Are There Truly Any Peaceful Religions?

[KT45]

I was really thinking about this today. Now when I say peaceful religion I mean the religion that has the best values for promoting peace.

I'm sure this definition is way too vague. Things get complicated when it comes to defense and such. But at the very least what religion if any teaches the best doctorine and attitude for promoting peace? Why is it best? Why don't certian religions like christianity or Judaism seem to be peace but in a sense aren't peaceful in nature?

 

I'm guessing Quakers or Buddhism. I'm not sure why they are more peaceful but I haven't heard anything negative actions, hateful actions they have done in the name of religion.

[Thurisaz]

Humanity as a whole kind of loves war - or at least generic non-peace. I guess it will be very hard to find anything connected to humans that is really, totally peaceful and permanently so.

 

Based on what little I know about buddhism, though, I think that will at least come quite close to this ideal.

[Lycorth]

The Abrahamic monocults aren't peaceful because their basic doctrines urge conversions, ie, encourage spiritual warfare against all other religions and nonreligions in order to have its own doctrine believed by as many as possible. That always creates and encourages restlessness and discord - you have to prosletyze or else. Of course, the myths of Hell and of religious warfare in the Abrahamic cults do nothing but feed this notion. There is no peace to be found there.

 

Buddhism has some very well-developed philosophies and rituals that revolve around the concept of harmony and living well. It is always a pleasure to look into Buddhism; it is one of the many examples of how religion per se is not and never has been the problem. Buddhism is very inspirational to me.

 

I also see Hinduism as very serene and peaceful. Sure, there were warriors and room for warriors in Hindu tradition and current belief, but why is that not peaceful? A true warrior only defends his folk and doesn't try to force himself on others (recalling the Abrahamic cults). And I've never met a serious Hindu who wasn't a stable, well-rounded person.

 

Being an Asatruar with a strong Deistic foundation and a healthy embrace of all traditional Indo-European religions, I can say that any of those is really quite peaceful. Except for Hinduism and a good deal of Greco-Roman philosophy, the Indo-European religions were stunted in their growth by Xianity. were it not for the coming of that spiritual black death, we might have seen the indigenous folk religions of the Slavs, the Teutons, the Celts, the Balts, and so forth develop into more complex and orderly religions complete with accompanying philosophies on every aspect of life.

 

It saddens me when I think of this, and when I consider the fumbling revival of these traditional religions is still hampered by people who either insist on remaining stuck in the past. Today, we have Asatru, Religio Romana, Romuva, a revived form of Druidism, and the Slavic folkways are finally being explored. All of these religions have an immense potential to encourage peacefulness, environmental responsibility, strong families and strong individuals, but too many people don't care to develop these religions. However, there are trends to do so, especially from Euro-heathens who look to their Indo-European past and see the good example set by the Vedic religion which in turn gave birth to Hinduism and was a necessary inspiration for Buddhism, I think.

[KT45]

Well I don't know about buddhism anymore. What about the Shaolin Monks. They originally were used by kings to help fight wars.

[The Sage Nabooru]

Well I don't know about buddhism anymore. What about the Shaolin Monks. They originally were used by kings to help fight wars.

 

The Shaolin monks practice martial arts as one of many physical exercises, in order to better train themselves in discipline. I've never heard of them fighting a single battle besides defense of the temple. But perhaps I am wrong.

 

I agree with Thurisaz that ultimately you could tie just about anything associated with humans to war. Food, gold, oil, slavery, drugs, religion, political ideals, race, sex, technology, trade, etc. We've killed over all of it.

 

But Buddhism is, in my opinion, the most peaceful religion. War in Buddhism is an outright rejection of its beliefs. But that doesn't mean a Buddhist monarch wouldn't kill off perceived enemies - but it is partially why the Japanese government chose Shinto, instead of Buddhism, to push the ideals of its empire-building during WWII. Buddhist monks, nuns, and priests could actually find themselves in a heap o' trouble if they criticized the government's military machine.

 

Hinduism is a pretty peaceful religion, IMO. Hindus take much the same opinion as Buddhists regarding those of other faiths - it is not the precise religion they follow that matters; what matters are the actions of the individual and the subsequent effect on their karma that will determine their next rebirth. Hinduism really only took on a fundamentalist element in the 18-20th centuries, when the British starting invading and planting Christian missionaries and, later, America started peddling its cheap materialism overseas, which was perceived as a threat against their ancient culture. (I agree with them on that point - they're one of the few large Asian economies that have kept their culture alive instead of dropping it in the face of Westernization.)

[Lycorth]

Can't believe I forgot to mention Shinto; it's also a very noble religion with an inherent desire for peace, as well as many other honorable concepts. It's great the Japanese keep it alive like they do - it will only be a benefit to them, like Hinduism has been to the Indian nationalists.

 

There's nothing quite as vitalizing to a folk's soul as its native faith, nor anything quite so peacemaking.

[KT45]

Well I don't know about buddhism anymore. What about the Shaolin Monks. They originally were used by kings to help fight wars.

 

The Shaolin monks practice martial arts as one of many physical exercises, in order to better train themselves in discipline. I've never heard of them fighting a single battle besides defense of the temple. But perhaps I am wrong.

No I could be wrong about the shaolin monks. I got my information from a play I saw . Some king saw the shaolin monks in action and wanted to use them for war. The monk reluctantly agreed and decided to help fight. Then the king thought they were to powerful and killed all the monks accept 7. Those 7 monks restarted the shaolin tradition. I have no idea the historical accuracy of the play, but I do know it was boring as hell.

[SkepticOfBible]

I also see Hinduism as very serene and peaceful.

Most of it seems like it, but the caste system is what turns me off. Caste system is the Hindu counterpart of slavery, and yes it is still alive in modern India.

 

And I've never met a serious Hindu who wasn't a stable, well-rounded person.

Then you haven't seen the hindu fundamentalist in India. They are just as absurd as the xtian/muslim fundies. I have met some hindus who are perhaps one of the most intolerant people on earth. But I guess these sort of peopele are everywhere

 

BTW - Varokhar, I am a ex-hindu, who has lived a quite a good years in India.

[theunraveler]

Buddhism tops the list followed by taoism and confucianism. surprisingly alot of oriental religions tend to be more peaceful than the blood thirsty abrahamic religion.

 

buddhism is a really elegant religion, it doesnt tell its followers how to lead their lives or condemn ppl.

 

Well I don't know about buddhism anymore. What about the Shaolin Monks. They originally were used by kings to help fight wars.

based on wat i know about Shaolin history. it seems that in their beginings, the shaolin monks were very weak and suffered many ailments till some indian monk who was visiting their temple saw their condition and taught them martial arts as a way to keep fit. the idea caught on and the monks started innovating on the styles of martial arts. there also exist a code of ethics for martial arts practioner that they are to defend the helpless..bla bla bla...the usual chivalric BS...

 

i think in the past the shaolin monks did assist or trained ppl to fight wars, but i thnk they would have a good reason for that

[Lycorth]

I also see Hinduism as very serene and peaceful.

Most of it seems like it, but the caste system is what turns me off. Caste system is the Hindu counterpart of slavery, and yes it is still alive in modern India.

 

Ditto that - any system that encourages some people to live in shit because they weren't born into the right social group has got to go. I never was a big fan of the caste system, and when I was Catholic, I used to focus in on the caste system as a reason why Hinduism is evil. Leave it to Xians to cherry pick the bad stuff.

 

 

Then you haven't seen the hindu fundamentalist in India. They are just as absurd as the xtian/muslim fundies. I have met some hindus who are perhaps one of the most intolerant people on earth. But I guess these sort of peopele are everywhere

 

Heh - yeah, never been to India. Perhaps I'll change that one day. But yes, fundies are everywhere. I have heard a bit about how nutty they can get over there. But over here, in the US, you don't see many Hindu fundies. The ones I've met are fairly liberal and tolerant, though very protective of their religion and culture. They seem to be the majority, at least over here.

 

Usually, the liberal or moderate factions of any religion are the easiest to get on with. A fundy who thumps a law book or such is always a problem.

[loves_learning]

What exactly are you guys defining as "buddhism" and "hinduism"? In my opinion, just as with every other freakin religious tradition out there, there isn't a singular static normative tradition that can be used to define any of those categories.

 

There are peaceful as well as violent traditions that call themselves Xn, Jewish, Buddhist, blah blah blah. I don't really think you can accurately describe a religious tradition in broad strokes...

[Lycorth]

I mean the same, basic religions that usually go by those names

 

Try Wikipedia - their definitions sum my understanding up nicely.

[StrawberrySundae]

Is buddhaism considered a religion? They don't believe in gods, its all about personal growth and being the best 'you' you can be. I agree it is very peaceble, but more of an example of how NOT believing in gods is more akin to peace, IMO.

 

[Skankboy]

Is buddhaism considered a religion? They don't believe in gods, its all about personal growth and being the best 'you' you can be. I agree it is very peaceble, but more of an example of how NOT believing in gods is more akin to peace, IMO.

 

Maybe I can help with this a little bit. Is Buddhism a religion? Yes and no. There are different types of Buddhism, some (mahayanism) have elevated Buddha to a level very similar to what we would call god and they pray and worship him. Others (theravadah and Zen) see the buddha as an example that should be emulated.

 

Of these, I'd put the "worship" ones into the category of relgion and the "example" ones as philosophy. It's a pretty fine point, but I think it highlights alot of the differences you see in the adherants.

 

Personally, and no offence to Amanda or Open Minded, I would consider them "philosophical" christians as opposed to being particularly "religious". And by all means, if I'm out of line, please let me know...

 

IMOHO,

[Jedah]

Any religion is peacefull if the person following it wants it to be. Even christians. Ive found that most christians ignore the bible altogether and simply follow what they want to follow just like everyone else.

[KT45]

Maybe I can help with this a little bit. Is Buddhism a religion? Yes and no. There are different types of Buddhism, some (mahayanism) have elevated Buddha to a level very similar to what we would call god and they pray and worship him. Others (theravadah and Zen) see the buddha as an example that should be emulated.

 

Of these, I'd put the "worship" ones into the category of relgion and the "example" ones as philosophy. It's a pretty fine point, but I think it highlights alot of the differences you see in the adherants.

Can you help me out? Is what we consider worship what buddhist consider worship? From what I understand they do bow and pray to buddha (mahayanism I guess) but don't they also do that with there dead as well? I'm pretty sure they don't worship there dead. It seems like they are merely showing respect by bowing to there dead and buddha (what christians would consider worship) which is no different then what they do when they greet people. Also they are merely asking their dead for advice (which is what we consider prayer) and they do this to buddha too. I'm not really sure they are praising and exalting buddha.

 

Can you enlighten me?

[loves_learning]

There are lots of different kinds of Buddhism, just as there are with any other strand of religions that exist. Religion is not defined by worship of gods, or worship at all. There are lots of different definitions of religion, but the best definition in my opinion is one based around what is termed as "ultimate concern."

 

In the academic field of religious studies, we have entire COURSES devoted to trying to define religion...and I am of the opinion that the term has to be defined each time it is used so whatever reader/listener is on the receiving end knows exactly what the originator means. I like the ultimate concern definition the best because it is the broadest and most akin to real life. While some people espouse that a god or afterlife is their ultimate concern, it usually changes throughout their lifetimes and depending upon their current life situation. Furthermore, the ultimate concern definition leaves room for conscience rather than organized religion. Just because someone doesn't follow the precepts of what has been accepted to be a certain tradition doesn't mean that they aren't religious or that they don't have an ultimate concern either.

 

Like I said...entire courses are devoted to this stuff...so the quick answer may be more confusing than not. Buddhism in all its aberrations would be a religion in my book...and most other scholars out there too.

[Skankboy]

Like I said...entire courses are devoted to this stuff...so the quick answer may be more confusing than not. Buddhism in all its aberrations would be a religion in my book...and most other scholars out there too.

 

I can see your point. I don't personally consider what I follow to be a religion, but perhaps that's just symantics. In your opinion, what then defines the difference between a religion and a philosophy?

 

For instance: is Stoicism a religion? Confucianism?

 

[loves_learning]

Here is the scholarly answer to your question:

 

It depends on how you define religion.

 

Satisfying, right? I know, I know...it isn't really satisfying to most people, but there really isn't any other way to go about defining religion without making some sort of claim as to what religion REALLY is...in other words, pretending that religion is out there somewhere floating in the ether and everyone can recognize it when they see it. Religions are handed down by people...people create religion, it doesn't exist a priori.

 

So, if one defines religion as ultimate concern, as I tend to, then yep, both of those count. Even baseball could be a religion if defined in that way...and if you're going to argue with me about why it shouldn't be, then what that tells me as a scholar is that you're operating under a theoretical presumption rather than making a definition that works for a study.

 

The way we go about it is to offer up a defintion of what you mean by religion at the BEGINNING of a study...you say that when you use the word "religion" you mean "xyz." It says nothing about what religion is or isn't...simply that you use it to mean a certain thing for a certiain study to avoid confusion.

 

Debating about an "essence" of religion is a job for philosphers.

[pandora]

I agree with l_l on many points (and this is indeed a very COMPLEX issue!), but I have found it particularly useful to separate "religion" from "philosophy" by seeing if there are particular rituals (like use Tibetan prayer wheels) or repeated meetings or celebrations focused on a particular person or God (which many Buddhists have). But then, there are the "nightstand" Buddhists who don't do any of that, and it would be difficult to classify their Buddhism as part of the greater religion. Even though they are related, I find it pretty easy to say that nightstand Buddhists are merely using Buddhist philosophies as philosophies, while Buddhist religionists use the philosophies and mythologies of Buddhism in a more concrete, ritualistic way.

[loves_learning]

I'm gonna bug Pandora...only b/c I know that she's studied religions in college too...I'm not tryin to hijack your thread!

 

Your answer would reflect a definition of religion that is more based on ritual and practice...which (as you know) IS a definition that is used in the academy. So, if we were to use your def, then I agree, certain individualistic practices would be excluded from the term 'religion' as you defined it.

 

My problem with using ritual as a standard for a definition of religion is that individual conscience is excluded as a valid viewpoint. It is what we deal with in the united states all of the time in reference to freedom of religion...if individual conscience isn't regarded as 'religion,' then those who don't ascribe to a popular tradition with praxis and belief set out in some sort of standard fashion can absolutely lose their freedoms.

[Skankboy]

My problem with using ritual as a standard for a definition of religion is that individual conscience is excluded as a valid viewpoint.

 

True, rituals are an indicator, but there are exceptions (confucianism for example is almost entirely based on ritual observance, but doesn't require a supernatural element to function). I see what you mean about personal perspectives. I guess I would be a "nightstand" Buddhist, as I use the buddhist system as a philosophical guide for living.

 

Back to the original thread question: I would say any belief system can create members w/extremist views, but I would counter that those systems which lay claim to an ulimate and exclusive ownership of the truth are more likely to produce these types in greater numbers.

 

Does that make sense?

 

IMOHO,

[The Sage Nabooru]

Any religion is peacefull if the person following it wants it to be. Even christians. Ive found that most christians ignore the bible altogether and simply follow what they want to follow just like everyone else.

 

That's very true. Hinduism, for an example spoken of here, is often criticized for its caste system; however, many Hindus vehemently deny that the system is part of the religion and rather is a culturally-imposed societal tradition; they claim that Hinduism stresses the equality of each person, rather than their inequality.

 

Buddhism is so hard to define, because it is one of those belief systems which is fully willing to admit that it might be totally off. For example, Buddhism teaches that if scientific research proves some particular dogma totally and completely wrong, it says to simply drop the dogma and embrace the science. That would be like Christians being told to forget about Creationism due to scientific research into fossils and the age of the earth.

 

I take a religious approach to it; and yet I am not dogmatically Buddhist. I do believe in a God who is the Creator. I also don't believe we are forced into reincarnation after reincarnation against our will. I believe in spirits and divine guides and such - but many Buddhists do; Buddhism doesn't deny nor affirm the existence of the Divine; rather I would say that it teaches that the divine intercession is neccessary to achieve total peace and enlightenment, and not to worry about the issue.

 

I pray to gods and godesses (not always Buddhist!) for their aid. Do I consider them merely different presentations of the Absolute, parts of the Absolute, or entirely different and seperate beings? I don't know. I consider them enlightened beings free of suffering and of ignorance - I do hope to reach that state myself. Ultimately I would describe myself as a panentheist, sort of - united individuals with a mass consciousness that we can tap into, contained within the Absolute yet allowed to be independent of it, as it can be independent of us.

 

Of course it's totally possible to take a much more practical approach to Buddhism. Some do away with any concept of the spiritual, even the concepts of karma and samsara, and their Buddhism simply teaches them that no matter what happens, being the best person you can be is probably the best way to go.

 

Now I'm hungry for some Malacca rice. Unfortunately, I'll have to settle for the leftover pasta.......

[Skankboy]

Of course it's totally possible to take a much more practical approach to Buddhism. Some do away with any concept of the spiritual, even the concepts of karma and samsara, and their Buddhism simply teaches them that no matter what happens, being the best person you can be is probably the best way to go.

 

I think I may have to change my title to "Practical Buddhist"...

[loves_learning]

I think I can tenatively agree with you that the traditions that lay claim to a singular exclusive version of ultimate truth would be more likely to engage in violence to protect/defend their claims.

 

How wishy washy of an answer is that?!?