dunestrider@mac.com

Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) are so violent because they, by definition, start from the myth of Abraham:

"Some time after the birth of Isaac, Abraham was commanded by God to offer his son up as a sacrifice in the land of Moriah. Proceeding to obey..."

In other words, Abraham (and his followers) are asked by God: "Will you kill for Me?"

The obedient follower says, "yes".

Understand this, and you will understand the violence of the Middle East, from the Crusades up to the present day.

Pavlov's Dog

You would probably have to look at the authors of their doctrines and the societies the authors lived in to explain why they are so violent.

To say that Abrahmic religions are violent because of the myth of Abraham presents a "chicken or the egg" argument. Which came first, the violence or the myth? Are the religions violent because of the myth or is the myth violent because the authors of the myth were violent?

Koyaanisqatsi

Not just the Middle East, the entirety of human "civilization." This is precisely where cults come from; they're created by the ruling elite as a means to subjugate the masses. Only a human could possibly envision an ideallized human whose primary question is always, "Will you die/kill for me?"

What's endlessly astounding to me is that only ten percent of the population on average and throughout the years seem to be capable of seeing that clearly for what it is.

Actually, come to think of it, not so astounding. Ten percent of one end of the spectrum creates these ridiculous, transparent fantasies for the ignorati to believe in and ten percent on the other end balance that out, I guess.

:huh:

Malachi151

I don't think its because of any one myth, its more like because the Jews apparently were getting their ass kicked all the time and had a hard life so they created a hard and violent God to explain their harsh and violent existance.

jeffevnz

Meh... Plenty of ethnic groups have been conquered, enslaved, oppressed, and/or otherwise persecuted to the extent that the Jews had by the mid-1st millenium BC (Gypsies, native Americans, African Americans, Tutsis, Kurds, etc.), and plenty others have come up with violent religions (Norse, Celts, Phoenicians, Sumerians, Aztecs, Romans). I see no correlation between the two groups; the Jews just happen to be members of both. If anything, it's the oppressors who seem to develop the more brutal religions, not the oppressees.

Interesting argument, although other religions (Norse, Celts, Sumerians, Aztecs) have also demanded violence.

The theory I've heard that I find most convincing is that all the death and destruction caused by the Abrahamics stems from one passage:
The concept that it is wrong to be a member of another religion is not common to all religions. Most notably, the Vedic religions (Hindu, Buddhism), have no such rule. And how many holy wars have they started?

Admittedly, the guy who argued this was Hindu, but I still think it's an interesting point.

Malachi151

I wouldn't call Judaism a violent religion, I would say that their God is a violent God, who, clearly, is used to explain the disasters that befall them.

jeffevnz

Have you read the Old Testament??

aa5874

I don't think that the authors of the fairy tales of the Bible would have imagined that people would still think those fairy tales were true, thousands of years later.

It is believed by many that Jesus came to save the world, but upon reflection, Jesus came to save the Jews.

If it was not for those who believed in Christ, the Jews may have been no more, although it did take a long time for the believers to extend their hand of salvation.

Malachi151

True, the irony is that as much as the Christians tried to eliminate the Jews, it was Christianity that preserved Judaism. Judaism wouldn't even be known today, any more than the hundreds of other obscure Middle Eastern religions that still have nomimal followings, if not for the fact that the Jews were "made famous" by Christianity.

douglas

My understanding of this passage is that during the time this story was being passed around, it was common for cults to require first born males to be sacrificied for their God. Something about giving back mana that was taken from the God to make the child. So, what the tellers were saying to their audience was something like "Look at our God. He's cool. He's Hip, and you don't need to kill your kid to make him happy!"

So, to say this passage represents the violence of current day Abrahamic religions doesn't make sense to me. If you look at it from the perspective of the intended audience, this God represented the lesser of many evils.