The religion of peace and toleration continues to amaze

[Acsenray]

[QUOTE=wisernow]
Are you trying to say that the ‘philosophy’ of a religion is defined by the acts of the people practicing it?
[/quote]

Not of a religion. Of Hinduism. There is no cite, because you cannot appeal to authority in Hinduism; there is no authority that supersedes the actual, individual Hindu.

More important is that the religious texts in themselves do not prescribe the use of violence for the defense or the spread of the religion.

This is not a pacifist philosophy. Pacifism is the abjuration of all violence, for any reason, such as that propounded by Gandhi.

Perhaps not in the literal meaning of the word, but in the context of what is being discussed, and please note that the context is important here, Hinduism is definitely pacifist.

In no context is this pacifist. Pacifism is pacifism.

Please cite a single verse from the Bhagvad Gita where Krishna tells Arjuna to “kill them”!! Heck, cite a single verse where he has used the word “kill” let alone recommending it. Over and over and over again, Krishna ONLY counsels and exhorts Arjuna to “perform his duty” as a “warrior” in the battlefield.

And why are you being obtuse. What is Arjun’s duty on the battlefield? Is he a cook, a launderer, a sketch artist? Does he play the trombone in the Pandava Army Marching Band? No, Arjun is a warrior and Krishna tells him that he must perform his duty as a warrior. No pacifist can take such a position.

The scene just happens to be the battlefield of Kurukshetra and Arjuna just happens to be a warrior in that battlefield. The duty in this case just happens to be to ‘fight’.

There is no “just happens to be” here. Krishna is not speaking to Arjun merely in theoretical terms. Krishna is Arjun’s charioteer and adviser on the battlefield. Krishna knows what Arjun’s duty is and he knows what Arjun will do.

This is simply logic. Pacifism is the abjuration of violence. If Krishna knows Arjun’s duty includes violence on the battlefield, and if Krishna exhorts Arjun to do his duty, then Krishna does not advocate an abjuration of violence. Hence, Krishna is not a pacifist. Q.E.D.

Fighting does not mean only killing. It also means getting killed if the situation so warrants!!

“Getting killed” is irrelevant to pacifism. It’s the killing part that’s key.

What is so hard to understand the difference between exhorting someone to do his duty as a soldier and fight, and telling someone to kill because religion has been reviled??

Whatever this might be, it is not a pacifist philosophy.

Hinduism does not prescribe violence as a means to settle disputes.

It also does not prohibit violence. Thus, it is not pacifist.

Bhagwad Gita does not prescribe violence as a means of settling dispute either and so is not an example of the philosophy of Hinduism prescribing violence.

The Bhagavad Gita does not prohibit violence. Thus, it is not pacifist.

[Acsenray]

[QUOTE=chowder]
I beg to differ, that aint pacifism, that’s fucking stupidity
[/QUOTE]

Needless to say, while Gandhi is given a lot of reverence in India, there are very few Indians or Hindus who are close adherents of his philosophies.

[Czarcasm]

[QUOTE=acsenray]
Needless to say, while Gandhi is given a lot of reverence in India, there are very few Indians or Hindus who are close adherents of his philosophies.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, same thing with Jesus.

[chowder]

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Yeah, same thing with Jesus.
[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately the same cannot be said of Mohammed

[Acsenray]

[QUOTE=chowder]
I beg to differ, that aint pacifism, that’s fucking stupidity
[/QUOTE]

To be fair, Gandhi’s position is perfectly reasonable for someone who sincerely believes in a soul. It’s the sincerely believing in the soul part that might fairly be labeled as fucking stupidity.

[Malacandra]

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Yeah, same thing with Jesus.
[/QUOTE]

Who had nothing to do with the discussion at this point, but what the heck, you gotta ride that hobby horse for all it’s worth. :rolleyes:

[Larry_Borgia]

[QUOTE=Nancarrow]
You got your wish.
ETA: still haven’t googled ‘salmon helmet’, but since I’ve got Family Guy seasons 1-5 on DVD I guess I have that to look forward to.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not on Family Guy. It’s on a South Park parody of Family Guy.

[buttonjockey308]

[QUOTE=acsenray]
To be fair, Gandhi’s position is perfectly reasonable for someone who sincerely believes in a soul. It’s the sincerely believing in the soul part that might fairly be labeled as fucking stupidity.
[/QUOTE]

…which is the precise position that will keep believers and non-believers apart forever. You want to talk about fucking stupidity…

[Acsenray]

[QUOTE=buttonjockey308]
…which is the precise position that will keep believers and non-believers apart forever.
[/QUOTE]

Believers and non-believers disagree on the question of belief. That’s what keeps them apart. What’s the tragedy here? After all, it only keeps them apart on the question of belief, not on other questions, such as tax policy, world peace, or boxers-vs.-briefs.

[mlees]

notes religion bashing

adjusts pocket watch

[Acsenray]

[QUOTE=mlees]
notes religion bashing

adjusts pocket watch
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think anything I’ve said can be characterized as religion bashing.

I don’t know what this pocket watch thing is, but I love my pocket watches.

[mlees]

@acsenray

I don’t think anything I’ve said can be characterized as religion bashing.

Not against a specific religion, no. But:

[QUOTE=acsenray]
It’s the sincerely believing in the soul part that might fairly be labeled as fucking stupidity.
[/QUOTE]

(Underscore mine.)

One of the more common elements of religions is the idea that we have something special about humans, something we have yet been unable to quantify, and this includes two of the religions mentioned in this thread. (Chrisianity & Islam.) I have no knowledge of Hinduism.

The ultimate disposition of the soul is one of the fundamental concerns of these (and other) religions.

If you told someone that they were “fucking stupid” for believing in a soul, I daresay they would feel that you were bashing their beliefs.

[Acsenray]

[QUOTE=mlees]
If you told someone that they were “fucking stupid” for believing in a soul, I daresay they would feel that you were bashing their beliefs.
[/QUOTE]

I didn’t actually say that belief in a soul is fucking stupid. I was just pointing out that chowder’s critique of Gandhianism was logically suspect. If he wanted to call something about Gandhi’s philosophy “fucking stupid” then he was picking the wrong part of it, because Gandhi’s conclusion follows absolutely logically from his beliefs regarding the soul and non-violence. That’s why I said that the part of Gandhi’s beliefs that could fairly be the subject of critique (using “fucking stupid” only because those were the terms chowder chose) would be Gandhi’s hypothesis, not his perfectly logical conclusion.

N’est-ce pas?

[mlees]

[QUOTE=acsenray]
I didn’t actually say that belief in a soul is fucking stupid. I was just pointing out that chowder’s critique of Gandhianism was logically suspect. If he wanted to call something about Gandhi’s philosophy “fucking stupid” then he was picking the wrong part of it, because Gandhi’s conclusion follows absolutely logically from his beliefs regarding the soul and non-violence. That’s why I said that the part of Gandhi’s beliefs that could fairly be the subject of critique (using “fucking stupid” only because those were the terms chowder chose) would be Gandhi’s hypothesis, not his perfectly logical conclusion.

N’est-ce pas?

[/QUOTE]

Gotcha. Thanks. I apologise for reading your previous post a little too quickly to catch the nuance.

My pocket watch comment was tongue in cheek anyways.