Is it ever OK to fight or kill based on your religious principles?

1. 0

   Jay C OBrienposted 9 years ago

   Arjuna (Hindu) fought and killed his family at the direction of his God, Krishna.
   Joshua (Jewish, Christian) killed the women and children of Canaan at the direction of his God, Yahweh.
   Is it ever OK to fight or kill based on your religious principles?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      integraterposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Really? This is a classic case of dumbing down things.
      Krishn did not exhort Arjun to  kill anybody; he asked him to do his Dharm, his duty . It was a war that was brought upon Pandavs by Kauravs . And duty of a Kshatriy is to fight a war not to run away from it . Krishn asked Arjun to do his duty.
      It is fine to be ignorant about many things as you cannot know everything about everything but to peddle half baked truths as some kind of philosophical take on something you know nothing about is ridiculous.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Jay C OBrienposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Please do not get angry if I do not understand.  Just explain. 
         21. O Partha, how can a person who knows that the soul is indestructible, eternal, unborn and immutable KILL anyone or cause anyone to KILL?
         31  ...duty as a ksatriya, you should know there is no better engagement for you than fighting on religious principles....
         33  If, you do not perform your religious duty of fighting.... neglecting your duties....
         What did Arjuna do, but kill his cousins and uncle?  What am I missing?  Is it OK to harm another based on your belief system?

         replyreport
         1. 74

            Oztinatoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Ask your self if your own "belief system" would have condoned fighting against Hitler in World War Two. The answer is very basic.
            What are you missing? Honesty.

            replyreport
         2. 59

            integraterposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            You reasoning is flawed and you are doing it on purpose. It is deceitful, dishonest and malicious. Krishn did not preach violence. He preached Dharm.
            Proof of pudding is in its eating . Because Krishn did not preach violence so dharmic people do not got out and massacre people in the name of religion and respect all belief systems. However millions of dharmic people have  been massacred in the name of religion over a span of thousands years . It is the worst massacre committed against humans in the history of mankind in the name of religion. There is no parallel for this massacre and genocide in the human history. It is just that they do not play victim inspite of being the victims of all worst possible forms of violence .
            I am stopping this discussion from my end. There is not point in talking to you as you seem to have a malicious agenda.
            Nice talking to you

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Jay C OBrienposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Please explain, "You reasoning is flawed and you are doing it on purpose. It is deceitful, dishonest and malicious. Krishn did not preach violence. He preached Dharm."
               I really want to learn.
               If Dharma results in killing people, what difference does it make to those killed?

               replyreport
   2. 78

      Say Yes To Lifeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Jay C. O'Brien - I got your message on my Hindu-based religions very late because it wound up in my spam folder.  In the US, people end to pervert religion, especially foreign ones.  My landlord dumped Hinduism because of what his wife, a practicing Hindu, did to him.  So I won't be able to have that discussion with him.
      As you pointed out in your original question, Christianity can be warped too.  All religions remade by man, and so all can be warped.  In my opinion, Christianity's greatest fault is declaring itself to be Absolute Truth.  This is how they took over the world, annihilating the Native Americans and enslaving Africans.
      That is my answer to the question you wrote on my hub.

      replyreport
2. 74

   Oztinatoposted 9 years ago

   Usually such cases occur when everything else has failed and evil won't give up ie we are forced to fight. Fighting Hitler was necessary for example. If some ignorant person then thinks its ok to kill for expediency they have failed dismally.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Don Wposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The two examples given indicate that the question may have been intended slightly differently. I read it as, would you kill if you believed god directed you to do so, as in the case of Arjuna, or Joshua? Would you?

      replyreport
      1. 74

         Oztinatoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Don
         you might be trying to "fish" for a specific answer that you want but that isn't relevant. I have read the Gita many times. Its not a long scripture and the circumstances of the war are clear: an adversary refuses to negotiate and creates a do or die battle. The same thing happened with say Hitler (a classic bad guy). In the Gita Krishna explains to Arjuna why he has to fight. Krishna is NOT telling Arjuna to go out and kill someone at random and to insinuate this is incorrect and misleading.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Jay C OBrienposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            "Text 31 Considering your specific duty as a ksatriya, you should know that there is no better engagement for you than fighting on religious principles; and so there is no need for hesitation."
            The adversary here is Arjuna's Uncle and cousins.  Arjuna kills them to promote his religious principles and his family line.  Arjuna says his uncle is blind and therefore unfit to rule.  What I am saying is anyone who uses violence in the name of his religion has missed the point of religion.  God/Krishna does Not use violence to dominate or control others.  Do you understand?

            replyreport
            1. 74

               Oztinatoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               I understand you are trying to squeeze out an answer that doesn't exist. The facts are clear, there was no response to armistice and a determination to fight as stated.
               Ask yourself: if you were alive in world war two would you fight against Hitler's armies or stand by an do nothing? The answer is clear with or without religion.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Jay C OBrienposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  I am looking at the scripture of the major religions of the world: Hindu, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.  I believe each of these scriptures need to be amended to prohibit violence in the name of their God.  If you do decide to do harm to another, own it for yourself and do not project your need or greed onto God.  Do you understand?

                  replyreport
            2. 59

               integraterposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               The word religion is not equivalent of Dharm.  The word Dharm has no equivalent word in any western dictionary . So stop substituting the word Dharm with Religion. Religion and Dharm are two different concepts .  Duty is the word that might come closer to Dharm but not close enough and even duty is explained in terms of natural laws by various scholars of Dharmic thought.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Jay C OBrienposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  integrater:  OK, I only speak English so you will have to educate me as to translation.  All I am asking is whether You can renounce violence in the name of God/Allah/Krishna.  Yes? No?  Why?

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     integraterposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     What is your definition of violence? There is no translation. you have to understand that not everything can be translated.
                     Don't dumb down things .

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Jay C OBrienposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        Violence is using force to harm others.  OK, not everything can be translated.  So, educate me.
                        Do you support violence in the name of God/religion or not?

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           integraterposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           So is that your definition of violence ?  Violence comes in other forms too not just physical and that kind violence is much more dangerous. What you are doing is also a form of violence. Deceit is also a form of violence. Just because you use nice words and appear calm does not mean you are not violent. This kind of violence, including extreme physical forms of violence have been willfully practiced against dharmic thought for thousands of years. You are not the first.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Jay C OBrienposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              What are you talking about?  Please explain. What is Dharma to you?  What result in the Gita?  I believe using nice words and being calm is a good thing.

                              replyreport
         2. 80

            Don Wposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Not fishing, I'm asking you straight out. Would you kill someone if you genuinely believed your god explicitly directed you to? For example if you were Abraham, would you have bound Isaac to an altar and raised your knife ready to strike, or would you have refused?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Jay C OBrienposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               No, I would know it was not God.  How mentally ill must you be to believe in a God directed killing?  So, why does scripture describe this very situation?  See Hub, "Atlantians to the Mideast."

               replyreport
            2. 74

               Oztinatoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Don
               I have answered your first question but now you ask another different question.
               Deal or no deal: you answer my Hitler question and I will happily answer your second question about Isaac.

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  Don Wposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  You are implying that fighting against Hitler is equivalent to the idea of stabbing a child to death because "god" told you to. There is no equivalence, and it's disingenuous to imply there is. Your remarks about "fishing" suggest you understood the question the first time, but chose to be evasive, as you are being now. I will not entertain your false equivalence by answering a question that  is irrelevant to the OP and intended as a diversion. In regards to my own question, which is relevant, my answer is no I would not set about killing a child because I thought "god" had told me to. That's exactly the type of fanaticism that allows religion to be used as justification for killing. In the extremely unlikely event that I genuinely believed I was being directed by a deity, I would take the opportunity to ask some questions.

                  replyreport
                  1. 74

                     Oztinatoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     NO DEAL!!
                     I answered your first question my way, which is my right.
                     You have referred to your second question again without even attempting to answer my question.
                     You have lost the argument by all the rules of honest debating.
                     Goodbye Don!

                     replyreport
                     1. 80

                        Don Wposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        If your comment about "loosing" indicates the level of discourse I could have expected, then you have saved me a some time, so thanks for that. And for future reference, the use of italics and bold serves just as well for emphasis and is the traditional method of accenting words within the context of a discussion. If you're not sure how to apply those press the "formatting" button on the reply page for an explanation. Using all capitals not only gives the impression you are shouting, which is very rude, but also gives the impression that you may be a fanatic, as all caps is commonly used by such people to try to bully everyone else into accepting their view. I'm sure that's not the impression you want to give. Unless of course you are a fanatic, in which case shouting at those who disagree with you is part of how you communicate, and is only to be expected. If that's the case then once again, thanks for the heads up. Have a great morning.

                        replyreport
3. 89

   wildernessposted 9 years ago

   As your examples point out, the fight is seldom over religious principles.  Even the Taliban and ISIS are only marginally so - mostly it is about retaining or gaining power and religious influence over others.
   
   While religion is a common rallying point to gather cannon fodder, the fight is usually over something far more concrete: land, food, other resources, etc.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      DasEngelposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      What is religion? I'm bored today, so I thought this is a good time to sharpen my knowledge of religion, spirituality etc

      replyreport
      1. 74

         Oztinatoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Religion is the foundation of all civilsation, all culture and all humanity. Without religion their would be no humanity or "humaness" or humane-ness. All extant indigenous cultures are dependent on their various religions for their psychological health and for their respective unique cultures.
         Those confused people trying to destroy any religion are engaging in cultural genocide either out of blind ignorance, chronic ethnocentricism or deliberate malice.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            DasEngelposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Very well said. Thank you.
            
            As a side note: Have you seen the movie Cast Away? A single person, on a lonely island, disconnected from the rest of the world - Do you think they would have a religion? Nothing serious here. I'm just curious.

            replyreport
            1. 74

               Oztinatoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               There is no doubt that isolated peoples have created their own religions. Easter island for example. It gave purpose and solace to them. Recent research has shown it was only outside influences that caused their environment to waste away.

               replyreport
   2. 0

      Jay C OBrienposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      It seems to me that all religions should add to their stories or books an affirmation which renounces doing harm to another person based on religious beliefs.  The Hindus would have to accept it was wrong for Arjuna to kill his family.  Also, Rabbis and Christians would have to accept it was wrong for Joshua & Co. to kill Canaanites.  The Israelites were never given the authority to harm anyone and take their land.  All this takes is an addition to their "sacred" book(s).  How hard could that be?

      replyreport
      1. 59

         integraterposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         It is quite clear you know nothing about Hinduism or Dharmic thought .
         Mahabharat is not a sacred book of Hinduism. It is looked upon in Hinduism/Dharmic thought as Itihaas or History .
         What did you read ? Dummies guide to Hinduism ?

         replyreport
4. 61

   FIVE-DPRODUCTIONSposted 9 years ago

   FORGIVENESS,ACCEPTANCE AND LOVE IS THE ONLY WAY TO STOP VIOLENCE

   replyreport
   1. 61

      DasEngelposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Excuse me, but I thought love is electricity inside the brain? Is it something more?

      replyreport
5. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   You would certainly be tested.
   by your self.

   replyreport
6. 74

   cheaptrickposted 9 years ago

   Are you religious?...yes...Good
   So you believe in god?...yes...Good
   Do you believe in My god?...no...Kill him!

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Jay C OBrienposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Will you renounce religious violence?
      Proposed: religious leaders add an oath or affirmation renouncing religious violence to remain a part of their faith.  Add such oath to their sacred book.
      What religious leader today would refuse such an oath?

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Its not a cut and dry thing.
         It has to to do with fighting for justice.
         Love means fighting for what is right.
         Is it right to let others walk into your home and kill your family?
         Is is right to let a Government foster the practice of giving toddlers Ritilin and Adder all through Government sponsored Health Programs?
         Is it wrong to fight such programs?
         No.
         We should.
         Of course peaceful means as Gandhi showed is the best way to fight.
         
         Stop funding Obama Care/Medicaid.
         Oh, sorry wrong thread.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Jay C OBrienposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Let us narrow the focus.  Will you as in individual renounce violence based on religious principles?
            Be alert, get smart and find another way. Let us teach our children to walk away from a fight rather than run to a fight.  There is always another way.  See Gandihi, Mandella, MLK and Jesus.  On the cross Jesus said, "Forgive them for they know not what they do."  He never hurt anyone.
            Do you think you could speak to a religious leader about renouncing religious violence?

            replyreport
            1. 80

               Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               What is religious violence?
               and who preaches it?
               besides the extremists.
               
               who are not truly God-focused at all.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Jay C OBrienposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Exactly!  Let us go to the religious leaders and ask them to renounce religious violence as part of their doctrine.  Make it scripture.  Only the extremists would refuse.  They would then be identified.

                  replyreport
7. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   - also I heard a study which involved an alcoholic.
   The man was dropped off on a desert island with everything he could need for a year.
   Including beer, his drink of choice.
   In one year he was completely sober.
   
   My surmise:
   He found joy within stronger than joy without / beer.
   Why?
   Because the mind was free to go within.
   Usually we are so distracted by our attention to the outer world that we forget, (or are ignorant of) the  joy and peace which is truly within us.
   
   TWISI 
   
   
   PS All religions encourage empathy.
   No religion says to be a wet noodle in the fight for justice. We need to fight with true love in our hearts.
   Not hate.
   No true religion fosters hatred.

   replyreport
8. 91

   MizBejabbersposted 9 years ago

   I don't believe that a real god would ever command a follower to kill in his name. There is evidence being presented today that these "gods" were just advanced beings trying to further their own interests. It makes sense. We humans today have the powers these "gods" did in the prehistoric days, flying, bringing people back from the dead (comas), creating life (in vitro fertilization that can create a virgin birth) etc., so why do our own peers and colleagues insist that these 2,000+ year old aliens, superhumans, whatever they were, were actually gods? Now having said that, it doesn't mean that I don't believe in a Creator, just not one that goes by any human name.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Jay C OBrienposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      MizBejabbers, I tend to agree with you, however I am trying to get an accord on one point.  Will anyone reading this come out and say, I renounce religious violence past, present and future?
      We will get to what this means later.

      replyreport
      1. 91

         MizBejabbersposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         I think that was my religious principle. I don't believe any real god would ever ask a subject to kill. Therefore, it does not make it right in my opinion, past, present or future. Thanks for clarifying that, Jay.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Jay C OBrienposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Thank you.  Now all we need to do is go to the religious leaders and ask them to do the same.  What religious leader would refuse and why? 
            A revolution in Egypt occurred based on the power of Facebook.

            replyreport
            1. 89

               wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               1.  Because a minority actually disagree with this and think their god commands them to kill.
               
               2.  Far more common, because doing so limits the number of their "converts" and thereby their power.  Fear, particularly of death, is a strong motivator to "believe" and follow the edicts of those religious leaders.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Jay C OBrienposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, thank you.  In a war of words it is important to identify where people and groups stand.  If you ask a religious leader to renounce religious violence and he refuses, you have identified him as well as exposed him.  That is the object.

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     To at least some degree, though, your determination as to whether it's true belief or just a desire for power makes a huge difference in your own reaction/actions towards that individual.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Jay C OBrienposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        I am focusing on the "scripture" of religions.  I cannot determine motive as you point out, but I can read what the religion claims to be true.  Will a Rabbi of today renounce violence in the name of religion when Joshua wrote, God fought for Israel and killed men, women and children?  A Rabbi/minister who renounced religious violence would negate his own scripture.  It is time for Rabbis/Ministers to add to their scripture a renunciation of religious violence.  Some Rabbis/ministers may be honest enough to do this.  Test this theory and let me know.

                        replyreport
                        1. 89

                           wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           Well, religions don't remain static.  Christianity has evolved considerably from the times of witch hunts, the inquisition and the crusades.  All considered divinely ordered at one time, but no priest would ever promote such activities any more (except perhaps the likes of Fred Phelps and no self respecting church fails to denounce them).
                           
                           So yes, most churches and religions do evolve over time.  It is necessary to fit into the current mores of the population, although churches generally lag well behind improving morals and ethics.  Even Islam has made progress in some areas in spite of the power mongers currently controlling sections of the world.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Jay C OBrienposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              Yes, it is time to prompt the clergy into renouncing religious violence by adding such renunciation to the scripture itself:  The Torah, Bagavad-Gita, The Bible and the Qur'an.

                              replyreport
                              1. 89

                                 wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 Now that's a little tougher - to actually add language to scripture.  Much easier to simply change the "interpretation" or simply "translate" the entire thing.  Both of which have been done for Christianity, and even the Qur'an has been re-interpreted to mean something it didn't used to.  At least to most people; there are still lots of both Christians and Muslims that cling to the old immoral interpretations.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    Jay C OBrienposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    Yes sir, it is tougher, but adding such renunciation to religious violence would be more clear and reduce misinterpretation.  Such renunciation would change the scripture itself.  Those clerics who refuse it would be identified as religious warmongers.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 89

                                       wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       But clear scripture, that can't be "misinterpreted", isn't the goal.  Money and power is, and that requires the priesthood to "teach" and maintain control.

                                       report
9. 0

   Jay C OBrienposted 9 years ago

   Whether one accepts or rejects violence in the name of religion exposes the person as a peace activist or a terrorist.
   Do you personally renounce violence in the name of religion?

   replyreport
10. 74

    Oztinatoposted 9 years ago

    The power of capitals?? You're joking right?
    A discussion entails the mutual answering of questions. This denotes an attitude of equality and honesty. All readers here can see the lack of reciprocity in simple give and take with basic questioning.
    I'm waiting.......

    replyreport
    1. 80

       Don Wposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Yes, capitals, it's basic net etiquette. All caps commonly denotes "shouting". The rule of thumb is, if you wouldn't do it in person, don't do it online. If we were having a discussion around a dinner table, would you suddenly shout "NO DEAL!" in my face. I hope not. Of course you are free to type in any style you want, I'm just pointing it out to you because you might find it acts as a barrier to communicating with people who consider it rude.
       
       Sorry, but I don't play to the gallery. I'm talking to you not "all readers", and my position on this has not changed. Implying that two scenarios are the same, when they are clearly not, is disingenuous.
       
       The obvious intent of the OP was to ask what you would do in a situation where you believe god has directly ordered you to do something people would typically consider immoral. You deflected the question by suggesting it was akin to "fighting Hitler".
       
       The point made in the OP is not in any way like "fighting Hitler". How many soldiers in WWII were fighting Hitler because they believed god had directly ordered them to? The Soviet Union suffered over 20 million military casualties, and it's an atheist country. How many of those soldiers do you think fought Hitler because they thought god told them to? And for pointing out this false comparison, you have the gall to complain about my honesty.
       
       By answering my own question, I have demonstrated clearly that I am more than happy to answer questions that relate to the subject. But I have also made it very clear that I will not entertain the idiotic notion that "fighting Hitler" is the same scenario as Abraham intending to commit child sacrifice because he believed god ordered him to. So wait all you want, I will not validate your attempt to falsely compare these scenarios. That comparison is plain wrong, and it does a disservice to those who actually did fight Hitler.

       replyreport
11. 74

    Oztinatoposted 9 years ago

    Look, capitals mean nothing to me.
    You need to reciprocate and answer my question before moving on to another question.
    The ball is in your court not mine.
    Answer my question and move on.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Jay C OBrienposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Let me take a stab at the "Hitler" question.  Do as the Quakers did; move people to freedom.  The Quakers started the Underground RR to move slaves to freedom in the Civil War.  The Quakers also moved Jews out of Germany in WWII.  Get smart and find constructive ways to, "Fight." "Fighting," is better described as, "Striving."  In the end violence does not succeed.  Look at what is happening in the Middle east. War begets war.
       Look at this personally, if you kill or harm someone deliberately you may suffer from PTSD.  My stepfather beat and shot at my mother due to his involvement in Korea.  Also see Vietnam and WWI,  Some people believe in reincarnation and Karma.  If so, you may be reborn into the position of the victim.
       Lastly, Hitler would eventually be undermined by his own people.

       replyreport
    2. 80

       Don Wposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Whether they mean something to you is irrelevant to what they mean to others.
       Nope, I don't "need" to do anything. That's the beauty of intellectual freedom and freedom of expression.
       Which part of "I will not entertain idiotic notions" do you not understand?
       I think I've made my thoughts plain enough.

       replyreport
12. 74

    Oztinatoposted 9 years ago

    Yes your thoughts are plainly here for all to see. It's a one way discussion not to respectfully respond to a basic question. Responding to questions is not an "idiotic notion ". It's good manners and intellectual honesty.

    replyreport
    1. 80

       Don Wposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       You made a false and idiotic comparison. You got called out on it. Own it and stop deflecting. That's intellectual honesty. I repeat, your attempt to compare a question about the limits of your religious fervor, with a question about Hitler, is a cynical attempt at deflection. And to be honest, the fact that it's necessary to even ask whether you would kill a child in the name of your religious belief, speaks volumes about the nature of religious belief.

       replyreport
       1. 74

          Oztinatoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          I am still waiting for you to answer my question, then I will be more than happy to answer yours. That's how a normal polite debate is conducted.

          replyreport
          1. 80

             Don Wposted 9 years agoin reply to this

             http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2776697

             replyreport