Ahisma

AMCrenshaw · May 12, 2009

Ahimsa

Nonviolent Justice, Turn-the-Other-Cheek, Compassion, Loving-kindness, Civil Disobedience, etc.--

found in many of the world's religions and moral philosophies, I begin to wonder:

Do these practices fit into your spirituality? Why are they important? Are they practical? Are they humanist? Do you feel that these are unnatural concepts-- i.e., anti-human "nature" but in favor of human nurture? Are they supported by, contrary to, absent from your religion's sacred texts, doctrines, or beliefs?

For my own spirituality, I consider these the central practices and perhaps surprisingly down-to-earth and concerned with our relationships with other sentient beings.

AMC

Cyia · May 12, 2009

Turn-the-other-cheek isn't just about non-violence (in the Christian sense of it). It's about not acting as your own protector or vindicator and allowing God to fill that role for you. That doesn't mean he's going to "smite" anyone on your behalf (see: Jonah and Nineveh), but it means you're willing to defer to God's justice rather than the instant gratification - and possible jail time - that comes with striking back on your own. Nor should you expect to be struck on that other cheek, as the act of offering it is meant to give the other party pause by responding to hate with love.

It also goes hand in hand with the "if you're compelled to go one mile, go two" and "if he takes your coat, offer him your shirt, too". Don't be like every other person the other party has ever met. Treat them with compassion because the loss of a physical possession is nothing compared to helping that other person regain their humanity.

Zara Ravenwood · May 12, 2009

I think there is a balance- Loving Kindness is a Mitvot (a holy Commandant) but so is Justice. And some times a Killer needs to die. Just make sure its the right guy first. That being said the Sages of the Talmudic era considered any court that ordered an execution even once in 60 years to be "blood thirsty" and generally tried to limit executions. On the other hand they didn't have modern Forensics. (this is Ironic beocsue I have a 1st Temple Murder Mystery suiose I keep meaning to write- and the laws about what constatiets as Cort evince make it a bit hard-being seen stading over a body with knife in hand for example is not admissible- becosue you might have just walked on to the seen and picked it in in bafflement or horror.) Well that's 1 take from one Jew- I can't speak for anyone else.

AMCrenshaw · May 12, 2009

Cyia said:
Turn-the-other-cheek isn't just about non-violence (in the Christian sense of it). It's about not acting as your own protector or vindicator and allowing God to fill that role for you. That doesn't mean he's going to "smite" anyone on your behalf (see: Jonah and Nineveh), but it means you're willing to defer to God's justice rather than the instant gratification - and possible jail time - that comes with striking back on your own. Nor should you expect to be struck on that other cheek, as the act of offering it is meant to give the other party pause by responding to hate with love.

Which is nonviolence, in the Christian sense of the word as I understand it. But God's justice is healing, not harm; restoration, not retribution.

I would add that I doubt Jesus of Nazareth was too concerned about jail time, especially if his life and work set either a precedent or a goal.

It also goes hand in hand with the "if you're compelled to go one mile, go two" and "if he takes your coat, offer him your shirt, too". Don't be like every other person the other party has ever met. Treat them with compassion because the loss of a physical possession is nothing compared to helping that other person regain their humanity.

I always thought of this interesting section as a way to produce conscience in one's enemy. Gandhi used it against the British Empire, of course-- he used terms that the Christian British soldiers would understand. Biblical ones. By taxing people with no money, by harming people who were defenseless, it shamed the British. I think that's important to remember if we are also to draw comparisons to Jesus and Rome.

amc

AMCrenshaw · May 12, 2009

I think there is a balance- Loving Kindness is a Mitvot (a holy Commandant) but so is Justice. And some times a Killer needs to die. Just make sure its the right guy first. That being said the Sages of the Talmudic era considered any court that ordered an execution even once in 60 years to be "blood thirsty" and generally tried to limit executions. On the other hand they didn't have modern Forensics. (this is Ironic beocsue I have a 1st Temple Murder Mystery suiose I keep meaning to write- and the laws about what constatiets as Cort evince make it a bit hard-being seen stading over a body with knife in hand for example is not admissible- becosue you might have just walked on to the seen and picked it in in bafflement or horror.) Well that's 1 take from one Jew- I can't speak for anyone else.

I do have a question, though. You wrote that "some times a Killer must die" -- does this run counter to the Talmudic 6th commandment (thou shalt not kill/murder)-- that is, is there a circumstance in which killing is OK so long as the one being killed is a killer? Also, is that a statement of how we should act or how the universe operates (you know, something like karma)?

Also, for me, justice and loving-kindness are in no way disconnected.

amc

Cyia · May 12, 2009

AMCrenshaw said:
Which is nonviolence, in the Christian sense of the word as I understand it. But God's justice is healing, not harm; restoration, not retribution.

I would add that I doubt Jesus of Nazareth was too concerned about jail time, especially if his life and work set either a precedent or a goal.

Right, which is why Jonah got so bent out of shape over Ninevah. He wanted to see the whole city trampled (I can never remember if it's "smited", "smote" or "smitten") and got upset when it wasn't.

And no, Jesus wasn't concerned with jail time. I meant that more in a modern sense where someone can be jailed for getting into a physical altercation even when provoked. "Turning the other cheek" and not taking that swing will keep a modern man/woman from an assault charge.

I always thought of this interesting section as a way to produce conscience in one's enemy. Gandhi used it against the British Empire, of course-- he used terms that the Christian British soldiers would understand. Biblical ones. By taxing people with no money, by harming people who were defenseless, it shamed the British. I think that's important to remember if we are also to draw comparisons to Jesus and Rome.

amc

That's the heart of it. If you don't respond in kind, then it throws the opposing side off their game. A bully expects someone to either run away or strike back, not stand there, face him and refuse to hit back. It can be an effective means of not only shaming the opposing side, but making them think.

Which is why I hate seeing reports on the news about violence "in God's name" from groups who think they get brownie points with the man upstairs for inflicting the most damage.

Cyia · May 12, 2009

AMCrenshaw said:
I do have a question, though. You wrote that "some times a Killer must die" -- does this run counter to the Talmudic 6th commandment (thou shalt not kill/murder)-- that is, is there a circumstance in which killing is OK so long as the one being killed is a killer? Also, is that a statement of how we should act or how the universe operates (you know, something like karma)?

Also, for me, justice and loving-kindness are in no way disconnected.

amc

Murder isn't the same as legal execution. The 6th commandment forbids unlawful death, it doesn't mean things like death in battle or killing to protect one's family from an intruder.

(and there is a sort of Biblical karma if you want to think of it in those terms - reaping what you sow)

AMCrenshaw · May 12, 2009

And no, Jesus wasn't concerned with jail time. I meant that more in a modern sense where someone can be jailed for getting into a physical altercation even when provoked. "Turning the other cheek" and not taking that swing will keep a modern man/woman from an assault charge.

Ah, gotcha. It's true, of course.

But unfortunately (?) I think if we followed a lot of what Jesus had done, we'd end up in jail as well.

amc

Zara Ravenwood · May 12, 2009

I'm not a linguistic - but from what I've been told from those more flewint then I in Hebrew, the text says "thou shall not *murder*" (empathizes clearly mine.) Killing and murder aren't nessarly the same thing. One can Kill another person if they have to to save a life for example- a solder that fallows the laws of war is not comiting muder in war (though he would be if he were to brake them.)
To answer your next question- keeping in mind that Im no schoolr and may havbe this wong- According to our belives, G'd provides justice in the very end- but as humans it is our duty establish a fair Justic systme, love one another and procetet others- and our sleves. These are Reluisue reqiments as much as anything elce. We call it Takolam- healign the world (That phaese also aplise to recycling,Chairty, Socil Change, helping little old lady cross the street and any other aspcet of human to human or human to world interaction).

AMCrenshaw · May 12, 2009

Murder isn't the same as legal execution. The 6th commandment forbids unlawful death, it doesn't mean things like death in battle or killing to protect one's family from an intruder.

I'm not sure that is a Jewish interpretation, but thank you for the Christian one (I'm not assuming too much, am I?). I think the distinction between murder and killing is a Christian one, but I don't know that for a certainty. Be glad to get some response on that, btw.

But keeping with the Christian interpretation, I wonder what Jesus thought about going to war (and dying in battle), considering what he did before political power-- or killing to protect one's family, considering what he said and did before personal confrontation.

AMC

AMCrenshaw · May 12, 2009

I'm not a linguistic - but from what I've been told from those more flewint then I in Hebrew, the text says "thou shall not *murder*" (empathizes clearly mine.) Killing and murder aren't nessarly the same thing. One can Kill another person if they have to to save a life for example- a solder that fallows the laws of war is not comiting muder in war (though he would be if he were to brake them.)
To answer your next question- keeping in mind that Im no schoolr and may havbe this wong- According to our belives, G'd provides justice in the very end- but as humans it is our duty establish a fair Justic systme, love one another and procetet others- and our sleves. These are Reluisue reqiments as much as anything elce. We call it Takolam- healign the world (That phaese also aplise to recycling,Chairty, Socil Change, helping little old lady cross the street and any other aspcet of human to human or human to world interaction).

Thank you for sharing your understanding. Illuminating.

AMC

Cyia · May 12, 2009

It's definitely "murder" rather than kill. If you use a translation like the "Amplified Bible" which translates directly from the source material (Hebrew) and gives parenthetical expansion of every word and all of its possible meanings (as Hebrew is far more precise than English) you can get the literal meanings of the texts. The 6th commandment doesn't even have multiple meanings for the word used. It's simply "Do not commit murder".

AMCrenshaw · May 12, 2009

I have no background in translating the languages of the Bible-- so this is all very helpful.

What strikes me as most interesting is that Jesus was a Jew (probably a Pharisee) and yet he did not kill any human beings at all even though many were who could be seen as "deserving it" because they were murderers. The intervention of Jesus-as-God interests me because the intervention did not include violent 'justice'-- but just the opposite.

amc

Cyia · May 12, 2009

AMCrenshaw said:
I have no background in translating the languages of the Bible-- so this is all very helpful.

What strikes me as most interesting is that Jesus was a Jew (probably a Pharisee) and yet he did not kill any human beings at all even though many were who could be seen as "deserving it" because they were murderers. The intervention of Jesus-as-God interests me because the intervention did not include violent 'justice'-- but just the opposite.

amc

An eye for an eye was man's law, which is why Jesus pointed that out specifically.

If you'll excuse a bit of doctrine...

When people get into the business of avenging themselves, they usurp God's authority in their lives. They not only take God's sovereignty away from Him, but they inflict damage on another of God's creations.

Pain/maiming/revenge/retribution in the human sense of "payback" isn't God's idea of justice. God's justice is to judge the action, not the person carrying it out, while people focus on the person rather than the action. That judgment (Biblically, on God's part) was carried out before the creation of man so it was never applied to man. And God doesn't want the punishment for any forbidden action to fall on any of his creations, which is why he'd rather have them repent of them.

Zara Ravenwood · May 12, 2009

Just as a side note Eye for an Eye dose did not have the same connotation it dose now, back then it meant "You poked it my eye- but I can't kill your whole family for it.." It was an issue of measure for measure- so people did not go over board. More over by the 2ed temple period it was enforced by monetarily restoration not vilance.

And AmCrenchaw- your most welcom. Also I'm new to this bourd so If I steep out of line someplese let me know...

AMCrenshaw · May 12, 2009

An eye for an eye was man's law, which is why Jesus pointed that out specifically.

If you'll excuse a bit of doctrine...

When people get into the business of avenging themselves, they usurp God's authority in their lives. They not only take God's sovereignty away from Him, but they inflict damage on another of God's creations.

Pain/maiming/revenge/retribution in the human sense of "payback" isn't God's idea of justice. God's justice is to judge the action, not the person carrying it out, while people focus on the person rather than the action. That judgment (Biblically, on God's part) was carried out before the creation of man so it was never applied to man. And God doesn't want the punishment for any forbidden action to fall on any of his creations, which is why he'd rather have them repent of them.

No need for excuse, sharing "doctrine" is what it's all about. So keep sharing...

Is there a humanist side? Can humans carry out justice? Is it ever God's will (rather than in God's name)? Also, does human justice always mean "avenging themselves?" Is there a Christ-like form of justice which is not punitive or vengeful and which can take place on earth, now?

AMC

Cyia · May 12, 2009

AMCrenshaw said:
No need for excuse, sharing "doctrine" is what it's all about. So keep sharing...

Is there a humanist side? Can humans carry out justice? Is it ever God's will (rather than in God's name)? Also, does human justice always mean "avenging themselves?" Is there a Christ-like form of justice which is not punitive or vengeful and which can take place on earth, now?

AMC

(keep in mind that all Christian denominations don't hold the same beliefs on all points. I'm pretty much non-denominational, so you may get differing answers from Christians as a collective)

Anyone can do the will of God, whether they believe in God or not.

Hateful acts aren't ever the will of God, so when you hear about someone beating or killing someone in the Name of God - that's not his will. There's only one time I can remember the word "hate" being used in conjunction with God in the King James Bible - it's in reference to Esau - and the actual translation is something closer to "God loved Isaac, but was diametrically opposed to the actions of Esau"

Human justice seeks to make reparation for a suffered wrong or to grant vengeance for a suffered wrong. Again, they punish the person rather than the transgression. God's justice spares the person and condemns the action by allowing them to repent of (turn away from) it. Reparation still has to be made because the victim was harmed in some way, and that's how the legal system works. God's justice doesn't spare a man from legal justice. You're still liable for your own actions under the law, but God doesn't acknowledge the sin of a repentant heart and in an ideal world, neither would people.

Unfortunately, this isn't a perfect world. People make mistakes on both sides of the law. God knows who'd commit the same transgression again, people don't, so they have to do the best with what they've got.

Ruv Draba · May 12, 2009

I believe that you're talking about ahimsa, AMC -- literally meaning 'do no harm'.

My personal philosophy (a mixture of rational materialism and transpersonalism) recognises harm-doing as an outcome of conflict, fear and ignorance. I see harm-doing as only avoidable when conflict, fear and ignorance are avoidable too. The better we can manage conflict, fear and ignorance the better we can limit the opportunities and extents of harm-doing. There's a lot that we can do personally, interpersonally and transpersonally on this front -- far more than most people realise. But even so, harm-avoidance is limited in effect.

So, supposing that we're in a situation of imminent harm. We have to decide what to do in that moment. As a rational materialist I don't generally support passivity or 'turn the other' cheek approaches in the face of imminent harm; I find them to be empty symbolic gestures more often than not. They not only fail to prevent imminent harm on many occasions; they frequently disempower you from healing existing harm and preventing future harm. (Examples on request).

I support investing in action that minimises immediate harm and the future prospect of harm, while keeping options open for doing good in the future. My biggest inspiration here is in the taoist thought underpinning disciplines like Ai ki do: spend the least effort to disarm the situation; look after the common interests and not just one's own; make a mess if you must, but no more than you must. Make reasonable endeavour to clean your mess up afterward, and be responsible and accountable for your actions.

While I prefer a peaceful and harmonious life, I don't much balk at scaring people, provoking them to anger, tripping them over, beating them up and other un-Ahimsic deeds if I feel that it will somehow prevent imminent harm. I also feel that I should be bothered every time I do such stuff -- and indeed I am. How do I know that such deeds are right and good or rightest and best? I don't. I can only make the call and then be responsible for it afterward. But equally I don't believe that passivity, cheek-turning and disobedience does much more than symbolic good much of the time.

Symbolic gestures can sometimes be powerful and effective, but a lot of the time I don't believe that they're what's needed.

Cyia · May 12, 2009

Ruv Draba said:
So, supposing that we're in a situation of imminent harm. We have to decide what to do in that moment.

Which is why there's a distinction between "kill" and "murder".

AMCrenshaw · May 12, 2009

ETA: I'm referring to Ahimsa the way Gandhi did. Here is another link ... And another smattering of quotes.

So, supposing that we're in a situation of imminent harm. We have to decide what to do in that moment. As a rational materialist I don't generally support passivity or 'turn the other' cheek approaches in the face of imminent harm; I find them to be empty symbolic gestures more often than not. They not only fail to prevent imminent harm on many occasions; they frequently disempower you from healing existing harm and preventing future harm.

I disagree that they are empty symbolic gestures. But for me, they're not passive ones either (I don't equate pacifism with passivity). Really, they teach me something, symbolically (necessarily so, because they're communicated through symbolism) that I can take into my life actively.

I support investing in action that minimises immediate harm and the future prospect of harm.

That's part of modern ahimsa, as I understand it. "Doing no harm" would be the ultimate goal or the perfected concept-- but ahimsa as a human (not divine) practice is exactly this.

AMC

AMCrenshaw · May 12, 2009

But equally I don't believe that passivity, cheek-turning and disobedience does much more than symbolic good much of the time.

Would you say that in Martin Luther King, Jr's case?

AMC

Cyia · May 12, 2009

AMCrenshaw said:
Would you say that in Martin Luther King, Jr's case?

AMC

Or even Martin Luther. Nailing that notice to the doors was definitely a symbolic gesture, but it was also an act of non-aggression. He knew showcasing "the church's" transgressions would sit well, but he did it anyway because he believed that the entity which was supposed to be representative of God no longer represented God's will.

AMCrenshaw · May 12, 2009

Or even Martin Luther. Nailing that notice to the doors was definitely a symbolic gesture, but it was also an act of non-aggression. He knew showcasing "the church's" transgressions would sit well, but he did it anyway because he believed that the entity which was supposed to be representative of God no longer represented God's will.

Would not sit well, right. I referred to MLK because there are quantifiable results attached to his action-- namely that of civil rights movements in the U.S.

AMC

Cyia · May 12, 2009

AMCrenshaw said:
Would not sit well, right. I referred to MLK because there are quantifiable results attached to his action-- namely that of civil rights movements in the U.S.

AMC

I know, but I thought the other Martin could use some love.

(And his action had quantifiable results as well. Beyond the creation of the Protestant movement, people started reading the texts themselves and found out that some of the things they were told - like indulgences - weren't actually in there. It's an interesting phenomena, as one of the original instructions of the old testament was that all should be literate so they could read the law themselves and not be in a position where they had to let someone else tell them what to believe.)

AMCrenshaw · May 12, 2009

(And his action had quantifiable results as well. Beyond the creation of the Protestant movement, people started reading the texts themselves and found out that some of the things they were told - like indulgences - weren't actually in there. It's an interesting phenomena, as one of the original instructions of the old testament was that all should be literate so they could read the law themselves and not be in a position where they had to let someone else tell them what to believe.)

True true. Especially the early Protestant movement had a long stretch of nonviolent practice. And french Protestant Jacques Ellul imo continued that particular tradition in the 20th century.

AMC

Ahisma

...

Rewriting My Destiny

...

...

Rewriting My Destiny

Rewriting My Destiny

...

...

...

Rewriting My Destiny

...

Rewriting My Destiny

...

Rewriting My Destiny

Rewriting My Destiny

...

...

Rewriting My Destiny

...

Rewriting My Destiny

...