What do you consider the most PEACEFUL religion?

[Tathagata]

I take it you're not familiar with Sri Lanka.

It can't be considered Buddhist violence if scripture is not used to justify it. If Buddhist doctrine had nothing to do with the violence, it's secular violence.

So again, find me one violent passage from Buddhist scripture and then maybe you can claim that the violence in Sri Lanka had to do with Buddhism. Just because Stalin and Mao happen to be Atheists, doesn't mean Atheism had anything to do with the violence they committed.


.

 

[Metempsychosis]

I chose Christianity..

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It can't be considered Buddhist violence if scripture is not used to justify it. If Buddhist doctrine had nothing to do with the violence, it's secular violence.

That's certainly one valid perspective. I find that the practicioners of a religion are more relevant in defining the religion than the teachings themselves - particularly, when teachings can have so many interpretations and contexts.

I tend to look at religion as something defined by the actions of adherents to it. It's not up to me to define their religion for them. Another valid perspective.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Is peaceful here defined by a simple lack of violence? Or does it also include the will to compromise? Conflict resolution skills? Tolerance in diversity?

 

[Tathagata]

That's certainly one valid perspective. I find that the practicioners of a religion are more relevant in defining the religion than the teachings themselves

I find that absurd. That means the Holocaust is now a defining attribute of paganism, the suicide bombings are a defining attribute of Islam, and the atrocities of Mao are a defining attribute of Atheism.

- particularly, when teachings can have so many interpretations and contexts.

True, but Buddhist scripture has no passages that can be interpreted violently.

I tend to look at religion as something defined by the actions of adherents to it.

The core tenet of Jainism is ahimsa or non-violence, yet if a bunch of people who happened to be Jains committed mass murder, you would say that defines Jainism? Even if you went with the interpretation excuse, you can't interpret non-violence to mean violence. Which is my point regarding Buddhism as there is not one single passage that can even be interpreted violent.

It's not up to me to define their religion for them. Another valid perspective.

You're not defining their religion. The scriptures define their religion. A religion is a set of beliefs and codes of conduct and these beliefs are defined by the scriptures of each religion. This is evidently true because sects who stray away from scripture are outcasted as heretics.



.

 

[Smoke]

I said Buddhism, but I would have said Jainism if it had been an option. Wicca, Quakerism and Unitarian-Universalism have generally good records, too. Hindus seem to me generally peaceful until sorely provoked.

 

[ChristineES]

I don't know who is most peaceful. At first thought, it would be Hinduism, but they have had wars, too. I would have to do research to find out for sure.

 

[Smoke]

Jains don't even kill bugs. I saw a Jain holy woman in a documentary carry a little broom to sweep before she sit on the ground to prevent the inadvertent bum-inflicted killing of insects.

It's nice thought, but I always wonder how many bugs get mangled by those brooms. Still, yeah. Exceeding non-violence.

It can't be considered Buddhist violence if scripture is not used to justify it. If Buddhist doctrine had nothing to do with the violence, it's secular violence.

So again, find me one violent passage from Buddhist scripture and then maybe you can claim that the violence in Sri Lanka had to do with Buddhism. Just because Stalin and Mao happen to be Atheists, doesn't mean Atheism had anything to do with the violence they committed.

The Christians and Muslims are always trying to use that same excuse. A religion is defined by the beliefs and actions of its adherents, not by the texts it reveres (and ignores much of the time).

I find that absurd. That means the Holocaust is now a defining attribute of paganism, the suicide bombings are a defining attribute of Islam, and the atrocities of Mao are a defining attribute of Atheism.

So lame, blaming pagans for Christian atrocities. And atheism is not an ideology; even Communism is diverse. Get down to Mao's actual ideology, and you could say, yes, those atrocities are a defining attribute of Maoism. Saying Mao's ideology is "atheism" is like saying the Pope's ideology is "theism," or Hirohito's ideology is "Eastern philosophy."

 

[blackout]

Why in gods name isn't Satanism on this list.

 

[Tathagata]

The Christians and Muslims are always trying to use that same excuse.

No they don't. They say that just because adherents are violent doesn't mean Christianity is. But you see, I didn't use that excuse. I said that there are no violent passages in Buddhist scripture that can be used to justify violence, whereas the Bible actually does have violent passages in scripture. Because of that, you don't see Christians ever claiming that the Bible has no violent passages.

So no, my claim is not the same as the Christian excuse.

A religion is defined by the beliefs and actions of its adherents, not by the texts it reveres (and ignores much of the time).

Not according to every dictionary and religion website. You are completely wrong. The religion is defined by it's founder and scripture, not the followers.

That's like saying Jesus' disciples get to define Christianity, but Jesus cant!

So lame, blaming pagans for Christian atrocities.

I'm not blaming pagans nor paganism. I'm saying Hitler was an occultist pagan, but he used Christianity to justify his actions. So yes, it's a Christian atrocity in the sense that Christian doctrine was used to fuel the holocaust, but Hitler was still an occultist pagan. Look up "Thule Society."

And atheism is not an ideology; even Communism is diverse. Get down to Mao's actual ideology, and you could say, yes, those atrocities are a defining attribute of Maoism. Saying Mao's ideology is "atheism" is like saying the Pope's ideology is "theism," or Hirohito's ideology is "Eastern philosophy."

You just agreed with my point. I know that Atheism was not the cause of Maos atrocities, but the people who say that religion is defined by it's adherents would have to contend that Mao did what he did because of Atheism. But there is no doctrine of Atheism that says to kill!

Also, do you realize I am an Atheist? I don't know why you'd act as if I was speaking ill of Atheism.


.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

It says "MAJOR" religions.

I mean.....Zoroastrianism didn't make the cut either.

It is a major religion but I see your point.

Even still, I would definitely vote for Jainism if I could. It is surely the most peaceful religion.

 

[Quiddity]

I said Buddhism, but I would have said Jainism if it had been an option. Wicca, Quakerism and Unitarian-Universalism have generally good records, too. Hindus seem to me generally peaceful until sorely provoked.

Very close to what I was thinking. Although I wouldn't have included Quakerism. I've never been exposed to much of anything Quaker aside from that stuff you eat.

 

[LoTrobador]

A religion is a set of beliefs and codes of conduct and these beliefs are defined by the scriptures of each religion.

And what if beliefs and practices would be defined not only by the scriptures?

 

[Smoke]

No they don't. They say that just because adherents are violent doesn't mean Christianity is. But you see, I didn't use that excuse. I said that there are no violent passages in Buddhist scripture that can be used to justify violence, whereas the Bible actually does have violent passages in scripture. Because of that, you don't see Christians ever claiming that the Bible has no violent passages.

So no, my claim is not the same as the Christian excuse.

Christians will claim that all the violence is in the Old Testament, and Jesus taught people to be peaceful and loving. I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard that.

Not according to every dictionary and religion website. You are completely wrong. The religion is defined by it's founder and scripture, not the followers.

No, I'm right, and if every dictionary and religion website says that, then every dictionary and religion website is full of crap.

That's like saying Jesus' disciples get to define Christianity, but Jesus cant!

That's exactly what happened, and continues to happen -- that is, if you're willing to concede that Christians are disciples of Jesus, which is really stretching it.

I'm not blaming pagans nor paganism. I'm saying Hitler was an occultist pagan, but he used Christianity to justify his actions. So yes, it's a Christian atrocity in the sense that Christian doctrine was used to fuel the holocaust, but Hitler was still an occultist pagan. Look up "Thule Society."

Well, people are going to go around and around about that one forever; I'm sure you can find a few threads on it here, and I don't have the slightest interest in discussing it at length. But Hitler was not a member of the Thule Society, and there's no evidence that he was an occultist or a pagan. Hitler was a nominal Christian, but first and foremost a Fascist. Whatever he was, he was not a pagan.

You just agreed with my point. I know that Atheism was not the cause of Maos atrocities, but the people who say that religion is defined by it's adherents would have to contend that Mao did what he did because of Atheism. But there is no doctrine of Atheism that says to kill!

Atheism has no doctrine just as Theism has no doctrine. Both are categories too broad to tell you much about what any particular atheist or theist might believe. However, Mao did have an ideology that informed his actions, one that for all practical purposes might as well have been a religion -- an atheist religion. But blaming atheism in general for Mao is like blaming theism in general for the Crusades.

Do realize I am an Atheist? I don't know why you'd act as if I was speaking ill of Atheism.

Of course I realize you're an atheist.
But don't give Mao or his ideology a free pass because "atheism" doesn't have doctrines, and then come down hard on Christianity and Islam. "Theism" doesn't have doctrines, either. But Maoism, Christianity, and Islam do.

My main point here is that religion is not defined by books. A religion is defined by the way of life of its adherents. It's all very well if the books say pretty things, but it doesn't mean squat if we don't see the books' teachings lived out on the ground.

Buddhists have done better than average at following peaceful ways, but Buddhists have some bad moments. So do even the Quakers and the UUs, and for all I know you might find some dirt on the Wiccans and the Jains if you poke hard enough, but I haven't tried.

 

[Sunstone]

I'll beat the crap out of anyone who denies Taoism is the most peaceful of all religions.

 

[Smoke]

Very close to what I was thinking. Although I wouldn't have included Quakerism. I've never been exposed to much of anything Quaker aside from that stuff you eat.

Generally very peaceful. There were "fighting Quakers" who joined the American Revolution, and Nixon was a Quaker. There were Quakers who fought in World War II, thinking Hitler had to be defeated at all costs. So they're not 100% pacifists. But hardly any religion -- if any -- has a spotless record, and fighting Quakers have always been in the minority, and often get disowned by their meetings. The fighting Quakers of the Revolution just formed their own meetings; Betsy Ross belonged to one of those. In all fairness to the rest of the Quakers, Nixon was an Evangelical Friend, so there you go.

 

[Shredmeister]

There seems to be a mantra here about how many times violence is mentioned in religious texts.

Perhaps I should have clarified a bit, and mentioned "in modern history" or "in your lifetime."

I also wonder how we can count the old testament as Christian when it comes to violence in its passage, yet not attribute it to islam, as the Torah is a basis for more religions than just Christianity. Maybe I am unclear on this, and I would love to have the connection between the Torah, the Old testament, and the major religions clarified.

Most Christian churches focus on the New Testament, much as islam focuses on the quran. Unless I am misinformed, and I will respectfully listen to any clarifications, the Old Testament and the Torah are pretty much the same thing. Please comment.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

I'll beat the crap out of anyone who denies Taoism is the most peaceful of all religions.

 

[Cypress]

I think Eastern religions in general. They tend to emphasise unity rather than dualism. When you believe that everything is part of the same essence, everyone is connected, and that material attachments are illusory (as well as ego), it becomes rather pointless and silly to feel hatred toward others.

I agree with you and voted for Buddhism.
I wanted to vote for Hinduism first, but then I thought on the Tibetans and their peaceful struggle for independance and thought "If they were not Buddhists, woulod they be as peaceful as they are?", so I voted Buddhism.

 

[Smoke]

I'll beat the crap out of anyone who denies Taoism is the most peaceful of all religions.

Taoists persecuted Buddhists in the ninth century, and killed over two hundred thousand monks and nuns. But I hear that Trampolinist violence is completely unknown.