13 Jan 15
5 edits
When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.” - Jiddu Krishnamurti
I suspect that this kind of sentiment is popular particularity at this time with what has transpired in Europe and the killing of cartoonists and others.
Its quite interesting. All humans are capable of violent acts or from refraining from violence. If one is also termed a Hindu, or a Muslim or whatever does this really necessitate that they have extricated themselves from humanity. It appears to me that these appellations are quite redundant for its acts which define whether an individual is violent or otherwise. Of course the seeds of the violence are sown in the mind and percolate to the seat of motivation, resulting in violent acts.
Gandhi himself was a Hindu by faith and yet he stated that there was no cause that he was willing to commit violence for. According to the above Gandhi is a man of violence by definition and yet he acts in a non violent way towards all persons.
The Danish Christian existentialist Søren Kierkegaard wrote a rather wonderful work in which he argues that a 'man of faith', actually a 'knight of faith' can act entirely independently from mankind. The import of course is that things like nationalism, violence, ethnic strife etc have no effect because the 'knight of faith', is able to completely detach himself from these forces and is thus free to act independently from the world.
In other words, its not entirely clear whether faith and violence are mutually exclusive as the quotation from the above seems to be saying. What say you?
13 Jan 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAre you a JW?
When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not ...[text shortened]... olence are mutually exclusive as the quotation from the above seems to be saying. What say you?
13 Jan 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI say that he is correct that segregation can, and often does, lead to violence, but wrong to assume that it necessarily will or that the blame can be placed on the person choosing to segregate themselves.
In other words, its not entirely clear whether faith and violence are mutually exclusive as the quotation from the above seems to be saying. What say you?
I do believe that religious segregation does lead to violence and for this reason I would like to see less religion in the world, but I do not think this means we should accuse all religious people of being violent.
13 Jan 15
1 edit
Religion leads to violence not because of segregation, but because of the controlling nature of it. The bible commanded that those who propose following other gods must be killed (such as via stoning), and that non-believers will burn forever rather than share in eternal bliss. Islam teaches non-believers are infidels, and that those who leave the faith must be killed.
The two biggest religions in the world have a history rooted in controlling it's followers with violence.
13 Jan 15
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadLess religion will not stop man from segregating themselves by race or some other reason. The attempt to desegregate blacks (negro) and whites (caucasian) in the USA has also brought about violence. They still tend to segregate themselves to a certain extent.
I say that he is correct that segregation can, and often does, lead to violence, but wrong to assume that it necessarily will or that the blame can be placed on the person choosing to segregate themselves.
I do believe that religious segregation does lead to violence and for this reason I would like to see less religion in the world, but I do not think this means we should accuse all religious people of being violent.
13 Jan 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI guess God is violent too, since it was God that separated Abraham from the gentile nations and created His own nation and tribe. Is it violent too to call myself according to my race? How about my trade or profession? The whole world is full of violence according to the rationale you generated here.
When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not ...[text shortened]... olence are mutually exclusive as the quotation from the above seems to be saying. What say you?
Can I call myself human? 🙄
"Danish Christian existentialist", so violent! 😉
13 Jan 15
Originally posted by vivifyYes, it's true! Religion should be outlawed. Jesus preached against it.
Religion leads to violence not because of segregation, but because of the controlling nature of it. The bible commanded that those who propose following other gods must be killed (such as via stoning), and that non-believers will burn forever rather than share in eternal bliss. Islam teaches non-believers are infidels, and that those who leave the faith mus ...[text shortened]... iggest religions in the world have a history rooted in controlling it's followers with violence.
Matthew 23:3-33
All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay [them] on men's shoulders; but they [themselves] will not move them with one of their fingers.
But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren.
And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ.
But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in [yourselves], neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
Woe unto you, [ye] blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
[Ye] fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.
[Ye] fools and blind: for whether [is] greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?
Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.
And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.
And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
[Ye] blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
[Thou] blind Pharisee, cleanse first that [which is] within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead [men's] bones, and of all uncleanness.
Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
[Ye] serpents, [ye] generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
13 Jan 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieInteresting that he mentions nationality and country. JW's are known for shunning certain rites of nationality, like service in the armed forces, saluting the flag, and saying the pledge of allegiance.
When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not ...[text shortened]... olence are mutually exclusive as the quotation from the above seems to be saying. What say you?
I know your intent was to dismiss the quoted paragraph. But do you ever stop and take note of similarities in the thinking of those whom you would dismiss out of hand, and yourself?
Personally, I have started to do this more lately. I tend to be the stereotypical skeptic, happily tearing down what seems to be nonsense to me. But lately, I have started to notice that there is similarity buried in some of the words. By dismissing that, am I not dismissing a part of myself?
13 Jan 15
Originally posted by josephwNo. Jesus preached against hypocrisy.
Yes, it's true! Religion should be outlawed. Jesus preached against it.
Matthew 23:3-33
All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay [them] on men's shoulders; but they [themselves] will not move them with one ...[text shortened]... our fathers.
[Ye] serpents, [ye] generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
It is you who apply that to religion.
13 Jan 15
Originally posted by SuzianneThat depends on how you define "religion".
No. Jesus preached against hypocrisy.
It is you who apply that to religion.
The religious man is a hypocrite, just as Jesus called the religious rulers who sat in "Moses' seat". They had religion, and it led the people away from God just as the passage declares.
My reply to vivify was designed to make the distinction between "religious hypocrisy" and true faith in God which isn't the cause of the violence we see in this world. Perhaps you should have read his post first.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemActually I identify more with the 'knight of faith' because witnesses are because of their faith independent from nationalism, ethnic strife etc. Infact its this complete independence from these things which was the basis for much of their persecution. These things of course are not new, the Anabaptists suffered the same kind of thing during their epoch.
Interesting that he mentions nationality and country. JW's are known for shunning certain rites of nationality, like service in the armed forces, saluting the flag, and saying the pledge of allegiance.
I know your intent was to dismiss the quoted paragraph. But do you ever stop and take note of similarities in the thinking of those whom you would d ...[text shortened]... imilarity buried in some of the words. By dismissing that, am I not dismissing a part of myself?
I don't think that i dismiss the sentiment out of hand, merely the idea that extricating oneself from society by the profession of a faith should be wholly indicative of violence. This seems absurd to me in fact because the way to actually combat nationalism, ethnic strife, religious hatred is to extricate oneself from these values and live a relatively independent life with complete faith in God and oneself. To put ones faith in humanity I think is utter folly if I am honest.
13 Jan 15
Originally posted by vivifySegregation too often leads to violence, not always by the party that encourages segregation. In Zambia there is sometimes a problem with violence against people of Indian origin, in part because some of them tend to keep to themselves. But I would not accuse the Indians of inciting violence by segregating themselves. I do think it would be better for all if they integrated with society more, but I do not think they should be forced to do so either, nor should others be violent against them when they do not.
Religion leads to violence not because of segregation, but because of the controlling nature of it.
I would equally argue that Jews have experience violence against them in many parts of the world in part because of segregation they encourage. Again I do not accuse them of fermenting violence. I do however think that the apartheid system currently prevailing in Israel is morally wrong.