Violence....Uses / Purposes

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
W

WHITE DEVIL

Sicc OG
#1
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
69
#1
With an overview of most religions in mind, the general trend is not to espouse violence in any way, shape, or form.

Notable exceptions include Islam, some Eastern religions, and many regional or tribal beliefs.

Where does violence fit in with your personal religion? Some believe that Christians have a duty to be non-violent. Others believe Christians have the option. WHere do you personally stand on this?
 
DubbC415

DubbC415

Mickey Fallon
#2
Sep 10, 2002
22,620
6,984
0
38
Tomato Alley
#2
include christians to be the notable exception as well....islam is the "dominant" one currently because of extremism...but christianity has a long history of violence, and its so mainstream now that its ok...
 
W

WHITE DEVIL

Sicc OG
#3
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
69
#3
The violence associated with Christianity, though, is not really "written" into the Bible. What Christians consider "the Bible" only includes orders to 'chop, maim, destroy, and murder' in the Old Testament or "history" portion of the Bible.

The Quran, on the other hand, carries very explicit instructions and permissions of violence that have the same weight as other commandments. Jihad of the sword is in no way understated or ignored.
 
n9newunsixx5150

n9newunsixx5150

Anti-feminist
#5
Nov 17, 2002
2,627
99
48
42
www.facebook.com
#5
WHITE DEVIL said:
With an overview of most religions in mind, the general trend is not to espouse violence in any way, shape, or form.

Notable exceptions include Islam, some Eastern religions, and many regional or tribal beliefs.

Where does violence fit in with your personal religion? Some believe that Christians have a duty to be non-violent. Others believe Christians have the option. WHere do you personally stand on this?
Click to expand...

This would come down to how we view violence. How we define it. In Vedic culture, fighting against those who are inimical toward religious principles may become necessary and such fighting is not at all considered violence. Sacrificing an animal according to Scriptural injunction is also not considered violence. Violence is that which perpetuates suffering for the living entities. According to the Vedic Scriptures, when Arjuna fought against the army of the sons of King Drtrastra, he was doing so because it was Krishna's (God's) will for the fight to take place. So many attempts were made to avoid the war and that is despite the fact that Duryodhana (son of Drtrastra) made attempts to kill the sons of King Pandu, who were the rightful heirs to the throne. To top it off, the Kurus (Drtrastra and sons) were averse to religious principles and it is the duty of a Kshatriya to uphold religious principles. It is the philosophy of fools to say that a military man should become pacifist right at the verge of battle. And it is very much necessary for such fighting to take place, lest the demons would conquer and raise children to also be inimical toward God and religious principles. The turn your other cheek philosophy is Brahminical quality. Ahimsa (nonviolence) is promoted, first and foremost, but if it is necessary to fight in order to protect the peaceful class, then that is not considered himsa.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom