Faith and Non Violence

[Wannabe Yogi]

This was started on a different thread. The idea of non violence has been developed and acted on more on the Indian Subcontinent then any were else. In fact many Hindu's -that I know- believe that it has been taken way to far. This is why India had been ruled by others for over a 1000 years.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Turning the other cheek is NOT one in the same with being a push over.

You are welcome to believe what you want but we have the same view this subject. If I take to much abuse I become resentful and angry. It would be foolish for me to claim to be a pacifist. I am not strong enough to be a 100% nonviolent. So I just try to not engage in unnecessary violence.

The leaders of the early church was made up of people who were completely nonviolent. Some would not even defend their own children, many would not even refuse to hide their kids so they would be put to death as a family. How much more pushed over can you get. I am not telling you to act this way but it is a fact of history that early Christian did not agree on many things, the nature of Christ, what should go in the Bible ect. There seems to be universal agreement on the subject of non aggression. Then again the modern American Christian church seems to have different set of ethics then the New Testament Church. They have a very different beliefs on the subjects of poverty,sex and War.

Here is some common teachings from the early church on the subject of violence.

A soldier of the civil authority must be taught not to kill men and to refuse to do so if he is commanded, and to refuse to take an oath. If he is unwilling to comply, he must be rejected for baptism. A military commander or civic magistrate must resign or be rejected. If a believer seeks to become a soldier, he must be rejected, for he has despised God.
—Hippolytus of Rome (b170ad)

We who formerly used to murder one another now refrain from even making war upon our enemies.
- Justin Martyr

The new covenant that brings back peace and the law that gives life have gone forth over the whole earth, as the prophets said: “For out of Zion will go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem; and he will instruct many people; and they will break down their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks, and they will no longer learn to make war.” These people formed their swords and war lances into plowshares,” that is, into instruments used for peaceful purposes. So now, they are unaccustomed to fighting, so when they are struck, they offer also the other cheek.
—Irenaeus

You see how the first christians saw Christ's words. In fact I can not see how anyone could believe anything but this after reading the New Testament.

 

[sandandfoam]

The bravest army I ever heard of is the Khudai Khidmatgar.
Active non violence as distinct from pacifism is the way of the future. From my point of view it is necessary to oppose all war, war is the enemy.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Every society needs pacifists, yes but our world isn't choc-full of people of shiny happy people. A nation should be able to protect its people.

This is very true, but with out the shiny happy people (i.e. MLK, Gandhi, Thich Nhat Hanh, Henry David Thoreau, William Penn, Bertrand Russell ect) a society will lose it's moral compass. It is the shiny happy people who are the best of humanity. From a Hindu point of view. It is the job of the army to protect the nation, so the state can produce the shiny happy people.

 

[sandandfoam]

This was started on a different thread. The idea of non violence has been developed and acted on more on the Indian Subcontinent then any were else. In fact many Hindu's -that I know- believe that it has been taken way to far. This is why India had been ruled by others for over a 1000 years.

Non violence brought about the departure of the British empire. That's quite the scalp

 

[sandandfoam]

Here is some common teachings from the early church on the subject of violence.

A soldier of the civil authority must be taught not to kill men and to refuse to do so if he is commanded, and to refuse to take an oath. If he is unwilling to comply, he must be rejected for baptism. A military commander or civic magistrate must resign or be rejected. If a believer seeks to become a soldier, he must be rejected, for he has despised God.
—Hippolytus of Rome (b170ad)

We who formerly used to murder one another now refrain from even making war upon our enemies.
- Justin Martyr

The new covenant that brings back peace and the law that gives life have gone forth over the whole earth, as the prophets said: “For out of Zion will go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem; and he will instruct many people; and they will break down their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks, and they will no longer learn to make war.” These people formed their swords and war lances into plowshares,” that is, into instruments used for peaceful purposes. So now, they are unaccustomed to fighting, so when they are struck, they offer also the other cheek.
—Irenaeus

You see how the first christians saw Christ's words. In fact I can not see how anyone could believe anything but this after reading the New Testament.

I agree.
"Thus it is that those nations have become attached to a false Christianity represented by the church, whose principles differfrom those of paganism only by a lack of sincerity" Tolstoy

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

The bravest army I ever heard of is the Khudai Khidmatgar.
Active non violence as distinct from pacifism is the way of the future. From my point of view it is necessary to oppose all war, war is the enemy.

I would agree with you that active non-violence is different then pacifism in that active non-violence is a way to fight back with out using aggression.
Pacifism is just about being against all war.

There is no doubt that people who engaged in active non violence with Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan were very brave. Many were killed in the Qissa Khwani bazaar massacre by there own people.

 

[Metempsychosis]

This was started on a different thread. The idea of non violence has been developed and acted on more on the Indian Subcontinent then any were else.

Yes,to an extent ...dharmic religions tend to be more inclusive than some of those abrahamic religions.Buddhism and Jainism emphasize mainly on non-violence.So they are the ones who took non-violence to a higher level(though Hinduism itself is non-violent).

In fact many Hindu's -that I know- believe that it has been taken way to far. This is why India had been ruled by others for over a 1000 years.

No....this is false ..

Mughals ruled India,because Hindu kings were fighting among themselves,i.e they were not united enough to fight Mughals( they are backed by fierce religion called Islam).Hinduism itself had a tendency(at that time) to create divisions ,that did not help either...

British Rulers were technologically far superior ,because of Industrial revolution.This was also supported by chrisitianity ( evangleical religion).So,thats no comparison (during wars).

 

[Mr Cheese]

I find the holding up of Irenaeus as a great example of peace to be frankly offensive...
the man was arguably systematically the catalyst for the death of Gnosticism....

although i'm not really offended, but I think it should be pointed out...

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

No....this is false ..

Mughals ruled India,because Hindu kings were fighting among themselves,i.e they were not united enough to fight Mughals( they are backed by fierce religion called Islam).Hinduism itself had a tendency(at that time) to create divisions ,that did not help either...

British Rulers were technologically far superior ,because of Industrial revolution.This was also supported by chrisitianity ( evangleical religion).So,thats no comparison (during wars).

I agree that the statement is false but it is a common belief among the non-practicing and the fundamentalist Hindu's.

I believe that it is the reason that some folks in India aim so much criticism at Gandhi .

I believe that it is the Barbarian that invades the civilized not the other way around.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I find the holding up of Irenaeus as a great example of peace to be frankly offensive...
the man was arguably systematically the catalyst for the death of Gnosticism....

although i'm not really offended, but I think it should be pointed out...

I am glad that you are not offended.:yes:
I'm not holding Irenaeus up as any kind of example that we should live by.:no:
I was just using him as proof that pretty much all early Christians were against war for any reason.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Non violence brought about the departure of the British empire. That's quite the scalp

Thats why I believe that Gandhi is the Greatest founding father of all time.

 

[Metempsychosis]

Iagree that the statement is false but it is a common belief among the non-practicing and the fundamentalist Hindu's.

Yes,it is quite common...

Fundamentalist Hindus try to mimic the Muslim way of meat eating in order become strong like them.There is a common perception eating vegan food contributes to such "dullness".

I believe that it is the reason that some folks in India aim so much criticism at Gandhi .

Yes,many Hindus feel that he was too liberal towards muslims.And there has always been certain large number of muslims who feel "idol worshipping polytheists" like Gandhi can never be as "pure" as a true muslim.

This is taken considering the fact that Evangelical christians and Islamic dawah groups try out every "trick" to convert the people to their "true religion of God".(See a Christian version of "Isa Upanishad" here).It is quite irritating at times.

I believe that it is the Barbarian that invades the civilized not the other way around.

yes......

 

[MSizer]

There is no english or french translation for ahimsa. I think that says something.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

(See a Christian version of "Isa Upanishad" here).It is quite irritating at times.

The best part is when they say it was influenced by christian ideas when it was written many-many centuries before Christ.

 

[sandandfoam]

Thats why I believe that Gandhi is the Greatest founding father of all time.

No argument from me
We could do with some more like him.

 

[Metempsychosis]

The best part is when they say it was influenced by christian ideas when it was written many-many centuries before Christ.

The older upanishads (which includes Isa) were written (almost about) a Millennium before Jesus christ was born.

LOL..