Abstract

Religious violence is the most important reason? I think once deliberately instead of "enlightenment" perspective to explore the relationship between religion and violence, ritual sexual violence is used to control pervasive violence as a human, rather than root causes of violence. The image of God includes the ancient sacred violence, intended to curb violence, dirty and unfair; by rituals and taboos of the proper norms of violence, is to protect against uncontrolled violence. The nature of ancient religious fanaticism is the scapegoat mechanism. Scapegoat is just a surface thing, for us to throw all the pervasive violence, so is "terrible and charming of the mysterious" nature. But: Why do we see God in the Bible that violence image? For Girard, in the Hebrew Bible, the problem of violence in the cumulative is neither a coincidence nor a sign of religious orientation to violence. He will encounter many understood as a rebound in the hard process, in this case process, revealed a pervasive fraud to compete based on the strategy of violence, in the context of the concept of God under the distortion of the issue of violence is impossible to address violence problems. Violence can not be God's attributes. This is not the expression of human nature is not capable of violence. Therefore, the modern "from God" Nature does not solve the problem, but only shift the problem to the human level. This is where we can see the "drama of Jesus. Is religion the most important cause of violence? In a conscious departure from the "enlightenment" approaches to the relationship between religion and violence I'd rather say, the ritualistic religious violence is mean of controlling diffuse human violence rather than as its source. The archaic images of God comprise sacralized violence in order to contain unclean and illegitimate violence; the legitimate violence regulated by rites and taboos is to be a bulwark against uncontrolled violence. The essence of archaic religiosity is the scapegoat mechanism. The scapegoat is nothing but a surface for projecting all the diffuse violence and thus the essence of the mysterium tremendum et fascinosum. But: why we can find such violent images of God in the Bible? For René Girard, the accumulation of the problem of violence in the Scriptures of the Hebrew bible is neither coincidental nor is it a sign for the tendency of the religious to breed violence. He rather understands it as a painstaking process, marked by many backlashes, in the course of which a strategy to cope with diffuse violence that is based on deception is being unmasked. The falsification of the question of violence in the context of the concept of God, however, does by no means solve the question of violence. The fact that violence cannot be an attribute of God says nothing about human ability to behave non-violently. Thus the modern "doing away with God" naturally does not solve the problem but rather shifts it even more to the human plane. That is exactly the place, where we can find the "drama of Jesus"