Why is it that the three great reliogions that originated in the Middle

[KlatooBNikto]

East, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, have throughout history spawned wars in the name of their religion? It is remarkable that the other great religions like Buddhism have not had the same bloodthirst associated with their religious followers.Why is that I wonder?

[ET Awful]

1. Maybe it's something to do with that desert heat :) n/t

[slojim240]

28. It has more to do with the nature of the people involved.

and with human nature. It's a nature that will fight against their very God if that God teaches justice, compassion, humanity, social welfare, kindness, and sacrifice. These people hate all of that because it means they might have to give of something to someone else. (Think Falwell, Robertson, Sharon, Arafat).

[Hello_Kitty]

2. I'm no scholar of religion but....

My guess is that the Middle Eastern religions were more politically based while Buddhism is more philisophical.

[More Than A Feeling]

4. The Buddha, if I am not mistaken, was just one many options in India

at the time. There were religious gurus of all sorts wandering the countryside seeking enlightenment. It was accepted that when someone reached a certain age, they would renounce their worldly possessions and become devotees of this or that guru. Siddhartha Gautama merely skipped the householding stage.

Maybe the multitude of options, plus a system that tolerated that sort of thing, made it less likely that the followers of the Buddha would have to suffer or resort to violence.

[shawn703]

3. What about Sri Lanka? n/t

[KlatooBNikto]

7. I think in Sri Lanka it is not a religious war so much as an ethnic

and linguistic problem.

[shawn703]

15. But wasn't the declaration of Buddhism as the official religion

One of the factors leading to civil war? Not to say ethnicity and linguistics didn't contribute, but the inhabitants are still 70% Buddhist and 15% Hindu (CIA World Factbook, 1999)

[KlatooBNikto]

Buddhism and Hinduism are so close that it is the language

based differences that are driving that conflict.In fact, the declaration of Sinhalese as the official language of Sri Lanka was a more inflammatory inducement to violence than Buddhism because many Hindus believe Buddha is another incarnation of Vishnu the Hindu God.

[gottaB]

5. There's plenty of violence associated with Buddhism

All the great religions call for peace, and then they go about making exceptions.

In some extreme cases, the exceptions are meant to call people to violence. In most cases they are just excuses. Religious systems, as opposed to philosophical ones, must grapple with the problem of human suffering. That's hard to do without making excuses.

[KlatooBNikto]

8. What I was alluding to in my original post was the organized

call for the faithful to take up the sword against the heathen by
these three religions.That has always been missing in Buddhism.

[gottaB]

10. one man's religious war is another man's ethnic and linguistic problem

That's what I mean by making excuses.

[KlatooBNikto]

11. The war in Sri Lanka started when the Tamil speaking people were

discriminated against by the Sinhalese speaking people.This discrimination resulted in their being banned from Government jobs and stripped of property rights and other things.To this day religion has not played any part in this war as I understand it.

[gottaB]

17. For devout Buddhists, surely it is a problem

Buddhism and Conflict in Sri Lanka

[shawn703]

32. Here's an article on Buddhism and the Sri Lankan conflict

http://www.c-r.org/accord/sri/accord4/buddhism.shtml

"The JVP monks and the bhikkus who joined the army after the 1995 breakdown of peace talks caused deep confusion among those who perceive Buddhism as a philosophy of peace and non-violence. To committed Sinhala Buddhist ideologues, however, violence can be justified to counter the threat posed by the Indo-Lanka Accord to the unity of land, race and religion in Sri Lanka. Of course, many Sri Lankan Buddhists follow Lord Buddha's teaching of Vassetta Suthra, which rejects all divisions between human beings. These individuals cannot sanction support of or participation in violence. Even they, however, often harbour deep anxieties about perceived threats to their religion which can be and have been manipulated politically. "

[Hekate]

18. Not in the name of Buddha, however, unlike the others

Nations with Buddhist populations may go enthusiastically to war (as did the Japanese in WW II) but they have never done so under the banner of the Wheel or in the name of Gautama. Buddha's not a god, for one thing, although for most non-philosophers he functions as one. Buddhism coexists with animist religions like Shinto, which may be turned to nationalistic purposes. But Buddha himself died peacefully in old age.

The history of the Abrahamic religions is different: "Onward Christian soldiers marching as to war, with the Cross of Jesus going on before." The early expansionist movements of both Christianity and Islam were accomplished via the sword: convert or die. Armies marched under the banner of the Cross or the Crescent all across Europe, the Middle East, India...

Maybe it is the desert heat, the local god calling out of the whirlwind and asserting exclusivity, first that his people shall "have no other god" and finally that there "is no other god" and "you shall not suffer a witch to live."

Hekate

[gottaB]

19. That is not how the faithful see their religion

The excuses for violence offered by the Abrahamic faiths are no less worthy than those offered by Buddhists.

[Zomby Woof]

29. remember that famous pic from Vietnam?

The one where the police officer shoots the suspect in the head? The cop said upon firing the weapon, "Buddha will understand".

Anyone can pervert any religion.

[DinahMoeHum]

35. Yep, the photographer of that infamous pic passed on last week.

:nuke:

[H2O Man]

49. check-mate!

Very well done. Eddie Adams, who took the photo, recently died. The photo (one of a brutal series) is found on page 27 of this week's TIME.

[Uzybone]

50. Well said

too many live with blinders on if they think only Christians, Muslims and Jews use their religions to pursue war and violence.

I wonder how many people pagans killed for their "religion" before these 3 religions came into existence. The whole argument is senseless and shortsighted.

[baldguy]

6. Simple answer: Rome

Judism was a small, regional nationalistc faith that was protected and allowed to flurish under Roman control. Christianity was an offshoot of Judism, and it adopted the Roman political structure which allowed it to spread throughout the empire and around the world. Islam evolved from Judism and Christianity, and grew and expanded as the Roman Empire shrank in influence and eventually broke up.

[mopaul]

9. all 3 worship the sam god of abraham, all three have murdered......

....MILLIONS of people. the bible is full of mass murders and genocide supposedly done for this god of abraham. the old testament is in total contradiction to the new testament.

[KlatooBNikto]

12. It is very likely that monotheism the basis of these three great

religions makes it impossible for their followers to accept that there could be a different path to salvation as Buddhism and Hinduism seem to believe.In that different framework one learns to accept differences and be more tolerant, presumably.

[UTUSN]

26. GIBBON Said That the Ancients (Greeks/Romans) Had Toleration

and MODERATION in accepting multiple cultures and their religious practices, that the moderation of the ancients smashed up on the uncompromisingness of monotheism, indeed.

And mopaul's graphic is definitely top o'the line.

[mrbill]

13. glad somebody else has noticed that.........

what's the deal with the old and new testaments?

thunder god maximus vs a kinder gentler pathway.

[shawn703]

31. Old Testament in contradiction to the New Testament?

Please give examples!

[0rganism]

56. You mean like this one?

Paul said Melchizedek was "...without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually" (Heb. 7:2-3).

If Melchizedek is like Jesus then he is like God, too. Yet, Gen. 14:18 implies he was a priest, not the Son of God without human ancestor. What Paul says of the one must be true of the other. Otherwise, Melchizedek is not "like unto the Son of God."

(The only "satisfactory" resolution I've heard to this apparent discontinuity is actually quite interesting, and leads into a more esoteric area of bible study...)

[sweetheart]

14. Great religions?

I realize it was innocent, your title, but this Buddhist does not
feel that any of the religions you mention are "great" at all.
Or rather, that they are the same as any other religion, like:
Confucianism, Buddhism, Shinto, Zoroastrianism, (religion of the
american native indians), Hinduism, Taoism.

Between those, the majority of the worlds population lives, so what
ever makes "great" religions by your post, must be military force.

Even funnier, hinduism, holds as its central mythology the story of
krishna and how it was right to fight in a war (bagavad gita). So,
there is no particular mythology that these "g" religions have that
is particularly less dangerous than what is in other religions.

I think that those who want war, will bend their religion to suit
their means. As someone mentioned, even buddhists on sri lanka are
involved in the conflict... and this very buddhist who is writing
these words is against the tyrrany of the bush-criminals.

Perhaps, if you want reasons, some religions focus on direct
communion through meditation with "eternity", and that those
religions are not based on achieving or doing anything in this
world besides attaining and supporting enlightenment and the
end of all suffering of all sentient beings.

[Character Assassin]

38. Sorry, that's not the point the the BG was trying to make.

It wasn't trying to make war 'right'; rather it concerned itself specifically with what Arjuna was going through in regards to his relationship to it.

[sweetheart]

42. Well, it certainly says it rather clearly... references & links

Arjuna spends some time complaining that he can't attack his
relations on the other side of the battle, as you know, and he
puts down his weapons in the middle of the battlefield (metaphorically "of life").

Krishna then outlines all the different paths to realization, and
all of this takes place in the middle of the story "mahabharata",
a great war, where nobody is really "good" or evil. I think this
setting casts a lovely "grey" concept without the absolutes that
christian fundamentalists love to lean on.

Krishna did tell arjuna, however, ".. stay strike no matter, these
people are but dead by me, i come as time the waster of peoples
waiting for the hour that ripens their ruin... " <chapter 11>
http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-11-30.html (different
translation than memory, but same verse)

He tells arjuna to get out there and fight, in no uncertain terms.
As the whole book is about the inner journey, i see this advise as,
like jihad, to fight against injustice, etc.. etc... but if you want,
to make the book about the outer world... krishna tells him to
fight. O son of Kuntî, either you will be killed on the
battlefield and attain the heavenly planets, or you will conquer
and enjoy the earthly kingdom. Therefore, get up with determination
and fight. http://www.krishna.com/newsite/gita_frameset.html

[Character Assassin]

54. Yes, but that does not support your contention

First off, if you consider that fundamentalists, of any type, work in grey, you are sorely, profoundly mistaken..

Regardless, the verses you cite do nothing to show that the text itself (Which, btw, is not the central text of Hinduism, but one of many) supports of justifies struggle such as war on anything other than an individual basis. His complaints are centered around his misgivings about participating in attack.

In fact, you are contradicting yourself: the book is indeed about the inner world. You are the one, by nature of your statement, you are attributing its purpose the outer, collective world.

Jihad, btw, is a call to action not from oneself, but from a functionary of the religious authorities, and has nothing, necessarily, to do with the 'fight for justice'.

[kayell]

16. All 3 feature an exclusive, jealous god. Buddhism generally is a

non-theistic religion.

Jealous exclusive gods are handy to justify all kinds of outrages, because god is on your side, or god will punish you if you don't take out the infidels, or as god's chosen people, you are more owed than other non-chosen people.

Especially if you live in a region of the world with limited water and arable land, and god wants you to take your share. Which is always land and water that somebody else is sitting on. Since those other people sitting on "your land" are heathens who don't believe in your exclusive, jealous god, you are duty bound to slaughter them and take the land for it's rightful, god-chosen people - you.

[GreenPartyVoter]

34. Exactly, it's the black and whiteness, jealous single God bit that

tends to drive most religious zealotry.

-----------------------------------------------
And God told His children: "I love you. Play nice."

Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/liberalchristians.htm

[Character Assassin]

55. That's not accurate

Buddhism, as practised by most adherents, is quite theistic, espeically in the Himalays and Japan.

No getting around it, regardless of how one might consider it more properly a philosophy.

[LizW]

20. It's not necessarily the religion, it's the patriarchy

that spawns a warlike culture. All the religions of Abraham are inherently patriarchal.

[Bonobo]

21. Who says they're "Great"?

[KlatooBNikto]

22. They do.

[Ron Green]

43. "Great" means "large"....

in standard English. It has come to mean "good," or "cool," or "studly," or "sweet," or ...... ????

[demnan]

23. The Japanese were Buddist

and they tried to take over the world. They were willing to kill millions of other Buddists (the Chinese) to do it.

[Bridget Burke]

24. The Japanese mix their Buddhism with Shinto

Nationalism trumps pacifism. Although there are sects within Buddhism, as well. Mahayana Buddhism mixes well with other faiths--the Gurkha (spelling?) soldiers are mostly Buddhist but have been known to fight.

Buddhism exists in China but Confucius & Lao Tse also have many followers. (& there are Muslims & Christians there, too.)

Joseph Campbell had much of interest to say about the Abrahamic faiths--will look it up when my library is available.

[soleft]

25. Read "Battle for God" by Karen Armstrong

She's a learned scholar on the three big monotheist faiths and explains it all.

[leesa]

27. Because they stubbornly adhere ot outmoded texts that

encouraged tribal wars to scrap and scrape for the water supplies. Now oil is included. Throw the old books out or focus on the morality of your religions instead of the old hate and competition.

[mmonk]

30. Because of absolutism

all of the three have taken.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

33. I'd say it's region more than religion

The three religions are big because they have a nice central location. People war over stupid shit everywhere, all the time. Red and blue, Hutus and Tutsis, Hatfields and McCoys. If you are a hillbilly in some jungle your identity will never get anywhere. If you are at the original crossroads of civilized humanity, what you had to say about homosexuals and plagues of locusts in the goat-herding days will be learned and believed thousands of years later by men armed with nuclear weapons.

There have been plenty of Buddhist motivated wars and even religious persecution, they just stay out of our history books because we are still Western-focused.

[Ladyhawk]

36. They all share the Old Testament.

That is the most hate-filled piece of vile crap I've ever read (except for a few books). And since I went to a fundamentalist school from second grade to high school, I read it many, many times. A good look at the Old Testament will cause most Christians of conscience to either become liberal Christians or non-Christians.

[Cheswick2.0]

39. Which books do you consider hate filled?

[kayell]

44. Start with Genesis and keep reading

there are plenty of examples. Plenty of examples here, http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html all nicely linked. The Gospels in the NT, when they quote Jesus are another matter. The god of the OT is a nasty, jealous brute.

Genesis

# God likes Abel's dead animals better than Cain's fruits and vegetables. Why? Well, no reason is given, but it probably has something to do with the amount of pain, blood, and gore involved. 4:3-5

# Because God liked Abel's animal sacrifice more than Cain's vegetables, Cain kills his brother Abel in a fit of religious jealousy. 4:8

# God is angry. He decides to destroy all humans, beasts, creeping things, fowls, and "all flesh wherein there is breath of life." He plans to drown them all. 6:7, 17

# God repeats his intention to kill "every living substance ... from off the face of the earth." But why does God kill all the innocent animals? What had they done to deserve his wrath? It seems God never gets his fill of tormenting animals. 7:4

# God drowns everything that breathes air. From newborn babies to koala bears -- all creatures great and small, the Lord God drowned them all. 7:21-23

# Noah kills the "clean beasts" and burns their dead bodies for God. According to 7:8 this would have caused the extinction of all "clean" animals since only two of each were taken onto the ark. "And the Lord smelled a sweet savor." 8:20

# To free Lot from captivity, Abram sends an army of slaves to pursue and smite his captors. 14:14-15

# God tells Abram to kill some animals for him. The needless slaughter makes God feel better. 15:9-10

# Hagar conceives, making Sarai jealous. Abram tells Sarai to do to Hagar whatever she wants. "And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled." 16:6

# Lot refuses to give up his angels to the perverted mob, offering his two "virgin daughters" instead. He tells the bunch of angel rapers to "do unto them as is good in your eyes." This is the same man that is called "just" and "righteous" in 2 Pet.2:7-8. 19:7-8

and on and on and on

[Ladyhawk]

47. Most of them are.

I could give you some quotes, but I've got to go to PT.

Try the The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. You can look for cruelty quotes. Most of them have to do with Yahweh commanding the Children of Israel to wipe out entire cities of people.

Thomas Jefferson was so appalled by the Bible that he edited his own version, which ended up being very small. :)

I'll give you a few examples of cruel bible verses, but the OT is packed with them:

"Happiness is smashing your little children against the rocks." Psalms 137 : 9

"And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

"And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them." 2 Kings 2:24-25

"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." I Samuel 15:3

Also, do a search on the word "destroy." Wow, God was into that whole destruction thing. It was considered "mercy" if God did not utterly destroy someone. :)

[DrWeird]

37. They're all abrahamic religions.

They're sort of like three different denominations from the same religion.

Human beings are human beings. Hindus and Buddhists have caused plenty of bloodshed themselves.

Although I did read an anthropological article once that noticed that tribes that believed in a leader God that lived in the sky were more violent on average then the tribes that believed in numerous more animistic type Gods. I wouldn't put a whole lot of weight on that though.

[Ezlivin]

40. Location, location, location

Okay, so these three wise men walk into a bar...

[Cheswick2.0]

41. Those three peoples are not anymore warlike than any other

you are going to have to post some comprehensive stats to prove your point.

[shraby]

45. This post and it's replies are

the epitomy of what the post is all about. Everyone agrees to disagree about religion.

[mitchum]

46. Maybe a skygod attracts angry followers

[burythehatchet]

48. A question I've spent 20 years pondering...

Possible reasons...

exclusivity -
East - all paths are valid
West - Only my path is valid. You go to hell unless yo uplay by my rules.


Man/Nature/God
East - these are merged entities. God is part of man, man is part of nature
West - The three are separate entities, Nature is to be dominated, God is to be feared.


Good and Evil
East - Good and Evil arise from the same source, they are aspects of the same force. (The Force has a dark side).
West - Good and Evil are separate and distinct


The reason why the 3 religions of Jerusalem are what they are is that like all religions, there are those that would hijack a faith when it serves power and wealth. Christianity, specifically Protestantism has reached a point where the Christian Taliban has sufficient wealth, power, and corruption to be the most dangerous to the planet.

If you are Protestant, I celebrate your faith, and since you are more informed than most you realize that my comments relate to the attempted hijacking of your faith, NOT your faith per se.

[Uzybone]

51. This is a short sighted argument.

How many wars did the Mayans start for their religion? How many wars have been fought in Africa over "pagan" religions? People of all religions have used it for war and conquest. The only difference is that those who practice the "big 3" have had more people and more firepower a their disposal.

[Malva Zebrina]

52. I have enjoyed books by Karen Armstrong on this issue

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week602/armstrong.html

Full of information and well written. The Battle for God is especially informative.

[SoCalDem]

53. If you think 'God' is on YOUR side, you can justify ANYTHING..

The problem?? The 'other guy' thinks God is on HIS side.