PDA

View Full Version : Being a religion of peace



Cerealman
05-07-2015, 03:59 PM
Just a simple question:
Does being a "peaceful religion" mean you stand there and get bullied by others?

pancreasman
05-07-2015, 04:22 PM
Just a simple question:
Does being a "peaceful religion" mean you stand there and get bullied by others?

Depends on who you talk to. Quakers would usually say 'yes' citing Jesus' statements and actions. On the other extreme we have people like DE and Epoetker who seem to believe in a kind of 'muscular, aggressive' form of Christianity that sees violence as necessary and virtuous in some situations.

I suspect there is a similar range in other religions. Look at Islam; nutty fundamentalists as opposed to Sufi mystics.

Jesse
05-07-2015, 04:26 PM
Just a simple question:
Does being a "peaceful religion" mean you stand there and get bullied by others?

Christians are to be as peaceful possible. Turn the other cheek when being personally insulted (as Christ specified). If however you are being physically harmed, you have every right to self defense.

pancreasman
05-07-2015, 04:31 PM
Christians are to be as peaceful possible. Turn the other cheek when being personally insulted (as Christ specified). If however you are being physically harmed, you have every right to self defense.

Hmm. What about the 'striking on one cheek, offer him your other cheek'? What about how Jesus responded to His beating and torture? I'm not sure the line is as clear cut as you make it.

Jesse
05-07-2015, 04:40 PM
Hmm. What about the 'striking on one cheek, offer him your other cheek'? What about how Jesus responded to His beating and torture? I'm not sure the line is as clear cut as you make it.

That is what "offer the other cheek" means. You are not to return insult for insult. In ancient times, trading insults like that could start serious wars. To keep that from happening, you should "turn the other cheek". Christ responded to his beating and torture that way because that was what needed to happen. Remember he told the disciples not to resist his arrest?

There is enough in Scripture and the church fathers to claim with certainty that self defense is right for the Christian.

Irate Canadian
05-07-2015, 05:49 PM
Hmm. What about the 'striking on one cheek, offer him your other cheek'? What about how Jesus responded to His beating and torture? I'm not sure the line is as clear cut as you make it.
Er, you do realize he told his disciples to carry swords, right?

Cow Poke
05-07-2015, 05:51 PM
Just a simple question:
Does being a "peaceful religion" mean you stand there and get bullied by others?

Are you assuming that Christianity is a "peaceful religion"?

Cerealman
05-07-2015, 06:34 PM
Are you assuming that Christianity is a "peaceful religion"?

I'm assuming that Christians should be peaceful when needed but defend/fight when it's needed.

pancreasman
05-07-2015, 07:05 PM
Er, you do realize he told his disciples to carry swords, right?

Yeah, that's true. In fact I see a lot of mixed messages on this topic in the gospels.

Darth Executor
05-07-2015, 07:16 PM
Yeah, that's true. In fact I see a lot of mixed messages on this topic in the gospels.

You see a lot of "mixed messages" because you don't understand anything about them, assuming you even read them in the first place.

pancreasman
05-07-2015, 07:22 PM
You see a lot of "mixed messages" because you don't understand anything about them, assuming you even read them in the first place.

yeah that could be it. I so value your comprehensive well thought out posts.

Jedidiah
05-07-2015, 07:43 PM
Just a simple question:
Does being a "peaceful religion" mean you stand there and get bullied by others?

No.

Jesse
05-07-2015, 08:08 PM
Yeah, that's true. In fact I see a lot of mixed messages on this topic in the gospels.

Once you put them in their proper context, they will no longer seem mixed. :smile:

pancreasman
05-07-2015, 08:19 PM
Once you put them in their proper context, they will no longer seem mixed. :smile:

There are various Christian groups, like the Quakers, who read the scriptures with integrity and arrive at a position of radical non-violence. I'm not sure that position can be so easily dismissed.

Cerealman
05-07-2015, 08:23 PM
There are various Christian groups, like the Quakers, who read the scriptures with integrity and arrive at a position of radical non-violence. I'm not sure that position can be so easily dismissed.

Reading something with honest intentions doesn't mean the conclusion is correct.

Jesse
05-07-2015, 08:23 PM
There are various Christian groups, like the Quakers, who read the scriptures with integrity and arrive at a position of radical non-violence. I'm not sure that position can be so easily dismissed.

And they can have any opinion they like on non essentials. As far as I know, Quakers do not teach that all Christians should be as pacifistic as they are. Tradition and the Gospels themselves are fairly clear on the subject though.

Jedidiah
05-07-2015, 09:52 PM
No one addressed Cow Poke's comment, Read in Matthew 10: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.

siam
05-07-2015, 10:06 PM
"Peace" can be understood in different ways....

If it is understood not just as a "value" but a path (a way of conduct) then 2 things must be considered and balanced together... promotion of good conduct and restraint of bad conduct.
Thus "to bully" would be considered bad conduct and such conduct must be regulated and restrained....which means the one being bullied can seek protection by using these socio-legal restraints/regulations.....(---in other words...resorting to justice instead of violence....)
restraint of bad conduct also means that in the event of self-defense (when there is no recourse to justice and one must defend oneself from bullying) then such self-defense cannot go over into revenge...once the attacks stop, the defensive actions must also stop....otherwise such actions become attacks and fall into "bad conduct".

As a "path" to peace...it is not enough to consider options after violence has occurred....but also to have guidelines for everyday promotion of good conduct and restraint of bad conduct---in other words codes of conduct (manners, etiquette) must be practiced and lived.

If we consider Peace as a value/principle---then there are 2 considerations we must take into account---Peace that comes about through Justice (the use of free-will) and Peace that comes about through oppression (constraints on free-will). A philosophy that advocates for peace through oppression would be promoting injustice. From the Quranic perspective..."Just Peace" is a principle that is worth fighting for.

If we consider Peace as a spiritual level (Oneness/Unity/God-awareness/Nirvana) Then in the Islamic context---this is a discipline and a methodology....

Jesse
05-07-2015, 10:31 PM
No one addressed Cow Poke's comment, Read in Matthew 10: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.

I read that passage as meaning that those who become Christians will at times make themselves enemies of their own families by becoming Christians. That is something that certainly happened in ancient times for Christians (and even today). I don't think it meant much more than that. Christ is still the Prince of Peace.

Paprika
05-07-2015, 11:12 PM
Just a simple question:
Does being a "peaceful religion" mean you stand there and get bullied by others?
People will point to Jesus as the supreme example of the peaceful one, but they like to forget that He's also the one who sends the avenging Roman army as punishment.

You also can't directly extrapolate characteristics of Jesus for characterisation of the idealised Christian as Jesus played a very specific and unique rôle.

pancreasman
05-07-2015, 11:41 PM
People will point to Jesus as the supreme example of the peaceful one, but they like to forget that He's also the one who sends the avenging Roman army as punishment.

You also can't directly extrapolate characteristics of Jesus for characterisation of the idealised Christian as Jesus played a very specific and unique rôle.

I agree with you about how to interpret Jesus' role. Some of His actions (and certainly His direct teaching) were surely meant as exemplars. Others were meant to be substitutionary. There are lots of schools of thought that parse the dividing line in different places.

As to Quakers (which you didn't ask me about), it's true that they don't expect every member to be pacifist. I was simply making the point that people of integrity can read the same text and arrive at different attitudes. I certainly don't know who's right.

siam
05-08-2015, 12:09 AM
How would Christians understand this passage...?....
Luke 19 : 27
"But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." (Said by Jesus)

pancreasman
05-08-2015, 12:15 AM
How would Christians understand this passage...?....
Luke 19 : 27
"But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." (Said by Jesus)

In context, He's telling a parable, He's not using this as an exemplar of fine behaviour because this is not the point of the story.

Jesse
05-08-2015, 12:17 AM
How would Christians understand this passage...?....
Luke 19 : 27
"But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." (Said by Jesus)

Like Pancreasman said, it's a parable. It has to do with the coming destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

Paprika
05-08-2015, 12:21 AM
How would Christians understand this passage...?....
Luke 19 : 27
"But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." (Said by Jesus)
It means he is going to 'come' back (cf. Olivet Discourse) and smite the hell out of the rebellious Jews (cf Roman destruction of Jerusalem, AD 70).

Cow Poke
05-08-2015, 04:16 AM
I'm assuming that Christians should be peaceful when needed but defend/fight when it's needed.

Oh

Cerebrum123
05-08-2015, 06:41 AM
How would Christians understand this passage...?....
Luke 19 : 27
"But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." (Said by Jesus)

:doh:
You really should read the verses in context before trying to post them in an argument. :yes:

shunyadragon
05-08-2015, 07:58 AM
In context, He's telling a parable, He's not using this as an exemplar of fine behaviour because this is not the point of the story.

Please expand on the point of the story. A parable may be a parable, but this one is pretty violent parable.

Jesse
05-08-2015, 08:03 AM
Please expand on the point of the story. A parable may be a parable, but this one is pretty violent parable.

The destruction of Jerusalem was a pretty violent act. So...

Sparko
05-08-2015, 10:36 AM
:doh:
You really should read the verses in context before trying to post them in an argument. :yes:

I am sure he just found that verse on a muslim website. I doubt if siam has read the bible.

Cerebrum123
05-08-2015, 10:52 AM
I am sure he just found that verse on a muslim website. I doubt if siam has read the bible.

It's a very typical argument used on Muslim apologetics sites. Sadly, these sites are often worse than extreme atheist websites when it comes to arguments. Sometimes the will even borrow said "arguments" to try and bolster their own. This has the side effect of shooting themselves in the foot given the way the Quran portrays the Bible.

siam
05-08-2015, 08:00 PM
I have not read the Bible...Though I did go through some of the Torah (Hebrew Transliteration with English translation) Some of the words used in the Torah are also used in the Quran because Arabic and Hebrew are sister languages.....For the NT....I have looked at a few passages here and there....

Luke---Thankyou for the explanations...but...I would also like to know the context and the parable ---out of curiosity---also, In Islam, context is provided by Tafsir (though the Quran also gives context if read as a whole)...where do Christians get context from?

In John 14:6 it says " “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."---This passage is often shown to Muslims by Christians and it has meaning for them....But a Muslim reading this as is--without a Christian interpretation----would find this very familiar because that is also how we understand God (come to the father)---through the way (Islam), the truth (Quran) and the life (Sunna/Hadith of the Prophet)....

Likewise, the passage from Luke could be interpreted (from Muslim perspective as "slaying of the ego" because one needs to have humility to come to God) as Jihad---the internal struggle/striving towards God......(a Muslim was discussing it in the context of Jihad and that is where I got it....but this was a Muslim perspective and I wanted to know how Christians understood it)

shunyadragon
05-08-2015, 08:33 PM
The only religions that I believe could qualify as religions of Peace based on the historical evidence and their scripture or writings. are Buddhism, Unitarian Universalists. and the Baha'i Faith.

shunyadragon
05-08-2015, 08:38 PM
The destruction of Jerusalem was a pretty violent act. So...

Unfortunately I believe this lacks a parallel to the parable. The Romans destroying the Temple is not a parallel to the command 'bring them before me and slay them.'

siam
05-08-2015, 09:14 PM
The only religions that I believe could qualify as religions of Peace based on the historical evidence and their scripture or writings. are Buddhism, Unitarian Universalists. and the Baha'i Faith.

I don't know much about UU and Bahai so I will agree with you...but Buddhism?....If history and scripture are the criteria---then Buddhism is as "peaceful" as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism....etc.

The Buddhists have "warrior monks" because it is part of their belief that defense of religion is an obligation. They also have the concept of "Compassionate killing".......and Buddhists have participated in wars....

siam
05-08-2015, 09:41 PM
Humanity has a similar general disposition....the same ideas found in religion are also found among non-religious....

Sam Harris---(End of Faith) "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them"...."we will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas."

Micheal Walzer, a Western intellectual and philosopher---(Just and Unjust Wars...) "No government can put the life of the community and all its members at risk, so long as there are actions available to it, even immoral actions, that would avoid or reduce that risk..." and "Can soldiers and statesmen override the rights of innocent people for the sake of their own community? I am inclined to answer this question affirmatively...."

Context and nuance are not just for the religious...but all philosophies....

Cerealman
05-09-2015, 03:52 AM
The only religions that I believe could qualify as religions of Peace based on the historical evidence and their scripture or writings. are Buddhism, Unitarian Universalists. and the Baha'i Faith.

Whether a religion is pacifist centered or not I think that any Religion can be considered "peaceful" if they only choose to retaliate if necessary.
I don't mean peaceful in terms of never fighting back.

shunyadragon
05-09-2015, 05:45 AM
Whether a religion is pacifist centered or not I think that any Religion can be considered "peaceful" if they only choose to retaliate if necessary.
I don't mean peaceful in terms of never fighting back.

Well, history is a witness, Judaism, Christianity and Islam do not always choose to wage war only to retaliate only if necessary, and do not have specific spiritual laws forbidding aggressive war. The point of Buddhism, Quakers as Christian denomination could be considered pacifist centered. The Baha'i Faith, Buddhism and UU in some way have spiritual laws or principles that forbid aggressive war, and not necessarily pacifist centered, though Buddhism and UU may encourage pacifism. Their history reflects these values.

Cerebrum123
05-09-2015, 06:20 AM
I have not read the Bible...Though I did go through some of the Torah (Hebrew Transliteration with English translation) Some of the words used in the Torah are also used in the Quran because Arabic and Hebrew are sister languages.....For the NT....I have looked at a few passages here and there....

So you know very little about the books of the "People of the Book"?


Luke---Thankyou for the explanations...but...I would also like to know the context and the parable ---out of curiosity---also, In Islam, context is provided by Tafsir (though the Quran also gives context if read as a whole)...where do Christians get context from?

What type of context are you asking about? For the historical and social stuff it's best to go to scholars in history and ancient societies. Especially of the Ancient Near East. Then there are things like commentaries you can look at. Even many translations have comments in them to help the reader understand. Look, the "Injil" was not compiled piecemeal like the Quran. The NT is mostly books and letters written to various communities. Reading the whole of each book is important. The stuff before and after each verse, as well as that which is even found in other books helps to inform the context. Learning about the culture of the ANE, especially 1st century Palestine will help too.


In John 14:6 it says " “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."---This passage is often shown to Muslims by Christians and it has meaning for them....But a Muslim reading this as is--without a Christian interpretation----would find this very familiar because that is also how we understand God (come to the father)---through the way (Islam), the truth (Quran) and the life (Sunna/Hadith of the Prophet)....

Jesus is saying there is no way to God except to accept Him for who He is. It's pretty clear from the chapter that He is claiming to be God.

John 14:1 “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God[a]; believe also in me. 2 My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going.”

Jesus the Way to the Father
5 Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”

6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know[b] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.


Likewise, the passage from Luke could be interpreted (from Muslim perspective as "slaying of the ego" because one needs to have humility to come to God) as Jihad---the internal struggle/striving towards God......(a Muslim was discussing it in the context of Jihad and that is where I got it....but this was a Muslim perspective and I wanted to know how Christians understood it)

Jihad means for more than an internal "struggle"* for one, and that's not what it's about at all. Here's the whole parable.

Luke 19:The Parable of the Ten Minas
11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12 He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a] ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’

14 “But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’

15 “He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.

16 “The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’

17 “‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’

18 “The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’

19 “His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’

20 “Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’

22 “His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’

24 “Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’

25 “‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’

26 “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”

This is about being responsible with what God gives you.

*“Tafsir of Ibn Kathir”, volume 2, pages 116, 117 on verse 2:191, [8], states:

As Jihad involves death and the killing of men, Allah draws our attention to the fact that the disbelief and polytheism of the disbelievers, and their avoidance of Allah’s path are far worse than killing. Thus Allah says, “And Fitnah is worse than killing.” This is to say that shirk (Polytheism) is more serious and worse than killing. (http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/jihad.htm)

Jesse
05-09-2015, 10:47 AM
Unfortunately I believe this lacks a parallel to the parable. The Romans destroying the Temple is not a parallel to the command 'bring them before me and slay them.'

Then you know very little about Biblical parables. I would suggest a deeper study.

shunyadragon
05-09-2015, 03:22 PM
Then you know very little about Biblical parables. I would suggest a deeper study.

Not a problem. I disagree with 'interpretations' of parables that tend to make Christians comfy.

shunyadragon
05-09-2015, 03:34 PM
I don't know much about UU and Bahai so I will agree with you...but Buddhism?....If history and scripture are the criteria---then Buddhism is as "peaceful" as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism....etc.

The Buddhists have "warrior monks" because it is part of their belief that defense of religion is an obligation. They also have the concept of "Compassionate killing"....

Yes there is a concept of compassionate killing, but you need more information how it applies. Defense of the monasteries was one of the roles of the Bodhisattva warriors. The question is does Buddhism advocate an aggressive war, or war in the name of religion. The answer is not.

To understand this better read The Bodhisattva Warriors by Shifu Nagaboshi Tomio.


...and Buddhists have participated in wars....

Actually no, the Buddhists of Japan took a pacifist view, and suffered the consequences in World War II. The warrior religion of Japan is Shinto, not Buddhist. I know of no war fought in the name of Buddha.

siam
05-09-2015, 09:38 PM
Luke "parable"--I agree with Shuny---I found it confusing----but in my case, I find a lot about Christianity confusing....

@Cerebrum123
Thank you for taking the time to explain...appreciate it.

@Shuny
In the East, Buddhism is integrated into the existing culture/religion/philosophy so it is hard to say an individual is Shinto but not Buddhist, or Buddhist but not Shinto....
(For those who do not know...Buddhism of the West is different from Eastern Buddhism)

You are correct that Buddhists do not fight "for Buddha" but they do fight for Dharma (Law) and this concept has been abused by those in power (Kings) to justify fighting ---and Buddhist kingdoms have fought with each other. This idea to fight for the Law/righteousness/defending right principles---is not that different from Sam Harris saying we have to fight for our ideas, or George Bush saying they are fighting for democracy...etc....
also, there are a few passages in Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra (Nirvana Sutra) that are not pretty....

But, if one were to interpret "scripture" broadly, then the Talmud has restraints on human violence in Sanhedrin which says killing an individual is like killing a whole community, and Christianity has the Catechism (CCC2307-2314) which elaborates on the idea of Just war and conduct in war. Islam has the Quran---(Which may come as a surprise to some) but the Quran restricts war to 2 (defensive) occassions, 1) Oppression and 2) the breaking of treaty terms. The Quran/Islam also specifies humane behavior to non-combatants and prisoners of war and prohibits destruction of property as well as advocates for the most speedy conclusion to war in order to resume peace negotiations as soon as possible. Historically, all religious people have ignored their own wisdom teachings/philosophies when they found them inconvenient....For example...Americans used to find torture unethical and they had restraints for torture---but when they found this inconvenient---they overturned these restraints and torture was practiced....

So if history and scripture are the criteria...then one can say Buddhism is the same as many other philosophies---it is people who interpret scripture and act in history---and people have a similar general disposition. But if we were to base the criteria on the practice of peace---then Buddhism would be better than Judaism or Christianity because it has the mystical discipline...(But so does Islam and Hinduism)

Jesse
05-10-2015, 01:15 AM
Not a problem. I disagree with 'interpretations' of parables that tend to make Christians comfy.

There is nothing about that parable that would make a Christian comfortable or uncomfortable. So I am not sure what you are trying to say.

Paprika
05-10-2015, 01:31 AM
There is nothing about that parable that would make a Christian comfortable or uncomfortable. So I am not sure what you are trying to say.
If anything the parable would make many contemporary Christians uneasy because it speaks of Jesus violently and devastatingly smiting His own people which is in contrast with the non-violent 'loving' peacenik image many have of him.

Jesse
05-10-2015, 01:57 AM
If anything the parable would make many contemporary Christians uneasy because it speaks of Jesus violently and devastatingly smiting His own people which is in contrast with the non-violent 'loving' peacenik image many have of him.

This is something I can see happening. Makes sense that Shunyadragon disagrees with the original interpretation. It's not the Jesus he wants to see I guess.

shunyadragon
05-10-2015, 03:42 AM
This is something I can see happening. Makes sense that Shunyadragon disagrees with the original interpretation. It's not the Jesus he wants to see I guess.

I am not sure where you get it that your interpretation was the original 'interpretation.' Can you enlighten me of a reference that would have been 'original.'

Cerebrum123
05-10-2015, 06:52 AM
Luke "parable"--I agree with Shuny---I found it confusing----but in my case, I find a lot about Christianity confusing....

@Cerebrum123
Thank you for taking the time to explain...appreciate it.

@Shuny
In the East, Buddhism is integrated into the existing culture/religion/philosophy so it is hard to say an individual is Shinto but not Buddhist, or Buddhist but not Shinto....
(For those who do not know...Buddhism of the West is different from Eastern Buddhism)

You are correct that Buddhists do not fight "for Buddha" but they do fight for Dharma (Law) and this concept has been abused by those in power (Kings) to justify fighting ---and Buddhist kingdoms have fought with each other. This idea to fight for the Law/righteousness/defending right principles---is not that different from Sam Harris saying we have to fight for our ideas, or George Bush saying they are fighting for democracy...etc....
also, there are a few passages in Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra (Nirvana Sutra) that are not pretty....

But, if one were to interpret "scripture" broadly, then the Talmud has restraints on human violence in Sanhedrin which says killing an individual is like killing a whole community, and Christianity has the Catechism (CCC2307-2314) which elaborates on the idea of Just war and conduct in war. Islam has the Quran---(Which may come as a surprise to some) but the Quran restricts war to 2 (defensive) occassions, 1) Oppression and 2) the breaking of treaty terms. The Quran/Islam also specifies humane behavior to non-combatants and prisoners of war and prohibits destruction of property as well as advocates for the most speedy conclusion to war in order to resume peace negotiations as soon as possible. Historically, all religious people have ignored their own wisdom teachings/philosophies when they found them inconvenient....For example...Americans used to find torture unethical and they had restraints for torture---but when they found this inconvenient---they overturned these restraints and torture was practiced....

So if history and scripture are the criteria...then one can say Buddhism is the same as many other philosophies---it is people who interpret scripture and act in history---and people have a similar general disposition. But if we were to base the criteria on the practice of peace---then Buddhism would be better than Judaism or Christianity because it has the mystical discipline...(But so does Islam and Hinduism)

Give references to the underlined. Oh, and make sure they aren't abrogated Meccan surahs.

shunyadragon
05-10-2015, 07:07 AM
it.

@Shuny
In the East, Buddhism is integrated into the existing culture/religion/philosophy so it is hard to say an individual is Shinto but not Buddhist, or Buddhist but not Shinto....
(For those who do not know...Buddhism of the West is different from Eastern Buddhism)

Let's start with Japan

Yes, there is a blending of Shinto, Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism in Japanese culture, but there is a real distinction between Shinto and Buddhism in Japan. There is less distinction with the influence of Confucianism and Taoism, but there are temples and orders in Japan that are distinctive. Buddhism and various schools of distinctive Buddhist Arts like Aikido founded by Morihei Ueshiba, are distinctly peaceful and even to some extent pacifist in Japanese history. They were definitely persecuted during World War II.

Jesse
05-10-2015, 02:06 PM
I am not sure where you get it that your interpretation was the original 'interpretation.' Can you enlighten me of a reference that would have been 'original.'


Sure. Origen, in his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101614.htm) (246-248 A.D.) makes it clear that the Parable of the Ten Pounds is speaking of a future reckoning:


But let these things, then, be said by way of apology, because of the depth of the parable; but, with regard to the question at what time the man— the king— in the parable wished to make a reckoning with his own servants, we will say that it seems that this takes place about the time of the judgment which had been proclaimed. And this is confirmed by two parables, one at the close of the Gospel before us, Matthew 25:14-30 and one from the Gospel according to Luke. Luke 19:12-27


And this was in response to Marcion missusing parables:


But who may these be but those who have been appointed in the matter of punishments? But at the same time observe, because of the use made of this parable by adherents of heresies, that if they accuse the Creator of being passionate, because of words that declare the wrath of God, they ought also to accuse this king, because that "being angry," he delivered the debtor to the tormentors. But it must further be said to those whose view it is that no one is delivered by Jesus to the tormentors,— pray, explain to us, good sirs, who is the king who delivered the wicked servant to the tormentors? And let them also attend to this, "So therefore also shall My heavenly Father do unto you;" Matthew 18:35 and to the same persons also might rather be said the things in the parable of the Ten Pounds that the Son of the good God said, "Howbeit these mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them," Luke 19:27 etc.


If you would like more commentaries on the verse, you can go here (http://www.ccel.org/wwsb/Luke/19/27).

siam
05-10-2015, 10:13 PM
@Shuny

Japan---Yes, you are right that temples and festivals are distinct but could this be because of their social functions rather than philosophical rigidity/exclusivity? If there is one area that Buddhism excels at above all other religions/philosophies is that of peaceful assimilation as a philosophy considering the reach of its influence.....

Martial Arts---the various martial arts (which were originally more of a spiritual practice than the "sport" they are considered today) is a good example of the influence of Buddhism as well as its blending/assimilation..?..and Aikido, while it is distinctive, is also a fusion?---It uses the power/force of Qi/Chi ? ("The way of harmony of Ki"--though apparently some practitioners understand Ki/Qi as (laws of) physics))
(The Indian martial arts (South India) had both a defensive and offensive aspect.)

siam
05-10-2015, 10:17 PM
Japan---There is Aum Shinrikyo...?...

Pentecost
05-10-2015, 10:52 PM
Luke "parable"--I agree with Shuny---I found it confusing----but in my case, I find a lot about Christianity confusing.... Hello Siam, how are you? I hope well. Do you still find that parable confusing? You put quotations around parable, it is not a technical word in English referring only to those things taught by Jesus it is defined as

"1.
a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson." This includes things like the fables told by Aesop.

And if you ever wish for me to try to help you understand Christianity again we can simply return to our old thread.

siam
05-11-2015, 02:28 AM
@Pentecost
I have some questions....but the NT is not my sacred book and I don't want to offend Christians just to satisfy my curiosity....
If you are not offended...perhaps you could answer?....(and...Aesops is much easier to understand!!!....)

...It seems the story is like this----

11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12 He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a] ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’

14 “But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’

15 “He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.

16 “The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’

17 “‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’

18 “The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’

19 “His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’

20 “Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’

22 “His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’

24 “Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’

25 “‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’

26 “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”

12-15---the whole---he-was-made-king business a) How is it relevant? b) who does the King, the delegation symbolize?

26---"those who have nothing---even what they have will be taken away"---Doesn't this contradict the other passages that speak of God giving to the meek/poor/humble etc?...or Mathew 6:31-34 that says not to worry if you have nothing because God will provide and to trust in God.....

27---and how is that passage relevant---or even related---to the story? other than the mention of the King---it does not seem to speak to or even add to the story at all....

The parable---seems to encourage profit, ambition, desire---which would contradict 1 John 2:15-17 which advises people against worldly desires and gain.....

shunyadragon
05-11-2015, 05:55 AM
@Shuny

Japan---Yes, you are right that temples and festivals are distinct but could this be because of their social functions rather than philosophical rigidity/exclusivity? If there is one area that Buddhism excels at above all other religions/philosophies is that of peaceful assimilation as a philosophy considering the reach of its influence.....

I would not consider Buddhism excelling in assimilation as a philosophy considering the reach of its influence. It is predominantly peaceful more by its nature. I consider the Baha'i Faith more adept at peaceful assimilation in a diverse cultural context.

Shinto remains the foundation of Japanese traditional religion and yes, separate from Buddhism. Japanese militarism is rooted in Shinto beliefs, not Buddhist. It is not a matter of rigidity nor exclusivity that separates Buddhism from Shinto. It is fundamental doctrine.


Martial Arts---the various martial arts (which were originally more of a spiritual practice than the "sport" they are considered today) is a good example of the influence of Buddhism as well as its blending/assimilation..?..and Aikido, while it is distinctive, is also a fusion?---It uses the power/force of Qi/Chi ? ("The way of harmony of Ki"--though apparently some practitioners understand Ki/Qi as (laws of) physics))

Some of the more distinctive Buddhist and Taoist Martial Arts (I call Arts of the Way) are distinctly none violent, not aggressive, and more closely related to spiritual meditative practices. These practices were later corrupted by secular governments for militaristic and aggressive purposes, and became distinctly non-Buddhist nor Taoist in nature.



(The Indian martial arts (South India) had both a defensive and offensive aspect.)

I can look further, but no, this is not Buddhist. Various Martial Arts disciplines can be traced back to the Neolithic based on cave and cliff drawings in South China. These ancient ways are closely related to hunting and warrior Arts of primitive human cultures.

Along with the previous book, Bodisattva Warriors, I recommended I recommend The Shaolin Monastery: History, Religion, and the Chinese Martial Arts by Meir Shahar to get a better over all picture of the nature and history of Chinese Shaolin history

shunyadragon
05-11-2015, 06:00 AM
Japan---There is Aum Shinrikyo...?...

Bad example for anything constructive. A syncretistic violent minor cult with no direct real connection to Buddhism not Taoism (another more peaceful religion like Buddhism.)


Aum Shinrikyo/Aleph is a syncretic belief system that incorporates Asahara's facets of Christianity with idiosyncratic interpretations of Yoga, and the writings of Nostradamus.[6] In 1992 Asahara published a foundational book, and declared himself "Christ",[7] Japan's only fully enlightened master and identified with the "Lamb of God".[8] His purported mission was to take upon himself the sins of the world, and he claimed he could transfer to his followers spiritual power and ultimately take away their sins and bad deeds.[9]

Asahara outlined a doomsday prophecy, which included a World War III instigated by the United States.[10] He described a final conflict culminating in a nuclear "Armageddon", borrowing the term from the Book of Revelation 16:16.[11] Humanity would end, except for the elite few who joined Aum.[11] Aum's mission was not only to spread the word of "salvation", but also to survive these "End Times". Asahara predicted Armageddon would occur in 1997.[11] He called the United States "The Beast" from the Book of Revelation, predicting that it would eventually attack Japan.[11] He also saw dark conspiracies everywhere promulgated by Jews, Freemasons, the Dutch, the British Royal Family, and rival Japanese religions.[12]

The name "Aum Shinrikyo" (オウム真理教 Aumu Shinrikyō?), usually rendered in English as "Supreme Truth", derives from the Sanskrit syllable Aum, used to represent the universe, followed by the Japanese Shinrikyo (meaning, roughly, "religion of Truth") written in kanji. In 2000, the organization changed its name to "Aleph" – a reference to the first letter of the Phoenician, Hebrew and Arabic alphabets – and replaced its logo.

shunyadragon
05-11-2015, 06:05 AM
Ashoka Maurya (/əˈʃoʊkə/; Sanskrit: अशोक मौर्य; 304–232 BCE), commonly known as Ashoka and also as Ashoka the Great, was an Indian emperor of the Maurya Dynasty who ruled almost all of the Indian subcontinent from circa 269 BCE to 232 BCE.[1] One of India's greatest emperors, Ashoka reigned over a realm that stretched from the Hindu Kush mountains in the west to Bengal in the East and covered the entire Indian subcontinent except parts of present day Tamil Nadu and Kerala. The empire's capital was Pataliputra (in Magadha, present-day Bihar), with provincial capitals at Taxila and Ujjain.

In about 260 BCE Ashoka waged a bitterly destructive war against the state of Kalinga (modern Odisha).[2] He conquered Kalinga, which none of his ancestors had done.[3] He embraced Buddhism after witnessing the mass deaths of the Kalinga War, which he himself had waged out of a desire for conquest. "Ashoka reflected on the war in Kalinga, which reportedly had resulted in more than 100,000 deaths and 150,000 deportations."[4] Ashoka converted gradually to Buddhism beginning about 263 BCE.[2] He was later dedicated to the propagation of Buddhism across Asia, and established monuments marking several significant sites in the life of Gautama Buddha. "Ashoka regarded Buddhism as a doctrine that could serve as a cultural foundation for political unity."[5] Ashoka is now remembered as a philanthropic administrator. In the Kalinga edicts, he addresses his people as his "children", and mentions that as a father he desires their good.

Ashoka is referred to as Samraat Chakravartin Ashoka – the "Emperor of Emperors Ashoka." His name "Aśoka" means "painless, without sorrow" in Sanskrit (the a privativum and śoka "pain, distress"). In his edicts, he is referred to as Devānāmpriya (Pali Devānaṃpiya or "The Beloved of the Gods"), and Priyadarśin (Pali Piyadasī or "He who regards everyone with affection"). His fondness for his name's connection to the Saraca asoca tree, or the "Ashoka tree" is also referenced in the Ashokavadana.

The early kingdom history of Buddhism is distinctly non-violent and non aggressive after Ashoka converted to Buddhism.

shunyadragon
05-11-2015, 06:16 AM
Sure. Origen, in his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101614.htm) (246-248 A.D.) makes it clear that the Parable of the Ten Pounds is speaking of a future reckoning:


But let these things, then, be said by way of apology, because of the depth of the parable; but, with regard to the question at what time the man— the king— in the parable wished to make a reckoning with his own servants, we will say that it seems that this takes place about the time of the judgment which had been proclaimed. And this is confirmed by two parables, one at the close of the Gospel before us, Matthew 25:14-30 and one from the Gospel according to Luke. Luke 19:12-27


And this was in response to Marcion missusing parables:


But who may these be but those who have been appointed in the matter of punishments? But at the same time observe, because of the use made of this parable by adherents of heresies, that if they accuse the Creator of being passionate, because of words that declare the wrath of God, they ought also to accuse this king, because that "being angry," he delivered the debtor to the tormentors. But it must further be said to those whose view it is that no one is delivered by Jesus to the tormentors,— pray, explain to us, good sirs, who is the king who delivered the wicked servant to the tormentors? And let them also attend to this, "So therefore also shall My heavenly Father do unto you;" Matthew 18:35 and to the same persons also might rather be said the things in the parable of the Ten Pounds that the Son of the good God said, "Howbeit these mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them," Luke 19:27 etc.


If you would like more commentaries on the verse, you can go here (http://www.ccel.org/wwsb/Luke/19/27).

Yes, parables may be misused. I will leave this as an open question at present, but Marcion commentary above does not necessarily led to an 'original' interpretation of what you proposed.

Jesse
05-11-2015, 11:47 AM
Yes, parables may be misused. I will leave this as an open question at present, but Marcion commentary above does not necessarily led to an 'original' interpretation of what you proposed.

Yes it does. This shows that early in the history of the church, this was how the parable was interpreted. If you looked into the rest of the commentaries I provided at the link, you will see this was the majority established opinion. Now, would you like to give any proof that there was a different interpretation of this passage prior to the 3rd century? This was indeed the original interpretation.

Pentecost
05-11-2015, 12:26 PM
@Pentecost
I have some questions....but the NT is not my sacred book and I don't want to offend Christians just to satisfy my curiosity....
If you are not offended...perhaps you could answer?....(and...Aesops is much easier to understand!!!....)

...It seems the story is like this---- I will do my best to answer your questions.


11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12 He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a] ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’

14 “But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’

15 “He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.

16 “The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’

17 “‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’

18 “The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’

19 “His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’

20 “Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’

22 “His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’

24 “Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’

25 “‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’

26 “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”

12-15---the whole---he-was-made-king business a) How is it relevant? b) who does the King, the delegation symbolize? The noble who left his own estates symbolizes God seeming to not pay attention to his servants which was a common perception of the time because the Lord had been silent to the people of Israel for the past 400 years. They are coming to Jerusalem which in the minds of many of Jesus's followers indicated a soon coming revolution against Rome. The citizens who hate Jesus and begrudge his claims of being the Messiah (let alone divine) would have sent a delegation to a higher authority protesting local rulers, really this section of the parable is not moral in nature, so much as it is stating to whom the parable is addressed to.


26---"those who have nothing---even what they have will be taken away"---Doesn't this contradict the other passages that speak of God giving to the meek/poor/humble etc?...or Mathew 6:31-34 that says not to worry if you have nothing because God will provide and to trust in God..... The one who has nothing in this story is the one who did not work for his master who in the story represents God. This could be tied to the teaching that those who know there is a God but do nothing about it are no better than the demons, and they will be justly punished for it.


27---and how is that passage relevant---or even related---to the story? other than the mention of the King---it does not seem to speak to or even add to the story at all.... Jesus is explaining the great wrath God will bring upon the (particular) Jews (and gentiles) who rejected Him.


The parable---seems to encourage profit, ambition, desire---which would contradict 1 John 2:15-17 which advises people against worldly desires and gain..... The parable encourages doing your best to obey God because you will be rewarded greatly for success and only punished if you refuse to acknowledge God or shirk your duty.

I know of alternative teachings, but this one is the one that makes the most sense. Jesus tells the people who believed in him and those who hated Jesus that the day of Judgement when Jesus comes back will result in both rewards and punishments. Rewards for good stewards who grow the Lord's Kingdom (some of those who believed in Jesus) and punishments for those who oppose it either actively (those who sent the delegation) or passively (those who do not invest in the Kingdom of God).

I was a little distracted as I wrote this response so I hope it makes sense, I will not be offended if you ask for clarification.

shunyadragon
05-11-2015, 03:33 PM
Yes it does. This shows that early in the history of the church, this was how the parable was interpreted. If you looked into the rest of the commentaries I provided at the link, you will see this was the majority established opinion. Now, would you like to give any proof that there was a different interpretation of this passage prior to the 3rd century? This was indeed the original interpretation.

As far as your extensive reference, It had too many references to go through, you need to be more specific. The reference from Marcion did not support your interpretation. There was no reference to the Romans Destroying the Temple.

Jesse
05-11-2015, 06:21 PM
As far as your extensive reference, It had too many references to go through, you need to be more specific. The reference from Marcion did not support your interpretation. There was no reference to the Romans Destroying the Temple.

What? There was no reference from Marcion. I was quoting Origen. Origen's quote is clear that the parable is about a future judgement that will be meted out by the King (Christ) on those who rejected him (Israel). What other reference did early Christians have in mind other than the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.?

Again, you haven't given any proof that this interpretation is not the one the early church understood. If this wasn't the original interpretation for early Christians, then what was? So far, you have given nothing to support your assertion other then telling me you just don't agree with it.

If you were serious about learning the interpretation for this parable, you would have no problem going through those commentaries. This just smacks of laziness on your part.


Edit: So I went ahead and picked from one of the commentaries for you. In Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, Robert Jamieson (1802-1880) says this about Luke 19:27:


27. bring hither, &c.—(Compare 1Sa 15:32, 33). Referring to the awful destruction of Jerusalem, but pointing to the final destruction of all that are found in open rebellion against Christ.


Source (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/jamieson/jfb.xi.iii.xx.html#xi.iii.xx-p0.1)

Jesse
05-11-2015, 07:39 PM
Shunyadragon,

I went ahead and found this (http://www.studylight.org/commentary/luke/19-27.html) for you. That will allow for an easier verse-by-verse comparison of the commentaries. You will notice the majority of commentaries are indeed in agreement with the original interpretation.

siam
05-11-2015, 11:48 PM
I would not consider Buddhism excelling in assimilation as a philosophy considering the reach of its influence. It is predominantly peaceful more by its nature. I consider the Baha'i Faith more adept at peaceful assimilation in a diverse cultural context.

Shinto remains the foundation of Japanese traditional religion and yes, separate from Buddhism. Japanese militarism is rooted in Shinto beliefs, not Buddhist. It is not a matter of rigidity nor exclusivity that separates Buddhism from Shinto. It is fundamental doctrine.



Some of the more distinctive Buddhist and Taoist Martial Arts (I call Arts of the Way) are distinctly none violent, not aggressive, and more closely related to spiritual meditative practices. These practices were later corrupted by secular governments for militaristic and aggressive purposes, and became distinctly non-Buddhist nor Taoist in nature.



I can look further, but no, this is not Buddhist. Various Martial Arts disciplines can be traced back to the Neolithic based on cave and cliff drawings in South China. These ancient ways are closely related to hunting and warrior Arts of primitive human cultures.

Along with the previous book, Bodisattva Warriors, I recommended I recommend The Shaolin Monastery: History, Religion, and the Chinese Martial Arts by Meir Shahar to get a better over all picture of the nature and history of Chinese Shaolin history

Assimilation---the downside of assimilation is that it does not retain its distinctiveness....that is why there are so many types of Buddhism in the East. It seems you are interested in this topic...if you want to research further...some links....

Japan/Warrior Monks---Sohei (Warrior Monks) were exploited for political purposes by the various feudal/tribal leaders

Warrior monks first appeared during the Heian period,[3] when bitter political feuds began between different temples, different subsects of Buddhism, over imperial appointments to the top temple positions (abbot, or zasu). Much of the fighting over the next four centuries was over these sorts of political feuds, and centered around the temples of Kyoto, Nara, and Ōmi, namely the Tōdai-ji, Kōfuku-ji, Enryaku-ji, and Mii-dera, the four largest temples in the country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%8Dhei

The famous warrior monks, or Sohei, of Mt. Hiei came about, it would seem, in an unexpected way.1 From its earliest times, the Enryakuji was held to be off limits to both women and law enforcement bodies. The latter prohibition attracted such a large criminal element to Mt. Hiei that Kakûjin (1012-81), the 35th abbot of the Enryakuji, called for his followers to form an army and drive away the undesirables. In fact, many of the men who took up arms may well have been those very same unwelcome fugitives they were intended to fight. From this time forward, Mt. Hiei would maintain a martial arm, one that it rarely hesitated to use. One frequent victim of the Enryakuji's heavy-handed tactics was none other then the emperor himself. As emperor Shirakawa is alleged to have said, "There are three things that even I cannot control: the waters of the Kamo river, the roll of the dice, and the monks of the mountain." When the monks of Mt. Hiei found themselves at odds with court over some affair (perhaps a question of land rights or taxation), they would gather and march down at to the gates of Kyoto, bearing on their shoulders the sacred palanquin (mikoshi) of the Shinto deity Sanno. So revered was this artifact that no one dared block its passage and much more often then not the emperor would give in to the monk's demands. The warrior monks of the Enryakuji would continue to play an important role in the Kyoto area for hundreds of years, until the advent of Oda Nobunaga. While evidently not the first monastic complex to take on a military aspect, the Enryakuji's reputation was great indeed.
http://www.samurai-archives.com/HeianPeriod.html

Japan/Zen/military---It is true that Shinto contributed to military propaganda---the Emperor was considered a descendant of the Gods---but Buddhism was also exploited (Imperial way Zen)
The involvement of Zen Buddhism in military propaganda is explored by Ichikawa Hakugen "Bukkyo-sha no senso sekinin" (The war responsibility of Buddhists) and by Brian Daizen Victoria "Zen at War"
http://www.uhpress.hawaii.edu/p-5985-9780824833312.aspx
http://www.kyotojournal.org/the-journal/conversations/zen-at-war-2/

Buddhist warfare outside of Japan
Professor Micheal Jerryson writes about "warrior monks" and such in the East...in "Buddhist warfare"
http://www.amazon.com/Buddhist-Warfare-Michael-Jerryson/dp/0195394844

The concept of one type of "Compassionate Killing" (Tibetan Buddhism)
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/may/11/buddhism-bin-laden-death-dalai-lama

The Nirvana Sutra also implies that killing a Icchantika (Sinner) will not have karmic repurcussions (related to the idea of Compassionate Killing)

siam
05-12-2015, 01:00 AM
I will do my best to answer your questions.

The noble who left his own estates symbolizes God seeming to not pay attention to his servants which was a common perception of the time because the Lord had been silent to the people of Israel for the past 400 years. They are coming to Jerusalem which in the minds of many of Jesus's followers indicated a soon coming revolution against Rome. The citizens who hate Jesus and begrudge his claims of being the Messiah (let alone divine) would have sent a delegation to a higher authority protesting local rulers, really this section of the parable is not moral in nature, so much as it is stating to whom the parable is addressed to.

The one who has nothing in this story is the one who did not work for his master who in the story represents God. This could be tied to the teaching that those who know there is a God but do nothing about it are no better than the demons, and they will be justly punished for it.

Jesus is explaining the great wrath God will bring upon the (particular) Jews (and gentiles) who rejected Him.

The parable encourages doing your best to obey God because you will be rewarded greatly for success and only punished if you refuse to acknowledge God or shirk your duty.

I know of alternative teachings, but this one is the one that makes the most sense. Jesus tells the people who believed in him and those who hated Jesus that the day of Judgement when Jesus comes back will result in both rewards and punishments. Rewards for good stewards who grow the Lord's Kingdom (some of those who believed in Jesus) and punishments for those who oppose it either actively (those who sent the delegation) or passively (those who do not invest in the Kingdom of God).

I was a little distracted as I wrote this response so I hope it makes sense, I will not be offended if you ask for clarification.

Not sure clarification will be helpful---but I will ask anyway...

1) So, in order for the parable to "make sense" some of the passages have to be ignored?
2) "Lords Kingdom"---in the first part symbolizes revolution against Rome but by 27 it is Judgement day?
3) The one who did not work for his master---But!!!....the whole point of faith is that this "Holy Spirit" is going to do the work for you (make you good) so one just has to believe!!! Isn't the parable giving a contradictory message if that is the case?

I think it might be easier to interpret this if we did a little cut and paste---it divides the story into 2 sections.....

11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.
12 He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return.
14 “But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’

15 “He was made king, however, and returned home.(edited)

27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”

---------------and----------------------------------------

13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a] ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’

15 Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.(edited)

16 “The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’
17 “‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’
18 “The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’
19 “His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’
20 “Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth.
21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’
22 “His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow?
23 Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’
24 “Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’
25 “‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’
26 “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away.
_________________________

If we understand it this way---the first section of the parable contradicts the teaching to love ones enemies (Luke 6:27) as well as the one about the kingdom of God not being of this world (John 18:36)

and the 2nd part contradicts GoJ that states "If anyone loves the world, the love of the father is not in him" (not to mention, Jesus does NOT like interest!!! did he not throw a fit at the money lenders?)....If the parable was supposed to give a consistent moral message...it should have punished those who made gain and rewarded the one who did not deposit so as to avoid interest and further---there should have been a servant who gave all the minas away so that he was left with less than was given.... and this one should have been shown as the best of the lot.....

....then....this would have made some sense to me considering the overall Christian doctrines....

and...apologies for any offense---on another occasion we had discussed another parable with equally frustrating results!!!....but I did appreciate your patience then and thankyou for it again....

Paprika
05-12-2015, 01:29 AM
If we understand it this way
You can't just chop up a whole just to meet your expectations.


the first section of the parable contradicts the teaching to love ones enemies (Luke 6:27)
Love is not opposed to judgment.


as well as the one about the kingdom of God not being of this world (John 18:36)
Not from this world: οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου; it is not from this world but definitely for this world.


and the 2nd part contradicts GoJ that states "If anyone loves the world, the love of the father is not in him" (not to mention, Jesus does NOT like interest!!! did he not throw a fit at the money lenders?)....If the parable was supposed to give a consistent moral message...it should have punished those who made gain and rewarded the one who did not deposit so as to avoid interest and further---there should have been a servant who gave all the minas away so that he was left with less than was given.... and this one should have been shown as the best of the lot.....

....then....this would have made some sense to me considering the overall Christian doctrines....

:lolo:

Cerebrum123
05-12-2015, 06:33 AM
Not sure clarification will be helpful---but I will ask anyway...

1) So, in order for the parable to "make sense" some of the passages have to be ignored?

:eh:
What passages have to be ignored, and why?


2) "Lords Kingdom"---in the first part symbolizes revolution against Rome but by 27 it is Judgement day?

Who said the "revolution" was against Rome? The punishment was dealt out by Rome, but it was due to rejection of Jesus by the Jews. Just like when the Jews were conquered by the Babylonians.


3) The one who did not work for his master---But!!!....the whole point of faith is that this "Holy Spirit" is going to do the work for you (make you good) so one just has to believe!!! Isn't the parable giving a contradictory message if that is the case?

:twitch:
Where on earth are you getting this garbage? Faith is loyalty to God, and nowhere in the Bible do I see it say anything about the Holy Spirit doing everything for us. The Holy Spirit certainly helps us, and leads us on the path towards sanctification, but certainly does not do "all the work". Since this isn't the case, this isn't a contradictory message.


I think it might be easier to interpret this if we did a little cut and paste---it divides the story into 2 sections.....

11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.
12 He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return.
14 “But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’

15 “He was made king, however, and returned home.(edited)

27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”

---------------and----------------------------------------

13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a] ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’

15 Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.(edited)

16 “The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’
17 “‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’
18 “The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’
19 “His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’
20 “Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth.
21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’
22 “His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow?
23 Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’
24 “Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’
25 “‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’
26 “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away.
_________________________

Cut and paste might work with the Quran, but it doesn't work with the Bible. :no:


If we understand it this way---the first section of the parable contradicts the teaching to love ones enemies (Luke 6:27) as well as the one about the kingdom of God not being of this world (John 18:36)

And how does it do that, even with you cut and paste job?


and the 2nd part contradicts GoJ that states "If anyone loves the world, the love of the father is not in him" (not to mention, Jesus does NOT like interest!!! did he not throw a fit at the money lenders?)....If the parable was supposed to give a consistent moral message...it should have punished those who made gain and rewarded the one who did not deposit so as to avoid interest and further---there should have been a servant who gave all the minas away so that he was left with less than was given.... and this one should have been shown as the best of the lot.....

Interest was only bad in the OT when charged against fellow Israelites, and possibly poor foreigners(it's allowed to be charged against foreigners, but the poor seem to be in their own category at times). Jesus threw out the money lenders because they were in the Temple. They should not have been there at all.

"Jesus' complaint is not that they are guilty of sharp business practices and should therefore reform their ethical life, but that they should not be in the temple area at all. How dare you turn my Father's house into a market! He exclaims. Instead of solemn dignity and the murmur of prayer, there is the bellowing of cattle and bleating of sheep. Instead of brokenness and contrition, holy adoration and prolonged petition, there is noisy commerce…by setting up in the court of the Gentiles, they have excluded Gentiles who might have come to pray…" [Carson, John]

Link here. (http://christianthinktank.com/violentx.html)


....then....this would have made some sense to me considering the overall Christian doctrines....

It's clear you don't even know the basics of Christian doctrines. This is especially apparent in your sentence about faith and the Holy Spirit.


and...apologies for any offense---on another occasion we had discussed another parable with equally frustrating results!!!....but I did appreciate your patience then and thankyou for it again....

You would probably have less frustration if you learned the basics of Christianity, and biblical exegesis before trying to toss out arguments you've copied from some random website.

shunyadragon
05-12-2015, 07:19 AM
Sure. Origen, in his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101614.htm) (246-248 A.D.) makes it clear that the Parable of the Ten Pounds is speaking of a future reckoning:


But let these things, then, be said by way of apology, because of the depth of the parable; but, with regard to the question at what time the man— the king— in the parable wished to make a reckoning with his own servants, we will say that it seems that this takes place about the time of the judgment which had been proclaimed. And this is confirmed by two parables, one at the close of the Gospel before us, Matthew 25:14-30 and one from the Gospel according to Luke. Luke 19:12-27


And this was in response to Marcion missusing parables:


But who may these be but those who have been appointed in the matter of punishments? But at the same time observe, because of the use made of this parable by adherents of heresies, that if they accuse the Creator of being passionate, because of words that declare the wrath of God, they ought also to accuse this king, because that "being angry," he delivered the debtor to the tormentors. But it must further be said to those whose view it is that no one is delivered by Jesus to the tormentors,— pray, explain to us, good sirs, who is the king who delivered the wicked servant to the tormentors? And let them also attend to this, "So therefore also shall My heavenly Father do unto you;" Matthew 18:35 and to the same persons also might rather be said the things in the parable of the Ten Pounds that the Son of the good God said, "Howbeit these mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them," Luke 19:27 etc.


If you would like more commentaries on the verse, you can go here (http://www.ccel.org/wwsb/Luke/19/27).

OK, Origin and Marcion, yes, future judgment, but rather brutal final future judgment, and nothing here about Romans destroying the Temple?!?!?!?!

Future retribution could be tomorrow, next day and any time in the future. It is common in history for Christians to carry out these orders of retribution, ie the crusades. This violent aggressive retribution in the parable is indeed an issue from the non-Christian perspective as potential in the real world view of others who do not believe..

shunyadragon
05-12-2015, 08:33 AM
Assimilation---the downside of assimilation is that it does not retain its distinctiveness....that is why there are so many types of Buddhism in the East. It seems you are interested in this topic...if you want to research further...some links....

Japan/Warrior Monks---Sohei (Warrior Monks) were exploited for political purposes by the various feudal/tribal leaders

Exploited, yes, and corrupted under Shinto authority, but not by Buddhist Beliefs and principles.



Warrior monks first appeared during the Heian period,[3] when bitter political feuds began between different temples, different subsects of Buddhism, over imperial appointments to the top temple positions (abbot, or zasu). Much of the fighting over the next four centuries was over these sorts of political feuds, and centered around the temples of Kyoto, Nara, and Ōmi, namely the Tōdai-ji, Kōfuku-ji, Enryaku-ji, and Mii-dera, the four largest temples in the country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%8Dhei

Imperial Shinto interference was a distinct problem in the history of Japan, because every Japanese was subject to the Divine authority of the Shinto Emperor, This caused conflict, because of Shinto dominance. This cannot be interpreted as representing Buddhist teachings in Japan.




Japan/Zen/military---It is true that Shinto contributed to military propaganda---the Emperor was considered a descendant of the Gods---but Buddhism was also exploited (Imperial way Zen)
The involvement of Zen Buddhism in military propaganda is explored by Ichikawa Hakugen "Bukkyo-sha no senso sekinin" (The war responsibility of Buddhists) and by Brian Daizen Victoria "Zen at War"
http://www.uhpress.hawaii.edu/p-5985-9780824833312.aspx
http://www.kyotojournal.org/the-journal/conversations/zen-at-war-2/

Let's deal, again . . ., with Japan. Shinto did not euphemistically contribute to militarism in Japan. Shinto is the warrior militarism of Japan, and the Emperor was the Divine authority of Shinto, and not Buddhism. Buddhism may be misused and misrepresented in Japan, because all Japanese must obey the emperor, but not Buddhism was never directly involved in nor promoted militarism in Japan as a religion, based on religious belief.

Again, I recommend you read Bodhisattva Warriors by Shifu Nagaboshi Tomio to get a clearer picture of Buddhist warrior concept and history instead of cherry picking selective quotes. You are not separating clear dominance of Shinto Divine authority in the militarism of Japan and the corruption and manipulation of Buddhism from this point of authority, from the actual history and beliefs of Buddhism itself in Japan

Pentecost
05-12-2015, 04:08 PM
Not sure clarification will be helpful---but I will ask anyway...

1) So, in order for the parable to "make sense" some of the passages have to be ignored? No. Did I forget to explain a part?

2) "Lords Kingdom"---in the first part symbolizes revolution against Rome but by 27 it is Judgement day? Jesus was making a point to the people who thought it was the first that it is bigger than that, and point to the Judgement day, I can see why you'd be confused, the people who were listening had in mind a revolt, and Jesus knew that but wanted to turn their attention to something bigger.

3) The one who did not work for his master---But!!!....the whole point of faith is that this "Holy Spirit" is going to do the work for you (make you good) so one just has to believe!!! Isn't the parable giving a contradictory message if that is the case? It does contradict if that's what you think Christian faith is. Faith is always accompanied by action, our saving faith is accompanied by the death and resurrection of Jesus, our faith then produces our own actions. Faith is never just a lazy belief.


I think it might be easier to interpret this if we did a little cut and paste---it divides the story into 2 sections.....

11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.
12 He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return.
14 “But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’

15 “He was made king, however, and returned home.(edited)

27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”

---------------and----------------------------------------

13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a] ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’

15 Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.(edited)

16 “The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’
17 “‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’
18 “The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’
19 “His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’
20 “Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth.
21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’
22 “His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow?
23 Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’
24 “Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’
25 “‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’
26 “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. Cutting a parable like this makes it lose context and a parable without context is meaningless, for example, Aesop's tale about the fox and the raven can either be a lesson to beware of flatterers, or it can be a lesson that one should flatter, or both, or neither. It depends on context, and when you take parts out then it becomes difficult to know which was the intended meaning.
_________________________


If we understand it this way---the first section of the parable contradicts the teaching to love ones enemies (Luke 6:27) as well as the one about the kingdom of God not being of this world (John 18:36) It's a good thing we don't understand it way then isn't it?


and the 2nd part contradicts GoJ that states "If anyone loves the world, the love of the father is not in him" (not to mention, Jesus does NOT like interest!!! did he not throw a fit at the money lenders?)....If the parable was supposed to give a consistent moral message...it should have punished those who made gain and rewarded the one who did not deposit so as to avoid interest and further---there should have been a servant who gave all the minas away so that he was left with less than was given.... and this one should have been shown as the best of the lot..... But it's not about money. It is about using what God gives you. If God gives you a gift use it to the best of your abilities, the mention of bankers is only to highlight the hypocrisy of the one who hid the minas given to him.


....then....this would have made some sense to me considering the overall Christian doctrines....

and...apologies for any offense---on another occasion we had discussed another parable with equally frustrating results!!!....but I did appreciate your patience then and thankyou for it again.... No apologies needed for me; no offense was taken. I am always willing to speak with you.

Jesse
05-12-2015, 04:41 PM
OK, Origin and Marcion, yes, future judgment, but rather brutal final future judgment, and nothing here about Romans destroying the Temple?!?!?!?!

Future retribution could be tomorrow, next day and any time in the future. It is common in history for Christians to carry out these orders of retribution, ie the crusades. This violent aggressive retribution in the parable is indeed an issue from the non-Christian perspective as potential in the real world view of others who do not believe..

Oh I see. So you would rather throw out baseless assumptions of what you think Christian's meant, instead of dealing with the facts of what they actually meant. I am not going to go into the Crusades, because if you can't even get the interpretation of a simple parable correct, I doubt anything you believe about the Crusades has any merit. Carry on then.

siam
05-12-2015, 07:43 PM
Exploited, yes, and corrupted under Shinto authority, but not by Buddhist Beliefs and principles.

Imperial Shinto interference was a distinct problem in the history of Japan, because every Japanese was subject to the Divine authority of the Shinto Emperor, This caused conflict, because of Shinto dominance. This cannot be interpreted as representing Buddhist teachings in Japan.

Let's deal, again . . ., with Japan. Shinto did not euphemistically contribute to militarism in Japan. Shinto is the warrior militarism of Japan, and the Emperor was the Divine authority of Shinto, ...

Exploitation for political purpose---Agreed...that was my point from the beginning....that those religions/philosophies that gain influence (political influence and control territories under them) such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Buddhism...such religions are exploited for political wars because religions offer meaning and that fits right in with politicians who want to go to war for political reasons but want to justify it as "meaningful" warfare....

Scripture---Again...agree. But there are passages and ideas in Buddhism that were misused for violence.....

Japan/Emperor---the Emperor was a puppet during the Shogunate period (as well as WW---the military simply exploited the idea)

Buddhism and assimilation---Here I disagree with you...Buddhism assimilates so much so that it almost becomes a fusion...such as China with Tao/Confucianism, Japan with Shinto, Southeast Asia with Hinduism...etc...
There are areas where Buddhism has a vacuum....such as Kingship---the legitimacy for Kingship is filled with other religions/philosophies such as Confucious/Tao, Shinto, Hindu...(In Buddhism, Siddartha gives up his kingdom....not an idea that power hungry Kings are going to embrace....)

Ahimsa(Non-Violence)---what is your understanding of the is issue?

siam
05-12-2015, 08:04 PM
You can't just chop up a whole just to meet your expectations.


Love is not opposed to judgment.


Not from this world: οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου; it is not from this world but definitely for this world.


:lolo:

I know...previously I had fun discussing another parable with Pentecost where I tried to argue that a Muslim interpretation might make more sense than the Christian one....

"Love is not opposed to judgement"---can you elaborate?

Not from but for--can you explain?

siam
05-12-2015, 08:10 PM
@Pentecost
Thanks for answering...I hope we get more opportunities to discuss things again....Its always a pleasure.

@Cerebrum123
Thankyou for your POV.

Paprika
05-13-2015, 01:18 AM
I know...previously I had fun discussing another parable with Pentecost where I tried to argue that a Muslim interpretation might make more sense than the Christian one....
That's precisely your problem: you can't suspend your own beliefs to properly consider another set of beliefs.


"Love is not opposed to judgement"---can you elaborate?
Is Allah not loving? Yet will he not judge unbelievers?


Not from but for--can you explain?
The Kingdom does not originate from this world but it is for this world.

shunyadragon
05-13-2015, 08:29 AM
Oh I see. So you would rather throw out baseless assumptions of what you think Christian's meant, instead of dealing with the facts of what they actually meant. I am not going to go into the Crusades, because if you can't even get the interpretation of a simple parable correct, I doubt anything you believe about the Crusades has any merit. Carry on then.

I find know specific evidence of 'facts' of what they actually meant at the time of the 'parable.' Remember this is a parable and not a 'factual statement.

shunyadragon
05-13-2015, 08:50 AM
Exploitation for political purpose---Agreed...that was my point from the beginning....that those religions/philosophies that gain influence (political influence and control territories under them) such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Buddhism...such religions are exploited for political wars because religions offer meaning and that fits right in with politicians who want to go to war for political reasons but want to justify it as "meaningful" warfare....

The politicians were Shinto in Japan and Confucian in China.


Scripture---Again...agree. But there are passages and ideas in Buddhism that were misused for violence.....

There is no significant misuse of scripture, just political domination and misuse by dominant Shinto in Japan, and Confucianism in China.


Japan/Emperor---the Emperor was a puppet during the Shogunate period (as well as WW---the military simply exploited the idea)

It does not make any difference whether the emperor was a puppet or not, or whether the military is in control or not, it remains Shinto. Militarism is a Shinto belief, not a Buddhist teaching nor concept.


Buddhism and assimilation---Here I disagree with you...Buddhism assimilates so much so that it almost becomes a fusion...such as China with Taoism/Confucianism, Japan with Shinto, Southeast Asia with Hinduism...etc...

Disagree here. Confucianism dominated China, and Shinto dominated Japan. The problem with Buddhism is its apparent passive nature, not assimilation or the misinterpretation of Buddhist scripture.



There are areas where Buddhism has a vacuum....such as Kingship---the legitimacy for Kingship is filled with other religions/philosophies such as Confucian/Tao, Shinto, Hindu...(In Buddhism, Siddartha gives up his kingdom....not an idea that power hungry Kings are going to embrace....)

Not sure where your going with this. It is confusing.




Ahimsa(Non-Violence)---what is your understanding of the is issue?

Ahimsa is ahimsa the dominant non-violent philosophy of Hindu/Buddhist belief. More dominant in Buddhism. Compassionate killing when referenced is for defense only.

There are problems of militarism and Nationalism in Buddhist countries particularly in recent times, but by far the dominant history of Buddhism has not involved militarism and aggressive warfare.

siam
05-13-2015, 07:51 PM
That's precisely your problem: you can't suspend your own beliefs to properly consider another set of beliefs.


Is Allah not loving? Yet will he not judge unbelievers?


The Kingdom does not originate from this world but it is for this world.


If you are saying that my "Beliefs" (paradigm) colors the way I approach an NT text---I agree....that is how Christians also approach the OT text.

"Judgement" process in Islam is different from Christianity....as is how the term "love" (Divine love) is understood.....

What is "Kingdom"? is Kingdom and Judgement the same thing?

siam
05-13-2015, 07:52 PM
@Shuny

Non-Voilence (in Buddhism)---I meant how do you think about it as a philosophy? is it practical?....

Paprika
05-13-2015, 11:36 PM
If you are saying that my "Beliefs" (paradigm) colors the way I approach an NT text---I agree....that is how Christians also approach the OT text.
Nah, I'm not saying that they merely colour but warp.


"Judgement" process in Islam is different from Christianity....as is how the term "love" (Divine love) is understood.....
I don't care, really; my point is that they are not contradictory in Christianity analogously to how they are not contradictory in Islam.


What is "Kingdom"?
A domain ruled by a King.


is Kingdom and Judgement the same thing?
What do you think?

shunyadragon
05-14-2015, 03:35 PM
@Shuny

Non-Voilence (in Buddhism)---I meant how do you think about it as a philosophy? is it practical?....

Yes, the principle like in the Baha'i Faith only allows for self defense, bans any form of aggressive violence, holy wars. I believe the concept of compassionate killing applies to self defense, and when necessary killing animals for food.

Cow Poke
05-14-2015, 03:49 PM
Yes, the principle like in the Baha'i Faith only allows for self defense, bans any form of aggressive violence, holy wars. I believe the concept of compassionate killing applies to self defense, and when necessary killing animals for food.

So, a Baha'i in Texas would have a tough time, where a legitimate reason for justified homicide is "yer honor, he just needed killin". :shrug:

shunyadragon
05-14-2015, 06:46 PM
So, a Baha'i in Texas would have a tough time, where a legitimate reason for justified homicide is "yer honor, he just needed killin". :shrug:

Actually we're ok in Texas, but in Iran . . .

I like Austin.

siam
05-14-2015, 09:52 PM
@ Shuny

Dharma (Morality/Ethics) as a social/civic legal system...

I can't find the link to it, but, an article I was reading, about the concept of Compassionate Killing made an interesting point that Buddhism was not designed as a civic/social system---it was designed for individual "liberation" (from Karmic cycle). So the concept of compassionate killing is concerned with the soul (and Karmic consequences) of both the actor of compassionate killing as well as the victim. Because of this vacuum, the concept can be abused when used in a political situation.....(such as defense of the country/community by Sinhalese Buddhists (Sri Lanka) against colonialism).

shunyadragon
05-15-2015, 08:00 PM
@ Shuny

Dharma (Morality/Ethics) as a social/civic legal system...

I can't find the link to it, but, an article I was reading, about the concept of Compassionate Killing made an interesting point that Buddhism was not designed as a civic/social system---it was designed for individual "liberation" (from Karmic cycle). So the concept of compassionate killing is concerned with the soul (and Karmic consequences) of both the actor of compassionate killing as well as the victim. Because of this vacuum, the concept can be abused when used in a political situation.....(such as defense of the country/community by Sinhalese Buddhists (Sri Lanka) against colonialism).

Your grasping at straws to justify a corruption scripture for non-compassionate killing. I already mentioned the problems contemporary Nationalism and political movements that are not remotely Buddhist in concept nor belief. The movements such as those in Sri Lanka are by far the exception in the history of Buddhism.

Your correct, Buddhism was never intended to be a theocracy centered belief as Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and was not intended to be civic/political in nature. Unlike western religions where the corruption of scripture and belief may be the case to justify an aggressive war. The belief in Buddhism is not used for the justification for an aggressive war or even rebellion as is the case in Sri Lanka