Social Question

JeanPaulSartre's avatar

Do you think the concept of a "Warrior monk" is hypocritical?

Asked by JeanPaulSartre (5779points) March 18th, 2010

I know this is generally a reference to the Teutonic Knights or the Knights Templar, but just as a concept physical fighting for a non-violent lord, or devoting your life to said non-violent lord, but then doing great violence… does this make any sense to you?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

17 Answers

mrentropy's avatar

Which non-violent lord are you speaking of?

galileogirl's avatar

Of course it is in your example but religious war is never really about the religion, it is about the power. That isn’t to say that the individual doesn’t go into it with a misguided belief that he is serving God but the group becomes so powerful (and rich) that the culture becomes corrupt or threatening to other groups and then must be destroyed.

I like the idea of the Asian “warrior monk” who is supposed to be protecting the people or his brothers from tyranny.

JeanPaulSartre's avatar

@mrentropy That Jesus character.

mrentropy's avatar

They aren’t fighting for Jesus, per se, they’re fighting for God. And the Jewish/Muslim/Christian god is not a peaceful one.

But, sometimes, violence is the only answer, like as @galileogirl says, when it comes to protecting your fellow man.

CMaz's avatar

We are all “Warrior monks”. We do not wish or plan harm one another.
But, cause harm to me and my family. Deny me the right to live peacefully and you will see the wrath of god come down on you.

galileogirl's avatar

@ChazMaz Speak for yourself. No vows of poverty, chastity or obedience for me, thak you!

CyanoticWasp's avatar

Not all of the Bible is pacifism, of course. And other religions also have monks (but when you mentioned Teutonic Knights and Knights Templar, you’re not referring to other religions than Christianity, of course).

JeanPaulSartre's avatar

@mrentropy But he is in the New Testament that the Christians supposedly follow. Old Testament god is almost schizophrenically angry.

JeanPaulSartre's avatar

@CyanoticWasp Right – there are other warrior monks – but even those are somewhat hypocritical, no? I don’t think killing for any reason fits into most religions… killing is usually a big no no. It’s not “Thou shalt not kill… oh unless someone is killing your family..” I’m not saying it’s my path, certainly, but it’s kinda hypocritical in concept.

CyanoticWasp's avatar

@JeanPaulSartre I think the aspect of most religions that “we believe in a just and merciful god” ... “who is going to send you to hell for eternity (and wants us to punch your ticket today) if you don’t believe” pretty much sets the bar on the ground, for starters.

Berserker's avatar

I suppose if one convinces themselves that their actions are justified beyond what everyone else does, it’s easy to call yourself what you will.

ChaosCross's avatar

It only contradicts if said monk goes against his or her religious laws, but if we are talking specifically about a christian monk than the laws of violence are actually quite simple, don’t murder and don’t be cruel when you kill. Other than that they are perfectly free to use their fists for the right reason.

mattbrowne's avatar

Yes, it’s hypocritical. Violence might have to be used as a last resort under unusual circumstances, but it’s soldiers or the police protecting the monks, not the monks or crusaders “protecting” the rest of the world.

@mrentropy – Jesus was a radical critic of the religion of his day. Jesus promoted an ever-reforming faith to become reasonable, meaningful, hopeful, inspiring, and peaceful. He did not promote an angry god. Yes, there exist pathologies in religion that are extremely dangerous. But we should not equate religion with its irrational aberrations. Keep in mind, faith-rooted rationality helped give birth to modern science (Galileo, Kepler Newton etc).

mrentropy's avatar

@JeanPaulSartre and @mattbrowne – duly noted. However, it still remains the same that Jesus is not God. And while God became a whole lot nicer after Jesus was born He still has His sore points, I’m sure.

One of the thing that still confuses me about the Christian groups is that Jesus is mentioned much more frequently than God is.

mattbrowne's avatar

@mrentropy – Well, Jesus assumed human flesh. People were able to listen to him directly.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther