The violent religion
I think christianity has a lot to blame for the birth of violence in this world.
It has given a 2-pronged message to humans, since it's inception. Cain was condemned for the first violent act, yet killing the ammonites, malachites, hititittes, jebbusites and so on was lauded as bravery. They were only fodder for the isrealites (aka God's chosen--of course, cronyism was not included in the 10-commandment act). This juxtaposed with the 6th law (thou shalt not kill). Talk about mixed messages. And I thought only humans had personality disorders.
Abraham, and his inter-family violence. What right does one human have to sacrifice the life of another to prove to a god that he was spiritual / evolved.
These are the seeds for the birth of the concept of 'necessary violence' today. That certain humans are more equal, that certain humans are collateral damage for the higher cause.
Micheal Nagler asked the question 'if you could make a choice to bring paradise in the world today, and had to sacrifice a single child to do this, would you do it?' And, he said, which I agree, that then this would not be paradise, because paradise birthed from violence would not actually be paradise.
We do not have the right, I think, to direct our violence on other human/s for greater good. We have the right only to sacrifice ourselves, and our lives for the greater good, as ghandi, and other non-violent gurus pointed out.
Though I am not a buddhist, I agree with buddha when he said, 'even the meanest creature wants to live'.
It has given a 2-pronged message to humans, since it's inception. Cain was condemned for the first violent act, yet killing the ammonites, malachites, hititittes, jebbusites and so on was lauded as bravery. They were only fodder for the isrealites (aka God's chosen--of course, cronyism was not included in the 10-commandment act). This juxtaposed with the 6th law (thou shalt not kill). Talk about mixed messages. And I thought only humans had personality disorders.
Abraham, and his inter-family violence. What right does one human have to sacrifice the life of another to prove to a god that he was spiritual / evolved.
These are the seeds for the birth of the concept of 'necessary violence' today. That certain humans are more equal, that certain humans are collateral damage for the higher cause.
Micheal Nagler asked the question 'if you could make a choice to bring paradise in the world today, and had to sacrifice a single child to do this, would you do it?' And, he said, which I agree, that then this would not be paradise, because paradise birthed from violence would not actually be paradise.
We do not have the right, I think, to direct our violence on other human/s for greater good. We have the right only to sacrifice ourselves, and our lives for the greater good, as ghandi, and other non-violent gurus pointed out.
Though I am not a buddhist, I agree with buddha when he said, 'even the meanest creature wants to live'.
Comments