• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Peaceful and "warrior" believers

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
A thought that I have had this weekend is.

Does all religious paths have a peaceful non-violent group and a group of so-called warrior followers who don't see the peaceful path as fruitful?

Even in Sufism there are those who fought in wars as sufi practitioners. And there is the non violent groups.

I just don't see war as a righteous action to take part in.
 

Gargovic Malkav

Well-Known Member
A thought that I have had this weekend is.

Does all religious paths have a peaceful non-violent group and a group of so-called warrior followers who don't see the peaceful path as fruitful?

Even in Sufism there are those who fought in wars as sufi practitioners. And there is the non violent groups.

I just don't see war as a righteous action to take part in.

How do you feel about verbal warfare?
 

Lain

Well-Known Member
A thought that I have had this weekend is.

Does all religious paths have a peaceful non-violent group and a group of so-called warrior followers who don't see the peaceful path as fruitful?

Even in Sufism there are those who fought in wars as sufi practitioners. And there is the non violent groups.

I just don't see war as a righteous action to take part in.

There are those who do non-violence and those who accept justified violence in my religion, but I'd say both love peace and see it as fruitful since it is a gift of God. In my opinion at least.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
A thought that I have had this weekend is.

Does all religious paths have a peaceful non-violent group and a group of so-called warrior followers who don't see the peaceful path as fruitful?

Even in Sufism there are those who fought in wars as sufi practitioners. And there is the non violent groups.

I just don't see war as a righteous action to take part in.

Most reliions, if not all of them, have at sometime in their history declared war on other religions or even different groups of their own religion while claiming theirs is a religion of peace. It's one of the thinks i find hypocritical about religions
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
It's My Birthday!
A thought that I have had this weekend is.

Does all religious paths have a peaceful non-violent group and a group of so-called warrior followers who don't see the peaceful path as fruitful?

Even in Sufism there are those who fought in wars as sufi practitioners. And there is the non violent groups.

I just don't see war as a righteous action to take part in.
I was raised as a Quaker, and the Quakers are pacifists. Baha'is approve of war in some cases if a nation attacks another. All the other nations should defend the nation being attacked.
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
It's My Birthday!
What if it is a civil war?
In the case of a civil war, an international body should intervene to end the conflict. This is not explicitly said in the Writings in the Baha'i Faith as far as I know, but it just makes sense. Different nations taking different sides as is happening a lot today should never happen.
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
A thought that I have had this weekend is.

Does all religious paths have a peaceful non-violent group and a group of so-called warrior followers who don't see the peaceful path as fruitful?

Even in Sufism there are those who fought in wars as sufi practitioners. And there is the non violent groups.

I just don't see war as a righteous action to take part in.

Can you embrace both? Peaceful and Warrior aspects?

Only a life lived in balance is correct, imo.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
A thought that I have had this weekend is.

Does all religious paths have a peaceful non-violent group and a group of so-called warrior followers who don't see the peaceful path as fruitful?

Even in Sufism there are those who fought in wars as sufi practitioners. And there is the non violent groups.

I just don't see war as a righteous action to take part in.
I'm pretty sure there's no pacifists in my religion. Would be extremely weird and hard to justify.
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
Only if I were to use the warrior aspect inward to battle my own "demon" but no, not outward toward others.

If someone is assaulting myself or my family, I will defend myself/them, and in that instance be embracing my Warrior aspects, even if I would rather there be a more rapid peaceable solution.

Would you stand by and watch peaceably? Or would you fight back?

Not all violence is unjustified.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
If someone is assaulting myself or my family, I will defend myself/them, and in that instance be embracing my Warrior aspects, even if I would rather there be a more rapid peaceable solution.

Would you stand by and watch peaceably? Or would you fight back?

Not all violence is unjustified.
I can protect, but not harm. Meaning I get the others in safety, and might die my self.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Hinduism is big on non-violence (ahimsā) but there are times it’s justified, usually to restore dharma, righteousness. The Kurukshetra War in the Mahābhārata is one such example. A prince of one branch of the royal family (Duryodhana was his name) usurped the throne from another prince of another branch, Yuddhishthira was his name. They were first cousins. This prince was the rightful heir. But by a technicality of succession Duryodhana refuted this and usurped the throne.

After several unsuccessful attempts were made to settle it peacefully, with Krishna being the main arbiter, war was inevitable. Members of the usurper’s branch of the family tried to convince him he was wrong, to no avail. No one on either side wanted war, except Duryodhana. He had issues. Arjuna, Yuddhishthira’s younger brother was a skilled archer, probably the best. On the battlefield he saw that on the opposing side were his cousins, uncles, teachers, and in particular one favorite uncle on who’s lap he played as a child.

Arjuna put down his bow, sat down all verklempt and said to Krishna (Krishna was Arjuna’s charioteer but said he would not raise a weapon) he would not, could not kill his beloved cousins, uncles, teachers, including a half brother he only recently found out about, etc. Krishna told Arjuna that because he was Kshatriya, born into the warrior class, it was his job, his duty to fight for justice, regardless of whom he was fighting. This conversation is the Bhagavad Gita.

So, while Hinduism is very much anti-violence it recognizes the need to use violence and force when dharma is threatened. People have used this justify vigilantism, saying they’re working for the common good but that’s incorrect. The Kshatriya, ancient or modern soldiers, police, all law enforcement officials, do not go on the offensive. That is not justified. When Lord Rāma went to Lanka to free Goddess Sītā from Rāvana, Rāma gave Rāvana every chance to release Sītā and stop his reign of terror. Rāvana was so bad and powerful, Goddess Earth pleaded with Lord Vishnu to be born and stop Rāvana’s evil. Only when he wouldn’t did Rāma wage war.

So, war is very much justified in Hinduism.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Why would it be hard to justify peace and pacifism?
Asking out of curiosity and not out of blaming :)
In Germanic Heathenry, it would be difficult to justify as it is a very martial/warlike religion/folkway stemming from a warrior people. The chief deity, Odin, is a war and death deity (among other things). Total pacifism would've been seen as extremely cowardly. Everyone was expected to at least defend themselves.
 
Top