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

[Mark Charles Compton]

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.

I reserve the right to wear horse blinders that have been rotated 90° in order to block particular vertically elevated objects... I'll start the next big fad, probably won't get traction til' after the 'stilt-a-kilt' fad falls from the mainstream.

 

[DNB]

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.

which part of the life being in the blood do you not understand?

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

which part of the life being in the blood do you not understand?

Is there any scriptures that combine the concepts of life being in the breath and of life being in the blood? I ask because I only recall these two concepts being disclosed independently of one another, but I can imagine how the two could be inclusive.

Materialistically, I could see this be representative of the oxygen molecules our bloodstream transports through the body.

 

[Sheldon]

The Old Testament reflect the values of people who understood adversity as divine punishment, and gods as bloodthirsty and needing continual appeasement with gifts of death. Go kill another goat and see if the drought lifts. Then kill a herd of them before going to war to earn the favor of the gods. Fortunately, much of the world has progressed beyond that, even in Christianity, but the mindset persists. God so loved us that he offered his son as a blood sacrifice for us, and now we can be washed in the blood of the lamb. Think of the implications of calling that love.

Good post, the paradoxes in religions and apologetics seem lost on most adherents. I guess effective indoctrination kills off critical thinking.

 

[Sheldon]

Jews don’t seek violence.

No true Scotsman fallacy right there.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

and about as real as Zeus creating lightning.

Zeus doesn't create lightning, but rather that's him throwing a weapon that Hephaestus made for him.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, I thoroughly disagree. I will not speak for other Abrahamic faith, but in Judaism animal sacrifice is neither violent nor ultimately central. There are also non-animal sacrifices in Judaism. Judaism was the first religion to reject chattel slavery. And Jews don’t seek violence.

Killing an animal to sacrifice it is violent and cruel. What claim do you have over another animal that it should die just to appease your personal choice in deity?
And, yeah, the OT still allows for slavery and Jews have been violent with some being terrorists.

 

[DNB]

Is there any scriptures that combine the concepts of life being in the breath and of life being in the blood? I ask because I only recall these two concepts being disclosed independently of one another, but I can imagine how the two could be inclusive.

Materialistically, I could see this be representative of the oxygen molecules our bloodstream transports through the body.

Yes, they are inclusive as far as the principle of death annuls a former covenant, and inaugurates a new. The metaphor of life being in the blood is that when blood is shed, the life that animates the body is gone. So, whether one refers to the breath of life, or the blood of life, sacrifice ends both - and sacrifice is required in order to both abrogate the former institution of Law, and regenerate one's spirit to live not abiding by the former ways. The first principle is objective, the second subjective - the Law of Faith.

 

[YoursTrue]

In reference to the question about violence, let us remember that Jesus refused Satan's offer to give him all the kingdoms of the world. Further, the Bible says many things about the passage of time and what will happen.

 

[joelr]

which part of the life being in the blood do you not understand?

First, that means nothing. The life is in the blood? You are just saying words? It's magic blood atonement and is a common mythical belief when people believed in magical thinking.
Hebrews 9 explains it well. Shedding of blood gives remission. Ancient archaic mythology. Applied to Greek Hellenism which is the origin of savior demigods bringing salvation to individuals. As well as souls going to heaven after salvation or redemption from a passion/death of a messianic figure. Greek.






For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,

20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.

and all the vessels of the ministry.

22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.




During the period of the Second Temple (c. 515 BC – 70 AD), the Hebrew people lived under the rule of first the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then the Greek kingdoms of the Diadochi, and finally the Roman Empire.[47] Their culture was profoundly influenced by those of the peoples who ruled them.[47] Consequently, their views on existence after death were profoundly shaped by the ideas of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.[48][49] The idea of the immortality of the soul is derived from Greek philosophy[49] and the idea of the resurrection of the dead is derived from Persian cosmology.[49] By the early first century AD, these two seemingly incompatible ideas were often conflated by Hebrew thinkers.[49] The Hebrews also inherited from the Persians, Greeks, and Romans the idea that the human soul originates in the divine realm and seeks to return there.[47] The idea that a human soul belongs in Heaven and that Earth is merely a temporary abode in which the soul is tested to prove its worthiness became increasingly popular during the Hellenistic period (323 – 31 BC).[40] Gradually, some Hebrews began to adopt the idea of Heaven as the eternal home of the righteous dead.[40]


Sanders, Wright, Hundley are the historical scholars this is from

 

[joelr]

Zeus doesn't create lightning, but rather that's him throwing a weapon that Hephaestus made for him.

Then about as real as Zeus throwing lightning from his weapon Hephaestus made for him.

 

[Spirit of Light]

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?

Humans are voilent. Humans chose to kill or sacrifice living beings.
Religion in it self are not voilant.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Humans are voilent. Humans chose to kill or sacrifice living beings.
Religion in it self are not voilant.

I have to object because the Bible wants me dead on account of a few "crimes" against Jehovah. It wants many and lots of us dead. Passages like thou shalt not suffer a witch to live and kill them, their blood is on their hands, these are specific commands to specifically kill. Such as the command to kill an entire city or your own brother if they go apostate.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I have to object because the Bible wants me dead on account of a few "crimes" against Jehovah. It wants many and lots of us dead. Passages like thou shalt not suffer a witch to live and kill them, their blood is on their hands, these are specific commands to specifically kill. Such as the command to kill an entire city or your own brother if they go apostate.

I will be careful here, but could those verses have been added by men who was seeking power in the times when witches was seen as evil?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I will be careful here, but could those verses have been added by men who was seeking power in the times when witches was seen as evil?

The entire thing was added, edited, inserted and omitted and deleted by men with an agenda.
And even so, it still commands its adherents to kill. Properly done "thou shalt not kill" would read "thou shalt not kill*," with the asterisk appearing many times throughout when that order was pushed aside for an order to kill.
"You will kill" are very specific words that appear in the religious texts of Abrahamic religions, including the founding doctrine of them all. "Smite her" is what those books say to do. "Stone him" is an order. "Kill them all" is not peace, but it's a commandment to slaughter an entire city if the conditions are right.
And this is just killing. There's also raping, child abuse, forced abortion, slavery (and also beating and scarring them), oppressive misogyny, and there is a lot of abusive passages towards others such as atheists, apostates and even others on the same side (Such as Jesus' Pharisees this and Sadducees that).

 

[ppp]

In reference to the question about violence, let us remember that Jesus refused Satan's offer to give him all the kingdoms of the world. Further, the Bible says many things about the passage of time and what will happen.

How is that even considered to be a legitimate example of "temptation"? According to Christianity, Jesus is God; making the whole world already his. Hell, according to Christianity the Universe and everything that exists is his. Jesus' response should have been to laugh and say, "All the kingdoms of the world already mine."

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

I will be careful here, but could those verses have been added by men who was seeking power in the times when witches was seen as evil?

I was going to (less carefully) assert the same line of questioning.

Passages like thou shalt not suffer a witch to live and kill them

It would appear that the verse in question is steeped in the sentiments of the Christian (Catholicism specifically?) priesthood prior to the Renaissance. It seems highly aggressive regarding the rights and value of women in particular.

The shallow perception that the church is insusceptible or even absent of the soothsaying (This verse is FOUND in the book of Revelations!! ) and omen interpretation (certainly none of that in the book... pfft) that the sentiment in related verses express... The list of hypocrisy here is an embarrassment of both mankind and the priesthood at the time.

It would seem that the primary purpose was to enshrine the entire female sector of the human genome as inferior and dependent on the male sector... Dastardly, and one of the primary social issues we've been finally and ever-slowly rectifying over the last 125 years or so. Susan B. Anthony and pals, ftw!

Cause women deserve just as much suffrage as the rest of us. No more suffering the suffer age before suffrage! Now we just need to convince these ladies that we NEED their votes! Not enough women express the right through practicing it! (This is anecdotal, I'm not sure if the stats resemble my experience of few women voting for even fewer policies.)

 

[Madmogwai]

Effectively, any institution is violent because humans are violent.

There are violent Buddhist groups, too.

Their are no violent Buddhist groups, their are violent people in groups but once they behave in such a way they can not proclaim to be Buddhist.
You are Buddhist only if you behave and act according to the teachings, if you call yourself Buddhist and don’t behave like one you are no longer one.
Similarly Islamic terrorists are no longer Islamic, no religion has violent groups, just violent men falsely believing they are Religious.

 

[joelr]

No, I thoroughly disagree. I will not speak for other Abrahamic faith, but in Judaism animal sacrifice is neither violent nor ultimately central. There are also non-animal sacrifices in Judaism. Judaism was the first religion to reject chattel slavery. And Jews don’t seek violence.

No it is 100% chattel slavery. First Hebrew slaves had some rights, like don't be too harsh to them and if you beat them with a rod and they don't die then that's ok. SO the conditions were not great.

Non-Hebrew slaves were full on slaves.

But even Hebrew slaves could be tricked into being permanent slaves. If the master got the slave a wife and they had children when the term in 7 years was up the wife and children were the property of the master. Unless the slave re-joined forever.

Exodus 21 2-6
2If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment. 3If he comes alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him. 4If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. 5But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,' 6then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently.


Non-Hebrew slaves
Leviticus 25:44-46 suggests how Israelites can utilize the full human resources of slaves:

44As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

There is clearly no way out for these slaves: they were truly slaves for life. And not just for the life of their owner. They were "property" and would be inherited along with the rest of their deceased owner's possessions.

Hereditary Slaves[edit]
The children of slaves were born into slavery. Exodus 21:4d

If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone.

Abduction and the slave trade
Hebrews were not allowed to abduct fellow Hebrews and sell them.

Exodus 21:16

16He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.

Given that the Hebrews were instructed in Leviticus 25:44 to obtain their slaves from the people around them, it is evident that this injunction to not abduct people referred to Hebrews and not non-Hebrews. Obtaining and selling non-Hebrews was evidently not a problem. Deuteronomy 24:7 specifies that only the abduction of Hebrews to enslave them is a crime.

So clearly non-Hebrew slaves were chattel slavery. Slaves for life, as are their children, no comments about don't be harsh or don't beat them to death. What led you to believe they rejected it?

 

[joelr]

Their are no violent Buddhist groups, their are violent people in groups but once they behave in such a way they can not proclaim to be Buddhist.
You are Buddhist only if you behave and act according to the teachings, if you call yourself Buddhist and don’t behave like one you are no longer one.
Similarly Islamic terrorists are no longer Islamic, no religion has violent groups, just violent men falsely believing they are Religious.

Really?

The Quran
Surah 2
The Cow
But they who disbelieve, and deny Our revelations, such are rightful Peoples of the Fire. They will abide therein.

Nay, but whosoever hath done evil and his sin surroundeth him; such are rightful owners of the Fire; they will abide therein.

1. Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2i:191-2
2. Allah says that you must keep fighting until there is no more persecution and everyone on earth is a Muslim. Then you can stop killing people. 2:193a
3. But if there are any wrong-doers around after you've killed off all the disbelievers, persecutors and aggressors, then you'll have to kill them too. 2:193b