What do you consider the most PEACEFUL religion?

[Panda]

Out of the ones there Buddhism. Lots of religious doctrines try to teach non-violence though at the same time seem to glorify slaughter and encourage killing. Unfortunately human beings often tend towards the more violent side of things regardless of their religion.

 

[xkatz]

I voted Buddhism but if it was an option I would vote Jainism.

 

[Sunstone]

Taoists persecuted Buddhists in the ninth century, and killed over two hundred thousand monks and nuns.

Then I'm switching to Jainism as the most peaceful religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.


.

If a religion doesn't inspire peaceful conduct in its adherents, by what measure is it a peaceful religion?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

You forgot Paganism I picked Buddhism from the list you did give. It has to be a tie between Buddhism and Pagan religions in my mind.

 

[Tathagata]

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.

Doesn't matter. Violence can still be found in scripture. Not to mention, the New Testament advocates violence as well. So, regardless of their claims, the Bible has 1,121 violent passages, Tipitaka/Mahayana Sutras have 0 violent passages, regardless of Christians assertion that OT is irrelevant.

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

Bare assertion fallacy.

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 referring to the 12 disciples of Jesus

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.

"Christianity promulgates its inconsistent dogmas and imposes them by force. Such religion carries within it intolerance and persecution. Itís the bloodiest conceivable. Since my fourteenth year, I have felt liberated from the superstition that the priests used to teach." -- Hitler

Source: Hitler's Diaries


And perhaps "pagan" was the wrong word, but Hitler was indeed an occultist which is proven by the swastika and the black sun symbol. Black Sun (occult symbol) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Atheism has no doctrine just as Theism has no doctrine.

Agreed. Unless you count "no God" as a doctrine.

Both are categories too broad to tell you much about what any particular atheist or theist might believe.

Well, Theism is broad, Atheism is a lot less broad. Etymologically, sure Atheism can be applied to dogs and everything else, but ideologically, Atheism is rather specific.

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.

Agreed. That is the point I keep making. You can't blame Atheism for Mao's actions just like you can't blame Buddhism for the violence in Sri Lanka!

My main point here is that religion is not defined by books. A religion is defined by the way of life of its adherents.

I already showed why that's absurd. If Jesus stood up on a rock and defined Christianity, and then the 12 disciples turned around and said it's something else, who's definition are you going to use? Jesus or his 12 disciples?

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.

That's an appeal to consequences, not an actual argument for the notion that religion is defined by it's adherents. You're just stating that it's more important for people to live out the book's teachings rather than what the books actually say. But this doesn't mean that your preference dictates whether adherents define the religion.

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.

So if you were able to find instances where Jains acted violently, you would then define Jainism as violent?


.

 

[Tathagata]

If a religion doesn't inspire peaceful conduct in its adherents, by what measure is it a peaceful religion?

Because it's very basis, which is the scripture, is peaceful.

Let's say Jainism's scripture said "peace peace peace peace" repeatedly throughout the whole book, and it's adherents went and committed genocide, is Jainism now a violent religion?

Not to mention, you can't define a religion by what a small minority of adherents do. Only a small, small fraction of all Buddhists have ever committed violence, yet people want to claim Buddhism is a violent religion because of a few of its adherents?

.

 

[Tathagata]

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,

I already told you that Islam dismisses the Old Testament because it is said to be corrupted and not the perfect word of God, which is why they have the Quran to correct it. Also, there's no need to single out the OT for Christianity, the Quran has it's share of violent passages as well.

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.

...the Old Testament and the Torah are pretty much the same thing. Please comment.

Yeah, i think we all know that. The Torah = Old Testament. It's the same thing, and yes it is the basis of the Abrahamic religions.

Most Christian churches focus on the New Testament, much as islam focuses on the quran

That is correct.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because it's very basis, which is the scripture, is peaceful.

If members of the religion ignore this peaceful book when they form their actual beliefs, how could it be called the very basis of their religion?

Let's say Jainism's scripture said "peace peace peace peace" repeatedly throughout the whole book, and it's adherents went and committed genocide, is Jainism now a violent religion?

Maybe. A religion isn't a book; it's a group of people... it's shared beliefs. People will be violent or peaceful to certain degrees no matter what, but if, hypothetically, Jains were more violent with their Jainism than they would be without it, then I'd think it would be fair to say that it was a violent religion.

Not to mention, you can't define a religion by what a small minority of adherents do. Only a small, small fraction of all Buddhists have ever committed violence, yet people want to claim Buddhism is a violent religion because of a few of its adherents?

I'm not saying that Buddhism is a violent religion. I'm saying that terms like "peaceful" and "violent" describe the effects of a religion. If the beliefs of a particular religion prompt violence more often than they do peace, then it would be fair to say that, on the whole, the religion is violent.

And if a religion has some violent people, some peaceful people, and many in between, all in the same proportions as the general population, then I'd say that the religion is irrelevant in terms of violence or peace... regardless of what its scriptures say.

 

[Smoke]

Bare assertion fallacy.

I'll match my bare assertion to your appeal to authority any day, especially when your authorities are dictionaries and religious websites.

I'm referring to the 12 disciples of Jesus

I doubt that such a group is any more than a literary fiction.

And perhaps "pagan" was the wrong word

Yes, it was.

Hitler was indeed an occultist which is proven by the swastika and the black sun symbol. Black Sun (occult symbol) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have a extremely odd idea of what constitutes "proof."

Agreed. That is the point I keep making. You can't blame Atheism for Mao's actions just like you can't blame Buddhism for the violence in Sri Lanka!

You can't blame Buddhism for anything, or credit it for anything, either, because Buddhism doesn't do anything. But you can blame Buddhists for their actions, and you can say that those actions reflect on their religion.

I already showed why that's absurd. If Jesus stood up on a rock and defined Christianity, and then the 12 disciples turned around and said it's something else, who's definition are you going to use? Jesus or his 12 disciples?

What Jesus taught doesn't matter if it's not integrated into Christianity. Christianity is what Christians do and teach, regardless of whether it corresponds to the teachings of Jesus. In fact, it almost never does.

That's an appeal to consequences, not an actual argument for the notion that religion is defined by it's adherents. You're just stating that it's more important for people to live out the book's teachings rather than what the books actually say. But this doesn't mean that your preference dictates whether adherents define the religion.

No, I'm saying religion doesn't exist in books. Religion exists on the ground. Christianity isn't what the scriptures say; Christianity is what Christians believe and do. Buddhism isn't what the sutras say; Buddhism is what Buddhists believe and do. You and I may think they believe wrongly and act wrongly, and that their beliefs and their actions don't correspond to the teachings of Sakyamuni, and we would often be right about that. It doesn't change the fact that Buddhists often behave badly, and sometimes even do so for religious reasons; for what they believe to be sound Buddhist reasons. Buddhism isn't Sakyamuni, and it isn't enlightenment. It's just a movement, or a group of movements. It's capable of being corrupted and sometimes has been. There's nothing inviolable about Buddhism. In the wrong hands, Buddhism is just a big a crock as Christianity. And there's no doubt that there are some religious Christians who behave better, more mindfully, and more compassionately than some religious Buddhists. But overall, I think Buddhism has a better record than Christianity, and I think most people would agree.

So if you were able to find instances where Jains acted violently, you would then define Jainism as violent?

That's not what we're talking about. The OP asks which religion is the most peaceful. I maintain that the most peaceful religion is not the one with the most peaceful books, but the one with the most peaceful adherents. Even if some group of Jains committed some horrendous act, I still think Jainism would have the edge over every other religion, because its adherents would still be more peaceful, overall, than the adherents of other religions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

There were plenty of "non-fighting Quakers" who refused to join the American Revolution, too... hence why I'm in Canada today.

And I've run into a fair number of Quakers who were actively involved in tax revolt: refusing to pay the portion of their income taxes that would go to the military.

Maybe it would be more accurate to say that Quakers are non-violent rather than peaceful. They sure don't have a problem with stirring up trouble when they're moved to do so... they just do it without coming to blows.

 

[Arav]

If you'd put Jainism on the list I'd have voted for it. No other religions or non-religions fit the bill.

Why thank you!

And thanks to anyone else who said Jainism

 

[Smoke]

And thanks to anyone else who said Jainism

I think just about everybody who thought of it said Jainism.

 

[Arav]

I think just about everybody who thought of it said Jainism.

Then I thank all of them, It just makes me love Jainism that much more!

 

[Smoke]

What I find interesting about this poll is the fact that one person said Christianity and two said Islam, but so far nobody's said Judaism. Is it too soon to conclude that Jews are less likely to kid themselves?

 

[Tathagata]

I'll match my bare assertion to your appeal to authority any day, especially when your authorities are dictionaries and religious websites.

It wasn't so much as appeal to authority as it was supporting evidence of my claim.

You can't blame Buddhism for anything, or credit it for anything, either, because Buddhism doesn't do anything. But you can blame Buddhists for their actions, and you can say that those actions reflect on their religion.

How so? It only reflects their religion if religion was the motive behind it. However, if someone happened to be Buddhist and committed violent acts, doesn't mean we can say that religion fueled it, just like if an Atheist committed a violent act, we wouldn't say their Atheism caused it.

What Jesus taught doesn't matter if it's not integrated into Christianity. Christianity is what Christians do and teach, regardless of whether it corresponds to the teachings of Jesus. In fact, it almost never does.

I'm pretty sure that Christians will say that Christianity is what Jesus Christ taught. Not what men of this world teach.

No, I'm saying religion doesn't exist in books. Religion exists on the ground.

I never claimed religion exists in books. I'm saying that the basis of religion is it's scripture. That is the entire basis and anything that strays from that can only be considered as straying from the religion, not the religion itself.

Christianity isn't what the scriptures say; Christianity is what Christians believe and do. Buddhism isn't what the sutras say; Buddhism is what Buddhists believe and do.

A person's belief is defined by what holy book they choose to believe. If someone says, "I choose to believe the Bible," then you are a Christian and if you are someone who says "I choose to believe the Upanishads" you are a Hindu. What else makes you an adherent of a religion other than what doctrine you choose to hold?

That's not what we're talking about. The OP asks which religion is the most peaceful. I maintain that the most peaceful religion is not the one with the most peaceful books, but the one with the most peaceful adherents. Even if some group of Jains committed some horrendous act, I still think Jainism would have the edge over every other religion, because its adherents would still be more peaceful, overall, than the adherents of other religions.

You're missing the point. You say that religion is defined by it's adherents actions. If Jains started committing acts of violence, does that mean that violence is now a Jain doctrine? This is what your claiming by saying that adherents define the religion, not the holy books, but this is the fatal error that you run into when you claim such a thing.


.

 

[Smoke]

I never claimed religion exists in books. I'm saying that the basis of religion is it's scripture. That is the entire basis and anything that strays from that can only be considered as straying from the religion, not the religion itself.

A person's belief is defined by what holy book they choose to believe. If someone says, "I choose to believe the Bible," then you are a Christian and if you are someone who says "I choose to believe the Upanishads" you are a Hindu. What else makes you an adherent of a religion other than what doctrine you choose to hold?

You're missing the point. You say that religion is defined by it's adherents actions. If Jains started committing acts of violence, does that mean that violence is now a Jain doctrine? This is what your claiming by saying that adherents define the religion, not the holy books, but this is the fatal error that you run into when you claim such a thing.

We have very different ideas about religion, and I'm sure we're not going to resolve them tonight, so I guess I'll just bow out rather than go through thirty more rounds of saying the same thing in different words.

 

[Madhuri]

What I find interesting about this poll is the fact that one person said Christianity and two said Islam, but so far nobody's said Judaism. Is it too soon to conclude that Jews are less likely to kid themselves?

The person who voted Christianity was playing around though, so it doesn't really count (Anti-Religion).
I did also note that Judaism was missing. But if there was a most violent religion thread I'd be voting Christianity/Islam, not Judaism.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings.

Your poll is defective because the choices omit the Baha'i Faith.

Bruce

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I still haven't voted because I'm picky.

I'd also like to consider religions for how misogynistic or homophobic they are.

Okay....for now, anything Dakini-ish or Shaktism. Just put your fingers in your ears and sing lalalalalalaaaaa when anybody mentions a particular puja held at cremation grounds.