Kevin's Watch

The most recent postings in the "Sin" topic seemed to almost veer off toward a Tank gun control topic. I thought of asking Xar to split the thread, but, instead had the idea of creating a thread that dealt with violence is it pertains to spiritually and religion. Not, necessarily the "wrath and flames of the Old Testament" or the war between Karna and Arjuna, but how you see various degrees of violence and how they apply to you on the spiritual scale. And how exactly does your religion, if you belong to one, cope with or treat violence?

One discussion example is, and I'm sure Cail knows the exact name, the Pew Study where, I believe, survey results indicated that Christians tend to be more on the side of supporting torture (possibly indicating an anti-Muslim bias?). In MesoAmerican history the Aztecs are assumed to be one of the, if not the, most (Kins will probably contradict me on this) violent spiritual practitioners. I think the song, Onward Christians Soldiers, initially turned me off to church, I was like why go war, why kill in the name of god?

Despite my personal forays into Pantheism and Deism I've kind of always been a Tao/Jianist-that's probably the reason why Danlo is my favorite literary character. He attempts to go with natural flow and adheres to the doctrine of ahima: Never harming or killing a thing, even in one's thoughts. It's amazing that he can overcome conflicts this way, but he finds ways. Ahimsa is, for the most part, Jainism and even though I step on ants without knowing it and have drowned a gnat, or two, by mistake I really do try to follow the first part.

The second part's not so easy-but (you'll be happy to know) my road rage has improved I don't criticize everything everybody does all the time and it's been 8 years since I broke my windshield with my middle finger. I've been anti-war since I was born, even though I really wanted strangle Osama bin Laden at one point. Now my philosophy is don't kill those that would mess with your life and family, just put them in the hospital for a very extended stay. I'm still working on that, and I've never started a fight, but I have gotten mad and you know what the Hulk says about making him mad...

Hey, why would I contradict you? You are correct about the Aztecs and many Meso-American groups had a violent religious structure because of the extreme population and resource pressure they faced.

My view on spirituality and violence...depends on the exact violence in question...Defending people incapable (or less capable) from harm they do not deserve (some dumb redneck uses the N-word in a nightclub and has 5 large gentlemen with high amounts of melanin administering some ultra-violence...he's got it coming..for being a bigot AND for being REALLY stupid..guy with knife has little old lady at knifepoint in Kroger parking lot I am definitely getting involved) is in fact a spiritual "duty", for want of a better term, to me. Self-defense, also a good and proper thing. Whether violence is spiritually good or bad depends on the intent, the situation, the "trigger event", and the results. I've been told I should look into Asatru...except the only hearths around here are Odinic Rite, and some of their teachings are too close to racist for my tastes. I'm NOT saying they are racist, I know the Odinic Rite is NOT a supremacist group, I've read a lot of their materials. What I've read online about Asatru in general sounds pretty close to a LOT of my own beliefs....I just would like a Godhi to talk to, see if it really is right for me. Anyone got any contacts with any Asatruar?

The thing is, humans are inherently violent. At its best, "spirituality" attempts to reduce or control the tendancy, at its worst, it harnesses it for its own goals. Even religions or philosophies that today we feel are the antithesis of violence have had their moments in history. Fanatical buddhist armies rampaging across China and Japan, for example.

Violence is part of the human condition, left over from the biological fight/flight routines, and the overwhelming drive of almost all life to survive at any cost.

--A

to be able to worship God(s) as are conscience dictates, we need to be free. This freedom is always being attacked by other's need to coerce. The most common coercion is intellectual, such as debates. If someone attacks my beliefs as being crap, I feel obligated to defend my beliefs.
It's the same with physical violence, If I'm attacked, I am justified in defending myself in order to preserve my freedom to worship(or not) as I will.

Seven Words wrote:Anyone got any contacts with any Asatruar?

Not sure, but you might be able to find a local Asatru group through witchvox.com. I've too have heard the white supremacist charges against Asatru, but I'm sure that not every group is like that. At one point recently, I was slightly drawn to Freya and was like, "oh no, *please* don't make me read the Eddas!"

I think in general, Pagans are live-and-let-live: "If it harms none, do what you will." I've certainly been tempted toward physical violence a few times in my life, but it doesn't do me any good because I'm not strong enough to come out on top in a fight. And anyhow, I have observed (and have said here before, I believe) that I feel no need to take revenge against anyone because the Universe takes care of it for me. I've seen it happen and I believe it to be true: people eventually get what they deserve. (Even me. ) I've been known to capture bugs in the house and take them outside, rather than kill them -- but I'm death to cockroaches and mosquitoes.

Violence isn't just physical, to me. I've been subject to verbal and emotional abuse in the past, and so I try very hard not to inflict that sort of pain on others.

There's no specific admonition in Paganism against going to war, other than the rede that I stated above.

There's no reason spirituality must prohibit violence, since one of the roots is the question of how to be in relation to existence, and violence exists...it's part of the reptilian brain (interestingly, if I'm correct, the same sector that keeps your heart beating and your lungs breathing) Most spirituality, of course, addresses violence...when, how, what kind...and reach different answers...
OTOH, if ones 'spiritual' beliefs demand or require coercion/violence, against other people, I submit they are not spiritual in any way whatsoever. There is a line/disconnect/non sequitur between the belief and the spiritual. And an inversion of relationship: no longer 'how am I in relation to the universe?', but 'how can I force the universe to fit what I am?'
Obviously, I'm making a distinction here that many of my friends find a little strange: Spirituality is a state of being, beliefs are thoughts...they have a relationship, but neither is dependent on, or necessary for, the other.

I didn't realize I'd actually ever made a thread in The Close-I wonder if attitudes have changed at all since '09?

a Jainist! Very cool. Never thought I'd meet one... Jainist don't wear clothes either, right?

Well, I'm very interested in Aikido and Tai Chi, which like many martial arts, are very spiritual in their philosophy. The idea, especially in Tai Chi, is that while in the heat of combat, you should be in a meditative state. This prevents excessive force due to passion, as you will only execute the techniques absolutely necessary for defeating your opponent. Aikido is similar, as it contains no strikes or blows. You can only react to the actions of your opponent, so any injury done to them will be the direct result of their actions. The more violence they put into attacking you, the more violence will be redirected at them. Sort of like the Oath of Peace . Bear in mind this is in mortal combat scenarios, not in sparring or contests, where no injury shoould happen at all.

Of course, the pacifist option is to not defend yourself at all. We read a Buddhist text in class which decreed the Buddhist should allow thieves to cut his limbs off with saws rather than lift a finger against them. But in my mind, this puts the robbers in a position of superiority over the robbed. Certainly it would be wrong, if attacked by robbers, to beat them all to death. But I also think it's wrong to allow them to harm you.

I'd go naked if I could get away with it...I'm a pacifist until you mess with me-it's sort of like stepping in a wasp nest, which of course a Janist would never do-I've since upgraded to Taoism (I'm still a closet Deist (if you listen to Todd Rundgren's No World Order you'll know from whence I come) but, for some reason it's less politically acceptable, not that I care ).

you live so close to the Jemez hot springs, take advantage! Good times!

For those of you unfamiliar with LZ's reference to Jemez Springs (pointed out to Elohimfesters on our way to Valles Caldera AKA Andelian) it's the #1 public skinny-dipping locale in New Mexico. My only experience with the place was during a night trip in '74 when we all drove up from college partying our asses off. I'm pretty sure I was slamming Wild Turkey and on some kind of cheap mushroom-unfortunately it was in early April and no hot naked babes could be found, not too much fun diving in with three naked guys, but the water was very healing. I guess there's a natural shower down the cliff aways and the first time it was pointed out to me was because crazy Tom popped open his eyes and swore he saw Mescalito standing in it. The three of us promptly dunked his head underwater for 30 seconds after that. The only other thing I remember was coming to with about 2 inches of snow on our clothes and shivering my ass off all the way back to Albuquerque.

This thread has somewhat strayed from my original goal to one somewhat addressing non-violence and pacifism (which reminds me of an old long debate with my pacifist friend Eli so contradicted my non-violent beliefs I wanted to punch him in the face -yes he was one of those type who would lie in front of a Tank...) I sorta wanted to explore protectionist dogma in various religions that creates vendetta, violence and Holy War to some degree (Jihad and The Crusades, for example...even the Inquisition [you can see what's coming after this post ends...]) but now it seems this topic will free-range where it will. Ah me...

I also elected to revive my one and only thread in The Close because it seemed the least likely thread rus would ever post in. In this analysis of Locke the critic has this to say on the matter:

If the doctrine of reincarnation allows the soul of a man to be reborn in the body of an animal, such as a hog, if we knew that the soul of a man was in one of our hogs, it would require us to call the hog a man. Locke pairs the examples of a rational talking parrot-OK now we're venturing a little too closely into this realm.

danlo wrote:I'd go naked if I could get away with it...I'm a pacifist until you mess with me-it's sort of like stepping in a wasp nest, which of course a Janist would never do-I've since upgraded to Taoism (I'm still a closet Deist (if you listen to Todd Rundgren's No World Order you'll know from whence I come) but, for some reason it's less politically acceptable, not that I care ).

Ooooh, don't start with me on Taoism! Has Highdrake ever mentioned Taoism???

Aside from loving it on its own, Taoism is at the center of many religious systems. Or at least it's in the mix. Even Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount.
Matthew 6: 25-30
Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor about your body, what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And which of you by being anxious can add one cubit to his span of life? And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin; yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O men of little faith?

Danlo wrote:I also elected to revive my one and only thread in The Close because it seemed the least likely thread rus would ever post in.

Well, shoot, this looks like an invitation to post if I ever saw one...

My two cents is that spirituality can be good or evil. Satan worship is just as spiritual as worship of Christ, and killing cats in the name of that is just as spiritual as the Eucharist of bread and wine. So there is no special virtue in saying that one is "spiritual".

That said, we can see how evil spirituality differs from good spirituality. he question then really is, are there acts of violence and force which are justifiable for those of us who still cling to a desire to be good? (ie, we care whether the spirituality is good or evil)

I hope you won't blame me for trying to share some of the things that have opened my eyes over the years, and one of them was this thought:

It is foolish, generally speaking, for a philosopher to set fire to another philosopher in Smithfield Market because they do not agree in their theory of the universe. That was done very frequently in the last decadence of the Middle Ages, and it failed altogether in its object. But there is one thing that is infinitely more absurd and unpractical than burning a man for his philosophy. This is the habit of saying that his philosophy does not matter, and this is done universally in the twentieth century, in the decadence of the great revolutionary period.

There is an entire context around this thought, of course. www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/heretics/ch1.html
The idea that it strikes at is the idea in theory that one must not insist on one's truth to the point of taking action on it, which may involve force of some kind. In practice we DO insist on something, and perhaps even on that idea, and try to enact it politically. Much of the practical aim of pluralism is to squash the idea that differences matter enough to insist on or exclude one or the other from public life. (I think there is a flaw, much like in Kasreyn's works, in that policy - a hypocrisy that one may exclude diversity when it comes to traditional Christian thought, but that's a digression from this thread)

So can force or violence ever be justified from a good spiritual point of view? (I happen to think any such view solidly connected, whether the connection is realized or not, with the origin for our desire for goodness - which comes from a definite Author/Source of goodness.)
My answer is a guarded 'yes'.

In the Orthodox Tradition, one may support certain kinds of lawful violence, such as capital punishment, defending the helpless from a murderer or a just war, although they are never to be desired and always seen as a last resort; furthermore, a priest, as an example of the greater standard we are to aspire to, may NOT kill under any circumstances and remain a functioning priest, underlining just how grave an act it is to kill others. So the justifications spring from living in a society among others, and are not the ideal for the individual, such as Fist's posting of Christ's teaching. In reference to ourselves and that ideal, we ARE to have greater faith in God, and most of us Christians fail in this calling - the ones that don't are generally called "saints". And that Taoism includes that is just evidence for me of the great truths in the pagan world that Christianity overarches - the truths that wise men found even without special revelation.

So there. I've posted in this thread.

Going back to the Jemez Hot Springs for a second here, seriously, it is a very sacred place, albeit shamelessly exploited but crazy college kids, hippies and various other knuckleheads. I'm sure Fist felt part of that when he climbed Soda Dam barefoot (on the way the the Caldera) which is fed and shaped by the Hot Springs. All these places I've mentioned, especially the Caldera are viewed as extremely sacred by a multitude of various Native American pueblos and tribes. The Jemez, Zia, Zuni, San Felipe and Sandia are just some of the many communities that were drawn to the area. Indeed many faiths, not just New Agers, UFO Cults and hippies have been historically drawn to New Mexico as an acknowledged 'Spiritual Center'. Even, as weird or as obvious as it sound, many devoted peace advocates target Los Alamos (located very close to the Caldera BTW), the birth place of the atomic bomb, as a starting 'nexus' to spread true peace throughout the world. You can even feel some of the natural spiritually of the state flowing through Donaldson into his writing.

Coming from New Jersey originally, the first time I laid eyes on New Mexico I thought I was walking on the Moon-huge solid faced mountians, volcanos, buttes, mesas, deserts, etc...You can see you miles everywhere you go with cerulean blue skies and incredible sunsets. With all this it would seem impossible to stay inside, though it's mindboggling how many do..., you're almost forced to venture outside, on a continual basis and respect the land. Once exposed it is God's, if you so believe, cathedral and there are more than enough individual paths to take. Is that particular path the Tao? Is the path the Tao? I don't know, what exactly is the Tao, 'The Way' yes-but how so? Simply streaming with the natural flow, buffeted by cause and effect, Yin and Yang?

I see that we have been blessed to have been visited by rus who will probably ask, "What use are these individual paths if, as Chesterton says, the individual is always wrong."

Yes I do want Highdrake's views on the Tao-but need to get back to something hardcore as well before this starts to sound like my old Gen. Disc. thread "The Inner Garden."

danlo wrote:as Chesterton says, the individual is always wrong."

1) Chesterson says that the individual is always wrong.
2) Chesterson is an individual.
3) Therefore, Chesterson is wrong.

The Way simply is. It cannot be described any more succinctly than that.

I thought so! Very good! The thread is now closed.























joking!

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:

danlo wrote:as Chesterton says, the individual is always wrong."

1) Chesterson says that the individual is always wrong.
2) Chesterson is an individual.
3) Therefore, Chesterson is wrong.

The Way simply is. It cannot be described any more succinctly than that.

I think/hope that some here, maybe Fist or Ali or Vraith, have a clearer idea of what my sub-title means - without context it IS easily misinterpreted. I could hope that people who have interacted with me long enough know that (right or wrong) my own context is deeper than a quick surface interpretation of a text. I'm nearly (but not completely) sure that Fist really does. And Vraith also surprised me in a nice way.

The meaning, as plainly as I can express it for you, is that the individual, acting on his own authority in determining answers to the meaning of life, the universe, and everything - setting himself as the ultimate arbiter of truth - is basically always wrong. It is the submission to something higher than our grossly limited selves that enables us to attain true answers to those questions. Chesterton submitted first to the Anglican, then ultimately to the Roman Catholic Church, and so did not hold himself as the ultimate arbiter. I submit to the Orthodox Church, and so hold that Chesterton was wrong - however, he (and the Catholic Church) is mostly right. It's a pity that you take the position that because I admire him, he ought to be disdained. It really is like disdaining Shakespeare because an ideological foe of yours admires him.

Do you disagree with the quoted statement? if so, why? Would you be interested in the context that leads up to and explains it? If not, why not?

rus wrote:It's a pity that you take the position that because I admire him, he ought to be disdained.

It's humor man no one's disdaining him...maybe

rus wrote:Do you disagree with the quoted statement? if so, why? Would you be interested in the context that leads up to and explains it? If not, why not?

interesting idea for another thread...