Why is it that Western religions always seem to circle back to violence, whether it’s the open conquest of others in the name of God or the inner policing of thought and desire under threat of sin and hellfire? Even when they preach love, it comes packaged with domination, hierarchy, and punishment. The cross itself is not a symbol of serenity but of torture, sacrifice, and obedience to suffering. Whether it’s crusades, inquisitions, or the psychological wars of guilt and repression, the Western path seems less about liberation and more about control — over the world, over the self, over anyone who refuses to kneel. The suppression of violence becomes its mirror, because the act of suppressing is itself a kind of violence, wielded against human instinct and vitality.Meanwhile, why do the Eastern religions, despite their own flaws, still retain this undercurrent of seeking peace, of transcending struggle rather than amplifying it? Zen does not demand domination but dissolves the self into clarity and presence. Taoism flows with nature instead of crushing it. Buddhism directs attention to the root of suffering rather than projecting it onto enemies or scapegoats. Even when rituals exist, they lean toward harmony, meditation, balance. There’s a stark difference between telling people that salvation comes through surrendering to an external authority that punishes, and telling people that freedom comes through dissolving the illusions of the ego. One worldview weaponizes violence as holy, the other dissolves it into silence.
>>24772118Because so called "Western Religions" are all made by Jews and they have nothing to do with spirituality most of the time
>>24772118>transcending struggle rather than amplifying itNo real reason to do that though
It's because of conversions. Religious converts don't inherit any of the culture that moderates a religion, so they become violent scripture drones who proceed to go out and convert more people to be like them, acting essentially like a virus.Eastern religions never made the westoid mistake of thinking of religion as separate from culture, so their conversion practices actually demand work and results from converts.
>>24772118Easily explained. The west is strong and therefor seek dominion over life, while the east is weak and seek peace as a way of protecting themselves.
>>24772118You make some good points, anon. I would say it comes down to some "accidents" of history. The West accepted the Jewish religion which is full of xenophobia, ethnosupremacy and violence (read the Old Testament). Muslims to some extent, because of proximity, probably felt they had to compete with that.In the East, you did have various violent strains, in India, for example, in the form of Shaivism, which glorified violence, sex and conquest at least in the Indian Middle Ages. (Even Buddhism in this period was influenced by the same trends--and again had to compete with Shaivism)While in East Asia, Buddhism was also tempered by other kinds of philosophy like Confucianism and Legalism. And societies were sometimes very violent (think of the samurai ethos of Japan for example) whether the religions encouraged it or not. But you're right, they did not normally do violent things in the name of religion.
all preconditions for behavior are determined by inheritance. Western religions seek conquest and dominance because westerners seek conquest and dominance. you even see it with Western converts to Eastern religions, who end up being hyper dogmatist busybodies.
>>24772141>Norse Paganism is made by Jews
>>24772751Kek. I meant abrahamic religions
More of a Semitic and Aryan difference than Western and Eastern. The answer is that Semitic religion is more well-suited for passionate men. The passionate energies have to be oriented toward the Divine. The Aryan traditions by contrast generally are more concerned with concentration.
>>24772118>Schuon believed that Ṣūfism suffered from a Semitic “subjectivism,” and hence it lacked the objectivity to “consistently discern the transcendent formlessness of essential truth from religious particularism,” while holding that the “Aryan metaphysics of Vedanta and Platonism” retained this objectivity (Lipton 2018: 122). In his work Le Soufisme: voile et quintessence (1980) Schuon summarises his perspective on this issue describing Aryans (Indians, Persians, and Europeans) as “above all metaphysicians and therefore logicians,” while characterising Semites (Jews and Arabs) as “a priori mystics and moralists,” and “subjectivists” (Schuon 2006 [1980]: 21).
>>24772895>The Aryan traditions by contrast generally are more concerned with concentration.he never read the vedas
>>24772118Because one is grounded in real day-to-day century-to-century events, whilst the other is purely ideal.
>>24773098>he never read the vedasThe Vedas contain the Upanishads which densely metaphysical, furthermore, there are metaphysical passages spinkled throughout the earliar section of the Vedas that repeat the same ideas as the Upanishads.
>>24772118"The ideal kingdom is one in which every man has a sword but need not use it"-Laozi, The Tao Te Ching. Violence and justice are the two fundamental questions in regards to statecraft. Zen Buddhism rejects the contemplation and integration of violence because it rejects the material reality of worldly life, Taoism and Abrahamic religions, Hindus and even some other Buddhist sects like Tibetan Buddhism, do not. The Zen Buddhists appropriated and distorted Taoist teachings, it is an aberrant minority which is not at all indicative of any sort of overarching "Eastern Religion", you are engaging in a flaccid reductionist orientalism.
>>24772118It's not that the religions themselves encourage it, though I imagine some are more natural fits than others, with aspects like proselytizing and the condemnation of other belief. It's more to do with how effectively the religion functions as a means to control populations. Religions like christianity were adapted to be a tool for population control. In the roman empire they used it to quell religious rebellions, and naturally while they were at it they fashioned it to favor the power structure present. After the fall of the western empire it became a power base in Europe that took advantage of that power void, and while by its nature it didn't dominate overtly it still had a lot of power over kings, completely irrespective of their military might. The main reason it spread to other civilizations was partly the ultimatum of christian powers on their border, but partly that it worked to the advantage of the pagan rulers since it created a cultural structure that reinforced their power base far more than the more democratic processes that were generally in place. The population was made to convert from the top down, and the long term ramifications of the conversion did not concern the rulers or they figured better the benefits than a war with half of Europe, or constantly being raided for slaves since christianity said no slavery unless they're heathens.So to reel back in, while most religions may or may not have been formed by natural cultural processes or some more specific benevolent goal. It's something people put a lot of stock into, meaning it's an avenue for control, my guess is the abrahamic religions were a good fit for tampering, if not inherently malevolent, they were repurposed for the needs of those who stood to benefit more easily than others. So while eastern ones were not exempt from this, as others have said, I'd argue certain belief structures are fundamentally less well fitted for power games than others. And well, someone had to have the worse one, why not the west?
>>24772118It does not.Most of the deadliest wars in history occurred in China which the civilization in which religion in the western conception was traditionally the weakest. Secular managerial totalitarians killed like 120-150 million people in a century depending on how you measure it. The Eurasian steppe nomads that lacked and axial age religion and belief structure and moral values also killed like 100 million people. Primitive tribal societies are also the societies that have the highest rates of death due to war. Oftentimes 20% of a given generation would end up dying in war. It was the west that tried to establish a globalist order that prevented war, not any other society. It was the west that developed modern concepts of rules of war. The west has committed atrocities in its history but they are statistically comparable with that of other societies.
>>24772118Destroying western civilization will not bring about a utopia. People don’t control reality and you are not god.
>>24772118the east can't face facts
>>24772118I noticed that from a very young age and mostly think it's for the scarcity mindset. China and India are abundant. The west and middle East not so much
>>24773449The concept the post was trying to present is that one religion inspires more violence than the other, which is true historically.Not whether religion causes violence in and of itself. And while I doubt you could argue that it doesn't at all, I think anyone that suggests it's the source of all human conflict is speaking from a position of severe ignorance. Humans are violent, so naturally their religions are not exempt from this proclivity. It stands to reason, to me at least, that religion wouldn't be the most lethal thing we've created since it seems a very roundabout way to kill people. The most effective killing machines we've made have been systems. Especially aided by industry. Systematic killing pumps out murder no amount of human greed, wrath or any other foibles could manage.
>>24773486Though you could argue the breakdown of systems is as lethal as systems intended to kill, though that's generally a difference of opportunity.
test
>>24772863Islam isn't technically western.
>>24773448I feel like people put too much importance into the spread of Christian religion during the later Roman Empire and after the fall. It's more like there was all these pagan barbarians conquering Europe and dividing it among themselves. Then after enslaving so many peasants it became common knowledge that this desert dude had died and that there was only one true religion. So some of them were like, 'ok, if it's the only true religion then we will accept it and move on with our lives.' It didn't change anything about their barbarian ways.
>>24772724Yeah, ok. Cannibalizing an entire enemy army during a siege is just propaganda I'm sure.
>>24773512>it didn't change anything about their barbarian waysyes, to the common man the changes were largely negligible, but the larger impact of it had long term ramifications for their existence. Since it had an impact on the decisions of their rulers, which would naturally impact their lives.You can say they'd just be doing the same thing either way but there were plenty of dudes marching their way from Britain the Levant just to die in a camel raid who probably wouldn't be doing that if Christianity hadn't been present. If not for that lever of power the rulers would just use another one, but there's no underestimating the impact of Christianity during the middle ages.
>>24773526Yeahhhh BASED CHRISTIANITYYYYYY (Heil Odin) I mean Jesus
>>24773449>Stalin>An Eventwhat is this list
Buddhism is not immune to karmic consequences.
>>24773515Is this a specific incident?
>>24772118>subtly ignoring hinduism, because your argument would fall apart
