Ba'hai

[MisterMike]

Of course they feel that the rest of the world would join them, otherwise those wouldn't be their beliefs. They just don't believe in trying to force others to join them.

No religion uses "force" in it's doctrine. It's the members, or the government. So we can't say nobody from the Ba'hai will not try to force others to join.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

No religion uses "force" in it's doctrine. It's the members, or the government. So we can't say nobody from the Ba'hai will not try to force others to join.

I was talking about the Ba'haists themselves, not the religious doctrine. But you're right, I suppose some individuals may try to impose their Ba'hai beliefs on others, maybe in the future. Of course, it's hard to see why such people would decide to become Ba'haists, from the peaceful (albeit very general) tenets given. And at any rate, nobody's mentioned any Ba'haists acting as such yet, so I think the benefit of the doubt goes in their favor.

 

[rmcrobertson]

"No religion uses force in its doctrine?"

Oh really.

"Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war
With the Cross of Jesus, marching on before
Christ the Royal Master
Leads against the Foe
Forward into battle, see his Banners go..."

"I come not to bring peace, but a Sword..."

Did you just skip the Old Testament? Blow by Revelations? I mean, it's as bad as the Qu'ran...

The Ba'hai faith is resolutely non-violent. Buddhism is.

Christianity, I am afraid, has a set of teachings that again and again and again has led to extraordinary violence.

 

[OULobo]

"No religion uses force in its doctrine?"

Oh really.

"Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war
With the Cross of Jesus, marching on before
Christ the Royal Master
Leads against the Foe
Forward into battle, see his Banners go..."

"I come not to bring peace, but a Sword..."

Did you just skip the Old Testament? Blow by Revelations? I mean, it's as bad as the Qu'ran...

The Ba'hai faith is resolutely non-violent. Buddhism is.

Christianity, I am afraid, has a set of teachings that again and again and again has led to extraordinary violence.

Those are all interpretations of the faith, not doctrine within the faith. The test is within the individual, not the religion. It is just as possible, although much less probable, to have a militant Buddhist or Ba'haist. I'm sure many buddhists and Ba'haist will say that such people aren't really buddhist or Ba'haist, but I'm sure many christians and muslims say the same thing about their militants.

As for the quotes listed, the first is a song that is meant to be a hymn of bravery in the face of danger and oppression, not a war dirge, despite how others use it (the swastica was meant to be a symbol of neutral free energy, not an icon for a racist, facist militaristic politicians and murderers). The fact is we can pull a hundred quotes for non-violence out of the new testament, old testament and the qu'ran, I'm sure we can find quite a few militant ones too, though I'd guess they are far less in number.

Consequently, the fact that you say something like "It's as BAD as the Qu'ran", shows a very limited interpretation and openly negative bias against both written works. Is this from the religion, the books, the people or your own personal experiences? Are you trying to speak objectively or are you spouting more anti-religion propaganda?

 

[kenpo tiger]

Robertson, you have a lovely voice, but --

People are the ones who wage wars against one another in the name of their religions. Hiding behind the standard of religion is as old as mankind.

 

[rmcrobertson]

yes, I do. Then, there's this--the FIRST item on the list, Netscape search, topic, "Christ and war:"


------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Christ and war
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 10, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

©*2003*WorldNetDaily.com


Since the drums of war began to beat, I have been asked on numerous occasions how it can be that I, an outspoken Christian, can support significant aspects of the ongoing war on Iraq. That my position is a carefully nuanced one, previously explicated here, here, here and here, does not change the fact that there is an apparent dichotomy between it and my faith.

First, do note that I am not making a Christian case for this particular war – I am simply attempting to articulate how it is possible to be a Christian and also favor military action.

The notion that being a follower of Jesus Christ is synonymous with always favoring world peace is a common one, bolstered by the pacifist positions of many denominational leaders around the world. It stems from biblical roots, primarily the oft-mistranslated commandment "Thou shalt not kill," Jesus' command to love one's enemies and his admonishment of Peter in Gethsemane.

The first problem is that these divine directives apply to individuals, not nations – the Bible distinguishes clearly between the two in both the Old and New Testaments. Indeed, while salvation may be claimed by the individual, the soulless nations remain under the sway of the prince of this world who once offered them, without success, to Jesus. Thus, these commands cannot apply to a nation-state. It would also be highly illogical to assert that a nation which prides itself on the separation of church and state should be somehow subject to the same Christian morality which it may not impose on its citizens.

It is important to understand that the peace of which the Bible speaks is not the peace for which the world is protesting. Christian peace is a fruit of the Spirit, it is the harmony of individuals, not nations. The blessed peacemakers who will be called sons of God are not riotous leftists protesting war in San Francisco, but those loving souls who make peace between individuals. Even such peace is not always possible due to man's inherent evil, otherwise Paul would not write: "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone."

Jesus' own words on war are scanty, yet surprisingly practical. "Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not sit down first and consider whether he is able with 10,000 men to oppose the one coming against him with 20,000? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace." On another occasion, He tells his disciples "if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

Hardly Clausewitz, true, but neither are they the words of one intrinsically opposed to self-defense, on an individual or national basis. Indeed, Revelation 19:15 prophesies that Jesus will make war on the nations Himself one day.

The truth is that the world will never know peace without the Prince of Peace, and to work for peace in the absence of Jesus Christ is to directly contradict the fundamental foundations of the Christian faith. Of wars and rumors of war, "do not be alarmed, such things must happen," Jesus said – so peace between nations is simply not a significant concern for the Christian. One might even do well to say that the Christian should leave to Caesar such responsibilities that fall to Caesar. As Paul writes of the one in authority, "he does not bear the sword for nothing."

But if world peace should not be a concern for the Christian at this time, then what should? The same things as always: to feed the poor, heal the sick, cast out demons, raise the dead and, above all, to spread the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ of Nazareth. War is only one of the many evils of this world, and if we have learned anything from the 20th century, it is that war is not the worst of them.

If what I have written here seems outlandish, keep in mind that Jesus Christ has confounded the wisdom of this world since the beginning of His ministry. I have no doubt that the King of Kings will continue to do so until he once more graces us with His royal presence.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vox Day is a novelist and Christian libertarian. He is a member of the SFWA, Mensa and the Southern Baptist Convention, and has been down with Madden since 1992. His weekly column is syndicated nationally by Universal Press Syndicate. Visit his web log, Vox Popoli, for daily commentary and responses to reader email.

I absolutely LOVED the, "Thus, these commandments cannot apply to a nation state," remark, even more than the pooh-poohing of the way that the Quakers and Amish, among other Christian minorities, avoid looking for loopholes in the whole, "Thou shalt not kill," business.

It is tempting--and I mean, "tempting," in exactly the Christian sense--to hang on to the idea that there in nothing violent in Christianity, as though somehow the long, ugly account of murder in the Old Testament, together with the long, ugly history of Christian murders since Christ's death, together with the broad, ugly spectrum of contemporary Christian murdering and rationalizations of murderings, could be altogether separated from the essential doctrine.

Regrettably--and I mean that--the two are far too well intertwined in reality. But keep on--I doubt it'll be hard to find more quotes on the matter.

And incidentally--for all my disagreements for the Ba'hai, the Amish, the Quakers, all the way back through the Muggletonians, hoorah for their abhorrence of violence and their love of decency.

 

[OULobo]

yes, I do. Then, there's this--the FIRST item on the list, Netscape search, topic, "Christ and war:"

Why search for sin, it's easy enough to find everyday.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vox Day is a novelist and Christian libertarian. He is a member of the SFWA, Mensa and the Southern Baptist Convention, and has been down with Madden since 1992. His weekly column is syndicated nationally by Universal Press Syndicate. Visit his web log, Vox Popoli, for daily commentary and responses to reader email.

I absolutely LOVED the, "Thus, these commandments cannot apply to a nation state," remark, even more than the pooh-poohing of the way that the Quakers and Amish, among other Christian minorities, avoid looking for loopholes in the whole, "Thou shalt not kill," business.

It is tempting--and I mean, "tempting," in exactly the Christian sense--to hang on to the idea that there in nothing violent in Christianity, as though somehow the long, ugly account of murder in the Old Testament, together with the long, ugly history of Christian murders since Christ's death, together with the broad, ugly spectrum of contemporary Christian murdering and rationalizations of murderings, could be altogether separated from the essential doctrine.

Regrettably--and I mean that--the two are far too well intertwined in reality. But keep on--I doubt it'll be hard to find more quotes on the matter.

And incidentally--for all my disagreements for the Ba'hai, the Amish, the Quakers, all the way back through the Muggletonians, hoorah for their abhorrence of violence and their love of decency.

Again, there are a million windbags out there that claim they have it right, why would I believe any of them, instead of Osama or GW. Again, it is the actions of the individual, not the religion as a whole that will determine their worth. Consequently, most christians that I know abhor violence and love decency too.

So, you are looking for quotes that link Jesus to violence vs. ones that link him to pacifism. Are you serious?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Your problem is that your argument isn't logical. You're attempting to claim that Christianity has no violence in its essential doctrines, despite the fact that nearly every aspect of Christianity has engaged in the most extreme of violences--and, far from claiming that this isn't true doctrine, based their violences squarely on doctrine.

In other words, you're attempting to claim that the historical record and present conduct of literally hundreds of millions of Christians has nothing to do with true doctrine, despite the way that again and again and again, Christians have claimed (and still do) that it does.

Are there other possibilities? Sure. Groups like the Amish and Quakers simply assume that, "Thou shalt not kill," means what it says, and do not go scrounging for loopholes.

But they also seem to remain silent on the ugliness of much of the Old Testament, ugliness that often is directly commanded by the God.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

You're attempting to claim that Christianity has no violence in its essential doctrines

I don't think it does. We are suppossed to turn the other cheek. We are suppossed to love others as ourselves.

If you are talking about church history, that is often different. I think people are distinguishing (or not) between the core doctrines, and the long histories of churches and ethnic/political groups.

 

[Kane]

Your problem is that your argument isn't logical. You're attempting to claim that Christianity has no violence in its essential doctrines, despite the fact that nearly every aspect of Christianity has engaged in the most extreme of violences--and, far from claiming that this isn't true doctrine, based their violences squarely on doctrine.

In other words, you're attempting to claim that the historical record and present conduct of literally hundreds of millions of Christians has nothing to do with true doctrine, despite the way that again and again and again, Christians have claimed (and still do) that it does.

Are there other possibilities? Sure. Groups like the Amish and Quakers simply assume that, "Thou shalt not kill," means what it says, and do not go scrounging for loopholes.

But they also seem to remain silent on the ugliness of much of the Old Testament, ugliness that often is directly commanded by the God.

I don't think Christianity or many other religions intended for violence to ever occur, but people twist their religious texts to their own use. One verse from the Bible, "Love your Enemies" proves that the crusaders were not justified.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Hm...how can I make this clear? The Crusaders, among countless others, found doctrinal justification everywhere in Scripture.

It's all very well to claim that everybody else just got it wrong--but curiously enough, that isn't at all the kind of thing that people say when it comes to Islam.

 

[OULobo]

Your problem is that your argument isn't logical. You're attempting to claim that Christianity has no violence in its essential doctrines, despite the fact that nearly every aspect of Christianity has engaged in the most extreme of violences--and, far from claiming that this isn't true doctrine, based their violences squarely on doctrine.

In other words, you're attempting to claim that the historical record and present conduct of literally hundreds of millions of Christians has nothing to do with true doctrine, despite the way that again and again and again, Christians have claimed (and still do) that it does.

Are there other possibilities? Sure. Groups like the Amish and Quakers simply assume that, "Thou shalt not kill," means what it says, and do not go scrounging for loopholes.

But they also seem to remain silent on the ugliness of much of the Old Testament, ugliness that often is directly commanded by the God.

Actually I don't have a problem, unless it's not taking well to people that assume I do. The "your argument isn't logical" claim seems to be a running theme in all of your arguments. Mabey you just lack the capacity to understand or just choose not to. Violence that is commited in anything's name is not the responsibility of that thing. If I go and murder in the name of Buddah, is that a reflection on him, or just a reflection on my misguided motives. The claim that nearly every aspect of christianity has engaged in the most extreme violences is a blanket statement that blights the memory of many a saint and martyr that gave their lives to show that violence was secondary to sacrifice. Essentially, yes, you are correct about my claims. I am indeed claiming that christianity has no violence in its essential doctrines, despite the fact that some aspects of christianity have engaged in the most extreme of violences--and, far from claiming that this isn't true doctrine, based their violences squarely on doctrine. They are limited in their understanding, like others I know, and despite their actions and who or whatever they claim to do them for, they are responsible for their own actions and their actions reflect on only them. There are many many christians in the world that will not act in violence even in self defense. I don't hold their belief. I don't seek "loopholes" in God's law, but I do believe that he sees us as imperfectly human, and as such can understand our situations and our regret for actions taken. I personally, believe that Jesus was a near perfect model and in such our saviour. I don't believe that he is the one and only way to God's light, only the best example of the way to God's light. He will judge us as what we are, men to beheld responsible for our own actions, not as christian, Jew, Buddhist or any other.

 

[OULobo]

Hm...how can I make this clear? The Crusaders, among countless others, found doctrinal justification everywhere in Scripture.

It's all very well to claim that everybody else just got it wrong--but curiously enough, that isn't at all the kind of thing that people say when it comes to Islam.

That isn't the kind of thing that SOME people say when it comes to Islam.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I think it's foolish to cite the violent acts of a religion's followers as proof that the religion itself is doctrinally violent. All kinds of factors besides the religious content would go into their behavior (interpretation, politics, etc.), and about anyone can hijack a religion and use it to justify their actions.

However, I think the content of the Old Testament itself is enough basis to say that Christianity has at least a slight bit of violence instilled in its doctrines. Even at a more philosophical level, a religion that divides people into "the saved" vs. "the damned" has a bit more of a violent or conflict orient then, say, one that regards all people as parts of the Great Chain of Being (a butchering of it, I know, but the point hopefully gets across).

 

[heretic888]

No religion uses "force" in it's doctrine.

Really?? Might wanna try reading the pseudo-Pauline "Pastoral Letters" sometime. Or the Old Testament.

Now, this doesn't mean that everyone that is a Jew or Christian or whatever is gonna use "force", mind you, but there is no denying that the violent elements are already there.

I'm sure many buddhists and Ba'haist will say that such people aren't really buddhist or Ba'haist, but I'm sure many christians and muslims say the same thing about their militants.

Be that as it may, there is no denying that the violent elements are already in the religious texts themselves.

And incidentally--for all my disagreements for the Ba'hai, the Amish, the Quakers, all the way back through the Muggletonians, hoorah for their abhorrence of violence and their love of decency.

Indeed. Some of the "Christian" sects I have the greatest respect for are the Unitarian-Universalists (originally two different sects), the Quakers (actually they call themselves the Religious Society of Friends, or just Friends), and the New Thought folks.

But they also seem to remain silent on the ugliness of much of the Old Testament, ugliness that often is directly commanded by the God.

There is truth to this.

This is why we have historically had guys like Valentinus, who distinguished between the Demiurge (Old Testamental Jehovah) and the Father of Christ. There are allusions to this in some of "Paul"'s letters, as well.

Of course, guys like Marcion and Thomas Jefferson seem to have taken it even further and reject the Old Testament altogether. Mythicist scholars like Freke and Gandy seemed to have Platonism in mind as a more suitable predecessor to Christianity.

I don't think it does. We are suppossed to turn the other cheek. We are suppossed to love others as ourselves.

That's all well and good, but it is far from the only doctrine espoused in the religious texts. The violence is there, like it or not. Its up to the individual to decide which parts of the faith to accept, and which to reject.

I don't think Christianity or many other religions intended for violence to ever occur

Errr... depends on who you mean by "Christian". The literalist school in Rome, for example, whom most modern Christian sects have inherited as their predecessor, made absolutely no qualms about using violence and oppression to keep their "sheep" in line. This was their doctrine -- just look to Augustine or the pseudo-Clementines for examples.

The various Gnostic sects, curiously, found violence and fanatical martyrdom absolutely abhorrent. We see this especially in the syncretic Manichean faith (a veritable world religion within its founder's lifetime). That's probably why they were all wiped out.

But, of course, they're the "heretics" and all those guys that believed in state-sponsored religious violence are the "orthodox".... *chuckle*

Laterz.