 Rudolph; I'm not a fan of your angry rhetoric, but the above line is awesome. Show us more of that keen sense of humour. ...artificial sweeteners...nice.

[CFTraveler]

I have to side with Rudolph on this one too.
The Pope is the spiritual leader of a large and established religious organization, not some self-appointed guru who took upon himself the task of telling people what to do- and as such it is his job and duty to make proclamations about  spiritual and social matters.   If he didn't, he would not be doing his job.  No one forces anyone to follow his declarations, that's why we have freedom of religion, you don't even have to agree or like what he says.

[Fresco]

That would only work if everyone had the same intentions

This I agree on, but thats a given since I already acknowledge the fact the entire earth would have to practice positive Law of Attraction

but everyone would be trying to attract different things and where one person comes out on top, another falls

Disagree with you there, in an ever expanding universe there are enough "things" to satisfy everyone, and all people should come out on top.  

Keep in mind that not everyone cares about being a billionaire, some do and some dont.  I personally would be happy with just 10 to 20 million $

This world is about balance, not everyone having what they want. You have the bad so you can have the good. You have to take both in life

No, the good and the bad would both simultanously be raised to a much higher standard of living

If everything in your life was perfect, you would create problems that didn't exist (like many people do)

Wrong, because when you practice positive LOA you simply cannot attract negative things in your life. Its impossible, because it breaks the fundamental rule of the "Law of Attraction".

The problem is the vast majority of the world today practices negative LOA by default.  Thats why the world is in the mess its in right now

[Fresco]

And just to get back on topic, would eliminating religion throughout the world reign in peace and stop wars??  The answer is 'no'.  And here's why:

Can you name one war in 20th century that was fought over religion??  I cant even think of one, to be honest.

WW1 was fought over real estate (Europe)
WW2 was also fought over real estate, but more globally
Korean war was fought over geopolitics
Vietnam war was fought to stop the spread of communism.  So it was over idealogy
Iraq wars 1 & 2 were fought over oil....oopss.....I mean weapons of mass destruction  
Afghan war was fought to stop terrorism

So ditching religion will have very little effect on warfare.  And even though I believe in God, I have very little sympathy for religion or going to church

[Rudolph]

Iraq wars 1 & 2 were fought over oil....oopss.....I mean weapons of mass destruction  
Afghan war was fought to stop terrorism...

This whole post is actually a fairly astute assessment of the situation.
But just fyi - Saddam had lots of WMDs - don't get sucked in by the mass media propaganda.
The main reasons to invade Iraq were threefold (As presented to the UN by the US Secretary of State)
* WMDs
* Resolution 1441 violations
* Open support for Terror

Any one reason alone would be sufficient justification for war but especially the last two. All THREE were valid.

Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

For those wishing to get half a clue may I suggest reading;

Saddam's General by Georges Hormuz Sada &
Saddam's Bomb Maker by Khidir Hamza

[Fresco]

Yeah, as pertaining to the thread title, it doesnt really matter what the Iraq wars were fought over.  My point was virtually no major 20th century wars were fought over religion

[Rudolph]

Yeah, as pertaining to the thread title, it doesnt really matter what the Iraq wars were fought over.  My point was virtually no major 20th century wars were fought over religion

Right.

Or the 19th century, or the 18th century, or the 17th century...

Most wars were simple power struggles and border disputes, colonial expansion, etc.

The only religious wars of any notable size were the Muslim wars of conquest and expansion that persisted for hundreds of years until the European powers got organized and staged a counter-attack, the Crusades -- that's when the violent Muslim expansion was halted dead in its tracks.

(There is a big giant lie that is often repeated how Muslim territory growth was peaceful cultural expansion - but this is just so much huge non-historical nonsense it is laughable that it even got any traction.)

[Fresco]

Right.

Or the 19th century, or the 18th century, or the 17th century...

Yup, most religious wars were fought in middle-ages, and even then there werent that many of them.  Most wars even back then were fought over land or natural resources (like water, food, gold, silver....etc).

The only religious wars of any notable size were the Muslim wars of conquest and expansion that persisted for hundreds of years until the European powers got organized and staged a counter-attack, the Crusades -- that's when the violent Muslim expansion was halted dead in its tracks.

(There is a big giant lie that is often repeated how Muslim territory growth was peaceful cultural expansion - but this is just so much huge non-historical nonsense it is laughable that it even got any traction.)

Agreed again.  Muslims conquered most of Spain, even setting up mosques everywhere.  France was starting to feel threatened and they decided the muslims had to be driven out. Thats what started the Crusades