Why are Abrahamic religions so violent? It's the blood.

[PureX]

Can you provide evidence of this?

Can you provide evidence that humans didn't always kill each other over territory, resources, and bragging rights? Because I am not aware of any point in human history in which this was not occurring.

 

[ChristineM]

Can you provide evidence that humans didn't always kill each other over territory, resources, and bragging rights? Because I am not aware of any point in human history in which this was not occurring.

Hunter gatherers did not have "territory" or bragging rights over where the animals they hunter wondered. You are imposing modern values on a completely different time period.

And anyway, i asked first so i assume your answer is no.

 

[Augustus]

Hunter gatherers did not have "territory" or bragging rights over where the animals they hunter wondered. You are imposing modern values on a completely different time period.

And anyway, i asked first so i assume your answer is no.

Hunter-gatherers did have territory: good hunting and gathering places they would return to and that may well be worth defending. There were also other reasons for violence such as stealing women to increase the strength of the tribe while weakening others.

Not just humans, neanderthals seem to have been about as violent as 'civilised' Europeans in the early modern period.

For example:

Neanderthals' lives weren't more violent than humans', study suggests - CNN


You are right that agriculture and settled civilisations significantly changed the 'violence equation', but we have always used violence when it suits us. How we use it is, in part, environmentally dependent though.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hindus Empires conquered vast territories and held them for many centuries, they didn't do this by promoting peace and mutual understanding. Empires aren't created for the benefit of the conquered after all.

Just like any other imperial conquerors, they killed or enslaved many civilians, it was the nature of ancient warfare. It was pretty much a necessity, for a variety of reasons (to reduce chance of revolt, to pay soldiers, to act as a warning so others would submit quickly, etc.
They also destroyed and looted some of the temples, just as the Muslims did. There was lots of wealth to be extracted after all, and the soldiers needed paying.
Also if you need to feed tens of thousands of soldiers, you generally do that by stealing it from the people you are conquering (or even those who are nominally on your own side).

So the idea that Hindus "nobly" conquered much of South/South East Asia without inconveniencing the masses is just a feel good myth.
All cultures, including Hindus, have been violent and committed atrocities: raped, thieved, looted, killed and destroyed. Those that have been victims could easily have been oppressors had a few battles turned out differently.

Kindly note that even before the Chola King, Rajendra, went with his navy against the SriVijaya empire, Indian influence was already there because of Buddhism.

"In 1025, Rajendra Chola also successfully invaded the cities of Srivijaya empire, another thalassocratic empire based on the island of Sumatra. However, this invasion failed to install direct administration over Srivijaya, as the invasion was short and only meant to plunder the wealth of Srivijaya. However, the Chola influence on Srivijava would last until 1070 (i.e., less than 50 years), when the Cholas began to lose almost all of their overseas territories."
Chola dynasty - Wikipedia

The South-East Asian kingdoms were of mixed people or of indigenous influenced by Hindu culture. I do not think there is a history of Hindu atrocities on indigenous people. If you or any member of the forum knows about such atrocities, they are welcome to post it here. I say this because indulging in atrocities is not a part of Hindu culture. Of course, the kings and their armies may have had wars, but that will not affect civilians. That is the tradition.
For example, I could not find the word killed or killings in these Wikipedia pages: Hinduism in South Asia - Wikipedia, Greater India - Wikipedia, Southeast Asia - Wikipedia, Srivijaya - Wikipedia

"Ambitious local leaders realized the benefits of Hinduism and Indian methods of administration, culture, literature, etc. Rule in accord with universal moral principles, represented in the concept of the Devaraja, was more appealing than the Chinese concept of intermediaries.
Another theory states that Indianization spread through the warrior class of Kshatriya. This hypothesis effectively explains state formation in Southeast Asia, as these warriors came with the intention of conquering the local peoples and establishing their own political power in the region. However, this theory hasn't attracted much interest from historians as there is very little literary evidence to support it.
The most widely accepted theory for the spread of Indianization into Southeast Asia is through the class of Brahmin scholars. These Brahmans brought with them many of the Hindu religious and philosophical traditions and spread them to the elite classes of Southeast Asian polities. Once these traditions were adopted into the elite classes, it disseminated throughout all the lower classes, thus explaining the Indianization present in all classes of Southeast Asian society. Brahmans were also experts in art and architecture, and political affairs, thus explaining the adoption of many Indian style law codes and architecture into Southeast Asian society."
Greater India - Wikipedia

 

[Revoltingest]

Don’t ye forget the Scots. They be some berzerker lads and lasses, eh @Revoltingest?

The Scots have a wild disposition.
It led to their country's perdition.
Their vision tweren't global
All conquest was local.
Their violence lacks lacks all ambition.

There....haven't felt the calling to limeracize for awhile.
But your post did the trick.
So this your fault.

 

[Augustus]

Except for South East Asia where Tamil and Odissi infleunce and culture went with their traders, or the Chola Navy in 11th Century under Rajendra Chola, no Hindu king ventured out of India (Kabul, Kandhar for long were a part of India before its Iranization).

"In 1025, Rajendra Chola also successfully invaded the cities of Srivijaya empire, another thalassocratic empire based on the island of Sumatra. However, this invasion failed to install direct administration over Srivijaya, as the invasion was short and only meant to plunder the wealth of Srivijaya. However, the Chola influence on Srivijava would last until 1070 (i.e., less than 50 years), when the Cholas began to lose almost all of their overseas territories."
Chola dynasty - Wikipedia

That Indians generally limited their use of violence to within India is more likely the result of geography than some moral principle. Violence within India was fine after all.

Made far more economic and military sense to conquer other Indian states, than try to send a large Army over a massive mountain range to conquer less affluent lands.

The South-East Asian kingdoms were of mixed people or of indigenous influenced by Hindu culture. I do not think there is a history of Hindu atrocities on indigenous people. If you or any member of the forum knows about such atrocities, they are welcome to post it here. I say this because indulging in atrocities is not a part of Hindu culture. Of course, the kings and there armies may have had wars, but that will not affect civilians. That is the tradition.

You have just said they invaded the Sriwijaya Empire to steal its wealth. People do not freely part with their wealth, the choice is to give it up or die.

Within India, some kings are reputed to have oppressed Buddhists, although other historians disagree.

But this is largely beside the point, warfare is violent and civilians are impacted by conflict, whether they have their food stolen, their wife raped, their valuable looted or their life taken. This happened whenever you get 50,000 armed men travelling to conquer some territory. They may not have been as bad as some others, but Indians weren't uniquely chivalrous

For example the conquest of (what is now) Sri Lanka:

Result: Large number of civilians killed or enslaved during the Chola offensive, Anuradhapura plundered...

Military expeditions from South Indian forces into Anuradhapura had been brief ad hoc up until the mid-tenth century. These were designed to facilitate short-term gains with minimal involvement followed by a withdrawal to the mainland. However, with the ascension of more ambitious and aggressive imperial Chola kings, Rajaraja I (985-1014) and his son Rajendra I (1012-1044), a new strategy of ruthless plunder and destruction of major political and religious centers on the island occurred, followed by the establishment of semi-permanent and fortified encampments, from where wide-ranging raids could be carried out in other parts of the island.[6]

Chola conquest of Anuradhapura - Wikipedia

 

[firedragon]

Agree with all those who provide evidence.

So what evidence was shown in the OP for you to agree so heartily? There was no evidence.

You just agreed with no evidence for anything mate. But now you say "agree with all those who provide evidence". Naah. You agree with those who make any derogatory claim about certain religions. And you know what they are.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Violence within India was fine after all.
Made far more economic and military sense to conquer other Indian states, than try to send a large Army over a massive mountain range to conquer less affluent lands.
They may not have been as bad as some others, but Indians weren't uniquely chivalrous.

For Hindus, violence on civilians was not fine anywhere.
Yeah, that was one reason not to need to go outside India.
That Nalanda survived till 1,300 CE on gifts from Hindu kings shows that there was no oppression of Buddhists. Buddhism in India was still a part of Hinduism at that time, just another sect.
I agree, perhaps the Cholas were the exceptions. In any war, winner takes the treasuries of the looser and money of the richest. No surprise in that. The question is, 'Did they indulge in murder / rape of civilians?'
It is not about 'chivalry'. If the victor wants to retain the territory, then atrocities on civilians are counter-productive.

Perhaps @firedragon can tell us about Chola conquest of Srivijaya. I believe he is from South-East Asia.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So what evidence was shown in the OP for you to agree so heartily? There was no evidence.
You just agreed with no evidence for anything mate. But now you say "agree with all those who provide evidence". Naah. You agree with those who make any derogatory claim about certain religions. And you know what they are.

India experienced the bloodshed and the history of many countries also shows that. OP did not have to detail it.
You asked if I agree with research, science and study or with something else?
I said in the last post that I agree with those who provide evidence and not with 'something else'.
For example, in the above post, I agreed that Rajendra Chola may have indulged in atrocities in Sri Lanka and Srivijaya, because the evidence was provided.

 

[firedragon]

India experienced the bloodshed and the history of many countries also shows that.

Ah. Anecdotal fallacy.

So to justify the OP, it is you who is giving evidence, although anecdotal. You agree first, no evidence, so you give evidence to help the person who had no evidence to help your hate preaching.

Why not do a historical research, globally, unbiasedly rather than doing anecdotal fallacies to help your spreading of your personal biases?

Have a good day.

 

[George-ananda]

Only if you ignore all the violent, intolerant teachings.

Which are probably just corruptions of the religion by ignorant zealots.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Which are probably just corruptions of the religion by ignorant zealots.

They aren't.

And this smells like a case of "if it's good, it's from god and otherwise it's from corrupted humans".

Aka, "heads I win, tails you lose".

 

[George-ananda]

And this smells like a case of "if it's good, it's from god and otherwise it's from corrupted humans".

And that may well be the truth too.

 

[Riders]

Why are Abrahamic Religions so Violent?

Interesting.

All the way from Animal sacrifice to human subjugation, all Abrahamic religions revolve around blood. Actual blood.

It's a blood based religion.

Agree disagree?

The hymns in the Baptist hymn book always gave me creeps.Nothing But THe Blood Of Jesus etc.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The hymns in the Baptist hymn book always gave me creeps.Nothing But THe Blood Of Jesus etc.

I concluded personally that Abrahamic religion in general is a massive blood cult spanning the three religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Blood alone is mentioned 447 times in 375 verses in the KJV Bible based on those that counted.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And that may well be the truth too.

It's painting the bullseye around the arrow.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Maybe because so many who have violent natures use religion as an excuse and twist/distort/rewrite the scriptures to match their inner violent natures.

Sadly it’s the religious leaders who claim to be ambassadors of peace and love who have been the cause of much of the violence and wars not God.

 

[DNB]

Why are Abrahamic Religions so Violent?

Interesting.

All the way from Animal sacrifice to human subjugation, all Abrahamic religions revolve around blood. Actual blood.

It's a blood based religion.

Agree disagree?

Evil is serious and an abomination to a Holy God, whether committed by demons or man, and requires a regeneration in order to absolve one of their sins. In the blood is life and death, and thus is used both for punishment, and for salvation which requires rebirth.

 

[joelr]

Evil is serious and an abomination to a Holy God, whether committed by demons or man, and requires a regeneration in order to absolve one of their sins. In the blood is life and death, and thus is used both for punishment, and for salvation which requires rebirth.

Is what ancient myths told people. Magic blood atonement sacrifice is archaic and about as real as Zeus creating lightning. In the OT God was supposed to bring salvation to the nation. They just kept being invaded. The NT salvation is personal salvation and is Greek theology that people still buy into today.

 

[Sand Dancer]

The Scots have a wild disposition.
It led to their country's perdition.
Their vision tweren't global
All conquest was local.
Their violence lacks lacks all ambition.

There....haven't felt the calling to limeracize for awhile.
But your post did the trick.
So this your fault.

The Scots have a strange style of dress.
Although the view is quite nice I confess.
Those men in their kilts
Show off when wind tilts
It'd be better if they all were on stilts.

Sorry. Don't hate me.