The fundamentalist wings of Middle Eastern religions seem to have one thing in common - violence. All born from the same founder, Abraham, they appear to have a particularly destructive way of relating to anyone who doesn't believe as they do, or who refuses to follow their customs.
The following short excerpt is by SHAUN WATERMAN, UPI Homeland and National Security Editor:
"There are similarities between violent extremists of all the Abrahamic religious faiths, according to a new study of ultra-Zionist settlers in Israel, fundamentalist Muslims in Britain and white supremacist Christians in the United States.
"The study found that extremists of all three religions shared a black-and-white, them-and-us mentality; saw themselves as victims; and tended to be drawn from alienated communities that were either culturally or geographically isolated from the mainstream of society.
"The study, conducted by the East-West Institute, a non-partisan global think tank based in New York, Moscow and Brussels, started from the proposition that "there was something to be learned by looking at violent extremism across religious faiths," institute Vice President Neville Bugwadia told United Press International.
"Religiously motivated violence exists across all of three of the Abrahamic faiths," reads the study, which aimed "to better comprehend and confront recruitment and incitement to violence, regardless of which faith is claimed as ideological justification" by "focusing on what compels individuals to take violent action in the name of religion, and to recruit others to do likewise -- and in what manner religion plays a role in these decisions."
Shawn's article seems to highlight a troubling thread that weaves through fringes of the Abrahamic religions, which is intolerance of other views. One small example of this disparity is the present belief amongst some Christians that the world is only 6,000 years old! Anyone, except those perhaps caught in a dark net of self-deluding, self-enclosed, self-reinforcing dogma can see the absurdity of this. Yet fanatical Christians will teach this, indoctrinate this into their children as a truth, and can young, defenseless children help but believe? One wonders how much this will upset young peoples' lives with the fruitless battles they will have to fight distracting them from the mainstream when they make their way into a big world devoid of enclosed beliefs.
Some Muslims as well would like to impose their theocratic way of life on everyone else, and consider non-believers the enemy, someone to be dispatched (killed).
And Jews can be as fundamentalist as Christians when expounding their rabbinic interpretations of the Bible. The never ending violence in their country could be partially a reflection of dug in beliefs.
Eastern religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism, contrary to Western religions, generally could care less what others believe; they are not trying to convert the world to their way of thinking. That would take a lot of time and energy which they feel could be better spent practicing their own religion. The rare times they find themselves in conflict is usually the result of outsiders trying to impose or force their ideas upon them. A good example of this is when the Indus River Civilization (Old India), a peaceful agrarian culture for over 5,000 years, was overrun by the Northern Aryans 3,300 years ago.
The Aryans, a warlike culture that plundered villages for a living and believed in nature Gods, easily took over the Indians. But over time, and without violence, the Indian beliefs and religious practices, i.e. karma, rebirth, and meditation, melded into the Aryan culture, which, in contrast to the Indian culture consisted of class separation (castes), nature gods, holy books, priests, etc., into what is now modern Hinduism.
Hinduism and Buddhism, the predominate Eastern religions, have historically been with a few exceptions relatively violence free except when attacked. They traditionally have had no ax to grind, nor felt the need to proselytize to any extent. They usually don't challenge science and rather look upon it as a beacon in the material, physical world. When science makes a discovery, such as that the world is round and is not the center of the universe, Eastern religions smiled and said, "Spot on," while Christians squirmed for three hundred years discounting the scientific evidence as heresy that could not possibly be true because it disagreed with their entrenched dogma. Poor Galileo!
Is there a solution to this historical and never ending violence as witnessed in the Middle East recently, and which is threatening to come home to roost in the U.S.? What can we do to convince these fringe, overzealous, ignorant people to become intelligent? I posit that nothing can be done because it is in their religious and animalistic genes to control others and force them to their way of thinking.
If this is the case, there will certainly be more warfare and conflict even in peaceful societies where fringe lunatics try to force their views on others. It only takes a small percentage, maybe as little as 1% of misguided, fanatical psychotics to make a peaceful society a living hell. We can see that occurring now in many Middle Eastern countries i.e. the Taliban, and even here in America with our abortion clinic bombings and physician murders, and at a less intense level where even basic fundamental scientific proven facts are being argued, taking away the time and energy that should be spent on authentic education.
In thinking about all of this violence and disagreement, and why Eastern religions tend to be arguably more peaceful, I can only look to the practice of meditation which is downplayed and even scorned in the Abrahamic religions as new age BS, even though the Abrahamic religions are a mere historical afterthought of Eastern religions, the roots of which go back 6,000 years.
Meditation interrupts our common thought patterns, inserting periods of silence and peace in the mind. It's a step from the mental fabrications which, unbridled can lead to the above mentioned fanatical actions. This break in thought patterns is the safeguard from allowing our minds to control us instead of our spiritual intuition. Without this break, mind can easliy run on indefinitely to the point of violence and insanity, always insisting that it is right and proper regardless of how many must be killed. It can truly become insane!
Thankfully, only a small percentage of vocal fanatics seem to take charge of a religion, and only when the vast majority of good people in the religion remain silent. So, SPEAK UP when you see that your religion is being hijacked by idiots or going the wrong way; where violence is being justified as a means to save everyone. This is garbage.
SPEAK UP, and tell the fanatical idiots that they are dead wrong, and that peace, love and understanding is the way. If you don't SPEAK UP, then your silence will be an endorsement of the stupidity and insanity, and you will be indirectly responsible for the violence that results.
anagarika eddie is a meditation teacher at the Dhammabucha Rocksprings Meditation Retreat Sanctuary (www.dhammarocksprings.org), and author of A Year to Enlightenment. His 30 years of meditation experience has taken him across four continents including two stopovers in Thailand where he practiced in the remote northeast forests as an ordained Thervada Buddhist monk.
e, this is a very interesting article with some very good points. I'm tired tonight and going to bed in a short while. But I'll get back to you tomorrow via email. take care
You might want to recheck your facts about Islam and Christianity. It may be true that they have both come from Abraham. Christianity is a branch off of Judaism. But, nowhere in the Bible is it taught that Christians should use violence to assert themselves.
In the Koran, I will concede that violence is taught to assert Muslim views. This is probably what has given rise to terrorism, and the passive Muslims that deny these things are taught are not educated in the Koran.
The two faiths are very different. Mostly opposites. There are extreme people who use their religious beliefs to attempt to justify their actions, but the Bible does not teach violence. These people may call themselves Christians, but they don't practice what the Bible teaches and are likely not really Christians. The greatest commandment in the Bible is to love God with all your strength, heart, soul, and mind. The second is like it, love your neighbor as yourself. It is misguided to paint Christianity with violence in any form.
Judaism does not teach violence either, but it does teach Jews to defend themselves. Unfortunately, throughout history, Jews have been the target of hate and even annialation. They have survived, which is a testimony to the faithfulness of God. God's promises to Israel have been fulfilled throughout history, and there is strong confidence as a result that the rest of those promises will be fulfilled in the future. The Muslim and Jewish conflict is setting the stage for the fulfillment of those prophecies.
Hi Jim, thanks for the comment and good rating. This article is written about extremists and that certainly doesn't apply to the vast majority of good Christians, Muslims and Jews, just the violent fringe elements that have gone off the deep end throughout history and have been the cause of such horrible religious wars where Christians, Muslims, and Jews have annihilated themselves in the millions. From the tenor of your comment, this animosity still prevails.
"Religiously motivated violence exists across all of three of the Abrahamic faiths," reads the study, which aimed "to better comprehend and confront recruitment and incitement to violence, regardless of which faith is claimed as ideological justification" by "focusing on what compels individuals to take violent action in the name of religion, and to recruit others to do likewise -- and in what manner religion plays a role in these decisions."
Shawn's article seems to highlight a troubling thread that weaves through fringes of the Abrahamic religions, which is intolerance of other views
Thanks for clarifying in your comment what your intent is. However, the above section of your article doesn't line up with your comment. It paints Christianity as a violent religion and paints the characterization across all three "Abrahamic religions". It seems the purpose of the article is to present this characterization. I don't think it is fair for you to make that characterization of Christianity when it isn't true. Your intent may not have been to do that, but readers may not see through what you've written.
I am not making my comment with animosity. What I stated in my comment is true to the best of my knowledge. I have been told about the Koran from Muslims themselves who have quoted passages from the Koran. I haven't been able to check their quotes from the Koran for context yet, but have little reason to doubt the sources. I am not basing my original comments on my opinion, it is based on the study of Scripture and history related to this topic.
Your article is not exactly a shining example of tolerance (by your definition), the very thing you are accusing these faiths of lacking. I believe these violent people are wrong and I say so, but it surprises me that one who believes tolerance is to accept all beliefs as equally valid would criticize other religions in this way. It shows intolerance according to your own definition of tolerance. That is just my observation.
You are clearly a man of peace, I don't doubt your intentions are good.
Hi Jim, thanks again for your discourse and comments. My article is what it is and you can take it for what it is worth. The study, that was conducted by people a lot more informed than I am about the history and tendencies of the fringes of the Abrahamic religions, indicates a tendency by these three particular religions toward violence, which seems to prove out over history regarding their frequent and violent religious wars. And yes, I am intolerant of violence.
But I am tolerant of ULTIMATE TRUTH beliefs because I can’t prove mine and you can’t prove yours, therefore how can I say that I am right and you are wrong without being hypocritical? I.e the idea of Nirvana and God are ultimate truth beliefs because they can‘t be proven, they are ineffable. But the ideas that Buddhist scripture or the Bible are ultimate truths is false, because they are written by man and therefore fall into the category of conventional truths - made up by man regardless of our conventional belief that they were written by an ultimate truth. Therefore I am tolerant of your ultimate truth beliefs (God) and tolerant of mine (Nirvana).
This is how I saw violence at one time in my own religion, Catholicism, which is the granddaddy of the US brand of Middle Eastern, Abrahamic religions. In my experience as a Catholic, we were taught that only Catholics knew the truth and everyone else was going to hell. This wasn’t just the power hungry, controlling fringes of Catholicism, but mainstream Catholicism back then! And this is what eventually convinced me to leave the Church, among other stupidities of the religion, when I was seventeen and finally able to crawl out from under all the intimidation and indoctrination, and think for myself. Of course the Church always said, don’t think for yourself, thinking comes from the devil - just believe what we tell you. Right. What a beautiful power play and controlling mechanism, a quintessential brainwashing technique that worked while I was an indoctrinated child. But I did grow up.
When I was a kid, for example, it was a mortal sin - immediate express to hell - if you even as much as stepped foot in a protestant church. That’s how unbelievably controlling it was back then. Also, we were to spread the word because stupid people who could not see that our way was truth were . . . stupid, and had to be saved from themselves. Well, in actuality, saving others was no more than a power play, an attempt to keep control and had nothing to do with love at all, actually it was the opposite of love. It was nothing but ambition, power, control and aggressiveness. These two tendencies of the Church back then are examples, I believe, of violence in religion, where the religion makes it a mission to impose it’s views on others and prohibit the flock from being open to other ideas. Hopefully, this is all changing now with the information age and people speaking out about these cloaked attempts at control in the guise of love. Hopefully, it only exists in the violent fringes now, and is what this article is about.
I didn’t buy any of it, and any fringes of any religion that still adhere to these extremes I can’t agree with either. This is not intolerance of ULTIMATE TRUTH, this is intolerance of conventional truth disguised as ultimate truth, i.e. conventional truth derived from human minds superimposed upon imagined guidance from an imagined absolute truth power. It’s a form of confusion and ignorance of reality by believing words written in a book that can’t be proven as an ultimate truth.
If the holy books of two or three of the Middle Eastern religions say that it is inevitable that they will all kill each other, then there would be two ways to go, I would think. One way is to make the prophecy self fulfilling, again, just very generalized words on paper applicable to a million scenarios and not able to be proved. The other would be to say, “Wait a minute here, we have free will so we can change all of this. Let‘s all wake up, this has gone on far too long. We are being stupid”
How could anyone hate another so badly that they want to destroy them. THAT is violent intolerance, that is stupidity, and it all begins with trying to control one another.
I'm so sorry to hear about your experience with the Catholic church. Thank you for sharing that because it does help greatly in understanding you. You were certainly mistreated. This is why I say Christianity isn't a "religion" rather it is a relationship with your Creator. Church traditions and the teachings you have referred to are "religious" teachings, they are not what the Bible teaches. Unfortunately, people get the faith of Christianity mixed up with the people themselves and their man made rules in Christian denominations. Then they paint Christianity with the failures of the people and the political structure of the Church. We are all imperfect and fall short of the standard of holiness that God teaches in the Bible. So it isn't Christianity that is the problem, it is the people. I think we can both agree that everyone falls short of perfection.
It is clear that the people you are using as a source of information about this have a clear predisposition that Christianity, as a label, is violent and teaches violence. They are simply mistaken. I have read the Bible cover to cover multiple times and nowhere is there a teaching to go an commit violence. It is the opposite of that. Christianity seeks peace. There are many professing Christians who have committed violence in God's name, but they were not practicing Christianity, they were simply using Christianity for their purposes (sort of like the Catholic church did in your experience). Throwing away Christianity based on the failures of the people is the same as saying democracy is a failed system because some of its citizens committed a crime.
On tolerance. So you do have a moral code you follow that you see as universally applying to all people, an absolute. You can't compartmentalize this philosophy because if there is a religion that teaches violence and it is a spiritual principle, you will disagree with them and their religion is not valid in your view. That conflicts with the "all views are equally valid" principle. You can't have two moral codes, they will eventually conflict.
I suspect you are drawing the line at the laws enforced by the government as your standard. What if the government decides that killing members of a particular religion is required? Would you then believe it is okay since society has legislated it? Would you follow the law of the government or would you defer to what Buddha teaches and suffer the consequences? Would you refuse to kill those people? I suspect you would refuse to kill, because you are a man of peace, and you have expressed your opposition to it. If you do that, then you have shown who you recognize as the authority, and by refusing to participate have implicitly judged those who follow the government's law as wrong. This is the dilemma we face as religious leaders in our communities if our government passes laws that violate our values. Our belief system means nothing if we don't apply it to real life, or if we adjust it to keep the peace with those around us. This world is confused and in conflict anyway without religion, we are simply here and have to deal with it. The question we have to ask ourselves is, "Is what I believe going to stand up to the test when it is challenged? Can I rely on it to deliver what it promises?"
Hi Jim, A lot of points to cover and rather than cover them generally, I’ll respond in detail if that’s okay. Gratefully Jean and Bruce give us plenty of room for comments!
Jim: I'm so sorry to hear about your experience with the Catholic church. Thank you for sharing that because it does help greatly in understanding you. You were certainly mistreated. This is why I say Christianity isn't a "religion" rather it is a relationship with your Creator.
e: To my way of thinking, and definitively by all common sources, Christianity is a religion, although you might personally disagree. Wikipedia: “A religion is a system of human thought which usually includes a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power, deity or deities, or ultimate truth.[1] Religion is commonly identified by the practitioner's prayer, ritual, meditation, music and art, among other things, but more generally is interwoven with society and politics. It may focus on specific supernatural, metaphysical, and moral claims about reality (the cosmos and human nature) which may yield a set of religious laws, ethics, and a particular lifestyle. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience.”
A relationship between ultimate truth and conventional truth is always an interpretation, and the various interpretations invent religions. Some religions believe in the possibility of a psychological direct relationship with the ultimate truth, others believe that a dichotomy exists between the immaterial ultimate truth and material existence that precludes any type of mental association, but does not preclude a spiritual connection played out in ways other than emotion and thought. So we choose which philosophy/religion turns us on and we practice our own religions. For example the main movers of our original constitution were Deists, believing that a God created the universe but then exited the stage. Theists believe that he stuck around to micro manage all our individual little problems. Atheists believe that God is a fairy tale. Since no one can prove or disprove any of these, we can be tolerant of each interpretation. To be intolerant means that we must be able to prove that our theory is correct, but no one has ever been able to do that regarding ultimate truth. When we say that our way is the only way and is the truth, unless we can prove that, we are just blowing hot air at best, and attempting to control others at worst. The fact of a creator God is not proven, therefore your relationship is a merely psychological manifestation which will vary depending upon the person, unless you can prove otherwise. It really doesn’t matter what you believe as long as it does not interfere with another person freedoms.
e: Church traditions and the teachings you have referred to are "religious" teachings, they are not what the Bible teaches.
e: The Bible represents the Christian religion. To claim otherwise is a bit wonky (with all due respect).
Jim: Unfortunately, people get the faith of Christianity mixed up with the people themselves and their man made rules in Christian denominations.
e: By definition; A religion is a system of human thought. Human thought is not absolute truth, only arbitrary conclusions. The Bible is a book written by men (never proven otherwise) and interpreted many different ways by many different people. The Bible is not an ultimate truth. It changes with the times. Just now there is a movement to create a conservative rendition of the Bible. Just think about how many times the Bible has changed over the centuries depending upon an agenda or two, or a hundred! Many times, one small sentence in the bible is taken out of context and religiously followed by this group or that group, and some use other areas. Some use all of the Bible but because of the many inconsistencies, that is not easy. (Key in “Inconsistencies of the bible).
E: ”Then they paint Christianity with the failures of the people and the political structure of the Church.
e: Religion is not a stand alone entity. People invent religion and people are the religion.
Lim: We are all imperfect
e: To what standard? Yours, or a consensus of society?
Jim: and fall short of the standard of holiness that God teaches in the Bible.
e: YOUR standard of holiness, not necessarily mine or any non Christian. Neither God nor the bible is an ultimate truth, just an interpretation of truth that is arbitrary. You keep speaking as if you know and everyone else doesn’t. That is a little egotistical, wouldn’t you say? Maybe even a bit controlling? (just a joke).
Jim: So it isn't Christianity that is the problem, it is the people.
e: Wow. People as a strawman. I love it. What is Christianity without Christians? Just words on a sheet of paper. Words on paper can never be a problem, only the people who adhere to those words, and if their actions prove harmful to others, then something is wrong somewhere. I’m not sure what good it does to point to the Bible as truth, while preparing for a religious war, which happens in seemingly innocent subtle ways beginning with disrespect of others religions. It could be that some books dictate to people how to act instead of encouraging them to study their actions so that they intuitively know how to act, and can fish for themselves, rather than begging for fish all the time.
Jim: I think we can both agree that everyone falls short of perfection.
e: Whose perfection? That’s a judgment. Perhaps in the large view of things, a universal view, everything is perfect just as it is.
Jim: It is clear that the people you are using as a source of information about this have a clear predisposition that Christianity, as a label, is violent and teaches violence.
e: Here is what Shaun Waterman UPI Homeland and National Security Editor said:
"There are similarities between violent extremists of all the Abrahamic religious faiths, according to a new study of ultra-Zionist settlers in Israel, fundamentalist Muslims in Britain and white supremacist Christians in the United States.”
How do you interpret this as a broad brush criticism of Christianity when they specifically say,” Violent extremists? Perhaps there is some guilt here?
Jim: They are simply mistaken. I have read the Bible cover to cover multiple times and nowhere is there a teaching to go an commit violence.
e: I have never read the Bible, only bits and pieces, but if I am correct, God says have no false Gods before me! Now I could interpret that to mean that God, as an ultimate truth that can never be understood, cautions people not to create false Gods for themselves, man made Gods that one can imagine to have a wordly relationship with! Maybe the entire Bible is a book created by the devil to keep men and women enslaved by the thinking mind? All kinds of theories, ay? Now, in case someone literally believes the Bible, then wouldn’t they want to clean up the world and get rid of anyone who believes in a false God, maybe “dispatch” them? That would be violent!
Jim: It is the opposite of that. Christianity seeks peace.
e: so Christians should prove that. Buddhists have, (with a few exceptions) :)
Jim: There are many professing Christians who have committed violence in God's name, but they were not practicing Christianity,
e: Ill bet if you asked them, they would say that they were. That’s the trouble with concepts and words on paper, they are subject to interpretation.
Jim: They were simply using Christianity for their purposes (sort of like the Catholic church did in your experience).
e: Don’t all Christians do that? Look at all the splinter groups that separated form the Catholic church, all thinking that their interpretation was right.
Jim: Throwing away Christianity based on the failures of the people is the same as saying democracy is a failed system because some of its citizens committed a crime.
e; You are mixing metaphors here. You say regarding Christianity: “failures of the people,’ and regarding democracy, “Some of it’s citizens committed a crime. You have to look at both democracy and Christianity as a whole, of the vast majority of it’s people, and if the past reflects constant violence, with the vast majority of the people of the particular religion agreeing, then you must connect Christianity with the people that caused the violence. Anything other than that is a fallacious argument.
Jim; On tolerance. So you do have a moral code you follow that you see as universally applying to all people, an absolute.
e: No, I don’t. That is what you want to believe. I have no moral code, because moral codes change depending upon the culture, something that we have discussed many times before. Today gays are sinful, tomorrow they will be accepted. No question about it. Yesterday the world was flat, today it is round. (The Church really hated that one) :) But what I do have is a sense of virtue that I all apply to each situation as it arises, in the moment.
Jim: You can't compartmentalize this philosophy because if there is a religion that teaches violence and it is a spiritual principle, you will disagree with them and their religion is not valid in your view. That conflicts with the "all views are equally valid" principle. You can't have two moral codes, they will eventually conflict.
e: Boy Jim, I will explain for the umpteenth time, please open your mind for a moment if you can. You are again putting words in my mouth, and I have enough already (heh, heh), I have no spiritual principles regarding virtue. I rely upon seeing what is happening in the moment, rather than on a third party judgment based upon what may have happened yesterday. Regarding violence, I will fight against that regardless of where it comes from because violence causes suffering. Regarding “all views are equally valid” Yes all ULTIMATE TRUTH VIEWS, such as God, Jehovah, Allah, nirvana, Atman, and hundreds more because none of them can be proven. The moment one causes violence in God’s name, they are no longer dealing wit ultimate truth, only their own truths which are conventional and arbitrary. And it can be discussed an debated which actions do the less harm for society at large. This is why a theocratic government will always restrict freedoms, because of narrow arbitrary interpretations of everything, from the world is flat to the world is 6,000 years old. (Wow, that’s a classic one!)
Jim: I suspect you are drawing the line at the laws enforced by the government as your standard. What if the government decides that killing members of a particular religion is required? Would you then believe it is okay since society has legislated it?
e: It would have to be proven to me, through debate in congress, that there was real proof (unlike Iraq) that all members of that religion pose an immediate threat of violence to the main population.
Jim: Would you follow the law of the government or would you defer to what Buddha teaches and suffer the consequences?
e: Are you sure that you know what the Buddha taught? Perhaps not. It is risky to make too many assumptions about things that you are not versed in. His advice to a soldier was to do his duty as requested by the king, and his advice to a king was to protect his citizens.
Jim: Would you refuse to kill those people?
e: Yes, but I would volunteer to go to the front lines and help with medical care.
Jim: I suspect you would refuse to kill, because you are a man of peace, and you have expressed your opposition to it.
e: Sometimes killing is necessary, I have no moral judgment against killing. If possible, I would do everything that I can to prevent killing, including insects!
Jim: If you do that, then you have shown who you recognize as the authority,
e: I believe in no authority, per se, I depend upon the mind’s own virtue and insight. I work within the conventional principles of a democracy.
Jim: by refusing to participate have implicitly judged those who follow the government's law as wrong.
e: I would not refuse to participate. I might observe that guns are for no purpose other than to kill things, and prefer to own no gun myself, but also be tolerant of those who want to own a gun. Right and wrong is from logic, and logically, gun ownership is a judgment call. I might vote against gun ownership, but the law states that guns are legal, so I do what I can, which means not owning a gun myself. But because of our constitution that above all provides for personal freedoms, and because I prefer to live in that kind of an environment rather than a theocracy (Or the world would still be flat :) I accept majority rule and go on with my life. I guess if my holy book said that guns should be outlawed I would have a problem, but thankfully I am not restricted by holy books.
Jim: This is the dilemma we face as religious leaders in our communities if our government passes laws that violate our values.
e: It shouldn’t be that much of a dilemma. Just do what needs to be done without getting in a tizzy! Since we live in a democracy and not a theocracy, why is it a problem for you? You must be able to compromise without getting so adamant! That leads to violence. Abortion clinic bombings etc. Work to change what you believe should be changed, or live in another country that is Theocratic and is more in tune with your beliefs. That is the only alternatives.
Jim: Our belief system means nothing if we don't apply it to real life, or if we adjust it to keep the peace with those around us.
e: That’s the problem with belief systems, they restrict and cause conflict in yourself and those around you. Why not handle each problem fresh and new as it arises and have confidence in your own insight and wisdom. If you have no insight and wisdom, get busy with your silent prayer and meditation!
Jim: This world is confused and in conflict anyway without religion,
e: There is plenty of religion and the world is in ever increasing conflict. Well, not as bad as during the middle ages and the “rack” and being "Drawn and Quartered" in the heyday of religion :)
Jim: we are simply here and have to deal with it.
e: And I submit that the best way to deal with it is with an open mind, an intelligent mind that sees everything fresh and new and doesn’t depend upon this or that book as his or her authority.
Jim: The question we have to ask ourselves is, "Is what I believe going to stand up to the test when it is challenged? Can I rely on it to deliver what it promises?"
e: Belief is the result of thought, which is dead, DOA. There is no creativity or spontaneity connected with dead belief, only old stale solutions to contemporary problems. Actually, beliefs in many ways exacerbate the problems because it is difficult to see clearly through the veil of belief. .
Jim: May God bless you and watch over you my friend.
e: God is a concept in your mind representing Ultimate truth, and I tolerate that!! May you find peace in your life and not constant stress. It's up to you, and you alone.
Okay. I guess there is nothing left to discuss. You are claiming in your article that Christianity teaches violence. That is not true. Period. As for the rest of what you are saying in this response, we are back to ramblings that make no sense, taking statements out of context to say things I didn't say. This is probably not going anywhere. I apologize if I offended you.
Hi Jim, No one here to offend! But there is plenty to discuss, like how we can find similarities in our different religions to agree upon, and perhaps work toward a universal understanding of each other. That would be good!
If you want to give me an example of my ramblings that don't make sense, (I"m offended! Just kidding), I would be glad to explain more in depth, but as I stated previously, some things can't be understood until there is a shift in consciousness opening the mind and removing the veil of preconceived ideas and beliefs.
Not sure how I have taken anything out of context because I have religiously :) taken your complete statement (copied and pasted) sentence by sentence in order and answered your questions sentence by sentence. Maybe the devil is in the details! (heh, heh).
By the way, if you read the article carefully it does not claim that Christianity per se teaches violence, only the fundamentalist fringe elements, of which I am sure you are not.
In light of the violence at Ft. Hood this week. Our discussion came to mind. I mentioned in our discussion that the Islamic religion teaches violence. Regardless of what the people who claim to be part of any religious faith, what the teachings of that faith are is what is critical in determining your thesis of your article. Christianity does not teach violence, though there are stories in the Bible that depict violence, the message isn't that violence is advised. In fact it is despised. When non-Christians are killed or victims of violence, you do not see Christians of any type celebrating.
The Koran is quite a different story. You also have seen this week Muslims, even in America, celebrating in the streets over the killing of American soldiers at Ft. Hood this week. It isn't shown in the media because it is politically incorrect to criticize Islam in any way these days. Here is a summary of the issue with the Muslim faith found on the answering-islam website that is somewhat enlightening.
"We see images of Muslims partying over the death of thousands of innocent lives. Many are calling for a ‘jihad’ or ‘holy war’ against the United States. ‘Holy War’ is an oxymoron. There is nothing remotely ‘holy’ about it.
Something just isn’t adding up. I know I am not the only one that is confused over the rhetoric versus the images that I am seeing and the reality and the horror of the actions. The words just don’t fit the actions.
But why? What is being instilled into these terrorists to make them act the way they do? Where does it come from?
Please read the following paragraphs with the understanding that these words are unaltered words from the Qur’an. (The Qur’an was written in Arabic, but like the Holy Bible, has been translated into English with the most popular and purportedly the most accurate being the Yusuf Ali translation from which these passages are quoted). No editorial license has been taken here, nor has any emphasis been added.
Lest you think that these passages have been taken out of context or altered in any way, I have included the Sura chapter and verse for each.
Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits, for Allah does not love transgressors. 2:190
And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out, for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. 2:191
And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and let there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. 2:193
Fighting is prescribed for you, and you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and that you love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not. 2:216
Let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. To him who fights in the cause of Allah, - whether he is slain or gets victory – soon shall We give him a reward of great value. 4:74
Of the Unbelievers:
"seize them and slay them wherever you find them: and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks." 4:89
Allah has granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit at home. 4:95
…"for the Unbelievers are open enemies to you." 4:101
For the Unbelievers, Allah has prepared a humiliating punishment. 4:102
O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah anything but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was no more than a Messenger of Allah… Do not say "Trinity": desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is One God: Glory be to Him: far exalted is He above having a son. 4:171
From those too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the Message that was sent to them: so We estranged them, with enmity and hatred between one and the other, to the Day of Judgment. And soon will Allah show them what they have done. 5:14
In blasphemy indeed are those that say that God is Christ the son of Mary. 5:17
O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you that turns to them for friendship is of them. 5:51
They do blaspheme who say: "God is Christ the son of Mary." They do blaspheme who say:
God is one of three in a trinity: for there is no God except one God Allah. If they do not desist from their word of blasphemy, verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. Christ the son of Mary was no more than a Messenger; many were the
Messengers that passed away before him. 5:72- 73, 5:75
Of the Jews:
‘When in their insolence they transgressed all prohibitions, We said to them:
"Be you apes, despised and rejected."’ 7:166
"Many are the men We have made for Hell…" 7:179
Remember your Lord inspired the angels with the message: "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: you smite them above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." 8:12
Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah. Whatever you spend in the cause of Allah shall be repaid to you and you shall not be treated unjustly. 8:60
O Messenger! Rouse the Believers among you to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish two thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are people without understanding. 8:65
…Then fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war…9:5
Fight them and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you to victory over them, heal the breasts of the Believers. 9:14
Fight those who do not believe in Allah … until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued. 9:29
… Allah will send His punishment from Himself or by our hands. 9:52
Therefore, when you meet the Unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks; at length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly on them… He lets you fight in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the way of Allah, - He will never let their deeds be lost. 47:4
It is He Who got out the Unbelievers among the People of the Book from their homes at the first gathering of the forces. Little did you think that they would get out: and they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah! But the wrath of Allah came to them from quarters from which they had little expected it, and cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their own dwellings by their own hands and the hands of the Believers. 59:2
That is because they resisted Allah and His Messenger: and if any one resists Allah, verily Allah is severe in punishment. Whether you cut down O you Muslims the tender palm-trees, or if you left them standing on their roots, it was by leave of Allah, and in order that He might cover with shame the rebellious transgressors. 59:4,5
They will not fight you even together, except in fortified townships, or from behind walls. Strong is their fighting spirit amongst themselves: you would think they are united, but their hearts are divided: that is because they are a people devoid of wisdom. 59:14
Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure. 61:4
This is but a small sampling of the hatred and violence that permeates this book. This book is the very foundation upon which this religion is founded. This just doesn’t wash with the ‘peace-loving people’ rhetoric but it does begin to explain the motivation and the actions we see on the TV and now in our own backyards."
Your article is particularly disturbing because you merge this religious violence with all the "Abrahamic religions" of which you include Christianity based on behavior of certain groups that claim to be Christians but really aren't or weren't following the teachings of Christianity. This kind of sweeping conclusions has the potential to incite violence against Christians by people who don't know any better.
Hi Jim, thanks for all the research and your comment. "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you." is probably key to all the other verses, kind of like “An eye for an eye.” I prefer “Turn the other cheek.”
It
usually takes mutual hatred to cause violence, I hope that Christians
don’t hate all Muslims. If Christians do based on a few paragraphs in
the Muslim holy book and not individual people, then there will be
endless bloodshed. It usually takes two to tango! I guess there are fundamental reasons why the three Abrahamic religions are so violent, and perhaps they will remain that way until they die out.
So,
do we just go on killing each other in the meantime because of our
books? It seems stupid to blindly adhere to any book instead of our
innate intelligence, compassion, and PEACE that can be unlocked through
silent prayer and meditation.
Thanks again for taking the time to comment. I always appreciate your replies. PS Take a look at Gregory Lewis' "To the Devil With Your Hate."
I'm sure the soldiers at Ft. Hood were religiously motivated by Christianity to try to kill Major Hasad, who yelled out "Allah is great" before he shot 31 people, killing 13, who were unarmed and crowded into a processing center. It is the fault of the Christian soldiers for driving him to kill according to his religious beliefs. Poor Major Hasad is a victim of Christian oppression. Do you see how ridiculous that is?
Christians don't hate Muslims, your assertion is in error. Christianity does not teach to hate Muslims or anyone for that matter. Your "eye for an eye" quote is out of context, it doesn't teach violence. The words Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth come from several Old Testament passages (Ex 21:24; Lev 24:20; Deut 19:21); they are called the lex talionis, the law of retaliation. This law was given to protect the innocent and to make sure retaliation did not occur beyond the offense. Jesus taught us to forgive instead even though we do have the right to justice, which is what practicing Christians do, even for Major Hasad. Under the laws of the United States Government, Hasad will likely not be forgiven and will be prosecuted according to those laws, which has nothing to do with Christianity.
These quotes I gave you from the Koran, not taken out of context in their interpretation, shows that Muslims are teaching hate, unlike Christianity. It isn't about hating Muslims to simply show what they teach. They follow the teachings of their faith, just as you follow the teachings of yours. It isn't hateful to point out a problem like this. We can't ignore problems and sweep them under the rug hoping they'll go away. We have a serious problem we can't ignore. Muslims who follow the Koran closely, take these teachings as commands from Allah, their god. They are being taught to seek out unbelievers and kill them if they don't convert to Islam. This means you too, BTW.
Your generalizations that lump Judaism and Christianity with Islamic teachings are unfounded and dangerous. If you insist on holding the position that Christianity teaches hate, show me where it teaches that in the Bible. Otherwise, you and anyone who reads these posts, should recognize the error made in your assumptions about Christianity.
So. . . you don't hate Muslims, just their behavior right? No offense personally Jim, I don't lump you with Christian extremists, but I will have to stand with my article. I do hope you have some time to read the article mentioned in my last comment.
You can stand by your article all you want. There is no justification for your conclusion. You are trying to teach people something that isn't true. Period.
You may also want to consider, based on your logic that it is "Abrahamic" religions responsible for violence. Ask yourself about what is happening in Laos, where Christians are persecuted by Buddhists by being arrested and pressured to renounce their faith. What about Bhutan, where Buddhist monks are persecuting Christians. In India, where there is serious anti-Christian violence killing 110 Christians August 2008 destroying 170 churches and 4500 homes. What about Burma (Myanmar) where Christians face persecution by Buddhist clergy. Also, Sri Lanka, where Buddhists are leading the charge to criminalize Christianity and are vandalizing Christian churches there. It sounds to me like you forgot to mention that Buddhism is also a source of violent conflict.
No problem, it is just a "common denominator of violence" according to your argument. These Buddhists don't seem to think meditation is going to solve their problem, but forcing Christians to denounce their faith and killing them is. I think that goes to the core of the message of your article. BTW, this is happening today, as we speak, and these are Christians that are just trying to practice their own religion - they aren't trying to "overrun" these countries.
Hi Jim, hope you had a nice day. If you want to discuss Buddhist terrorism, I suggest you do your research and write an article. Then we can all comment on it. In the meantime, my article states that the extremists of the Abrahamic religions " - - shared a black-and-white, them-and-us mentality; saw themselves as victims; and tended to be drawn from alienated communities that were either culturally or geographically isolated from the mainstream of society. I'll stand on that.
Hope you had a nice day too. You can certainly stand on that statement, but realize it applies to anyone who has a "them-and-us" victim mentality whether they are religious or not. That thesis isn't about religion, but about a dysfunctional group of society. Their religion isn't what causes it, it is simply used as a twisted justification, just as it is for Buddhists in Sri Lanka.
I am sure that I can find just as many quotes from my KJV Bible that are just as violent. You surely aren't suggesting that there haven't been any Christians that have used the Bible to justify killing, are you, Jim?
I'm sure you can take all kinds of passages out of context and make them mean what you want.
Sure, there are people who have done everything under the sun in the name of God, however, it isn't what the Bible teaches. The Bible does not teach people to kill. It is even one of the Ten Commandments. I'm talking about what these religions teach.
Was this article helpful to you? Leave a Public Comment or Question:
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
You are a member of E. Raymond Rock's Fan Club!
tweet this!
