Most Peaceful Religion?

Came across this comic today, which prompted me to run a search on ATS and found this interesting article and reflected on all the conflicts, religion has caused throughout the world... and wondered which one has caused or was used to cause the most suffering... on the polar end of the sale which could be most associated with promoting peace?

with truth comes division.

Christ said he came to bring division not peace, because truth is he, and he is not other religions.

Now what he also taught was peace.

" blessed are the peacemakers "

" Love your enemies "


This is pure love speaking. Nobody loves their enemies. I didn't before I knew Christ, but he taught me.


so that goofy comic is kind of off. If everybody accepted Christs true teachings, peace and only peace would exist.


peace.

[edit on 20-12-2008 by JesusisTruth]

Sorry for the typos in my OP... it was a day from hell.

Originally posted by JesusisTruth

with truth comes division.

Christ said he came to bring division not peace, because truth is he, and he is not other religions.

[edit on 20-12-2008 by JesusisTruth]

"Do you suppose that I came to bring peace to the world?... No, not peace, but division." (Luke 12:51) He goes on to say that families will be torn apart because of him and his message. "A man's worst enemies will be the members of his own family." (Mat. 10:36) So here we are two thousand years later, families/countries are torn apart by religious conflict. So he essential comes to judge and yet says "Do not judge others, and God will not judge you".

So in sum he provides no peace, but he provides the truth (claiming all others are liars) and that the truth will lead one to peace?

...............................................

...and on a related note; if i were to go by this chart only... i'd have to say Buddism is the most peaceful and Catholism is on the other end of the scale.

[edit on 20-12-2008 by The All Seeing I]

[edit on 20-12-2008 by The All Seeing I]

I'd say the Amish.. or a True Buddhist..
Two lines..
three

I think Christianity end the end bring peace. But before peace comes war.

i would say hinduism or buddhism. or something could be said for scientology since it is rather new and has not had time to get bloody?

Buddhism. Ii have never been to a Buddhist temple service but from reading, hearing and contemplating I see it is something to aspire to and enjoy such as it is. I like taoism also.

Eh, who needs religion anyway? The way I see it no religion could teach a person how to obtain peace. It starts with making peace with yourself and is expressed by experiencing your peace through the eyes of others, no matter how weird, different, etc....

Originally posted by thetruthhurts78
i would say hinduism or buddhism. ....

Maybe that's because you're unfamiliar with Hindu attacks on muslims and other religious miniorities?

Or because you haven't read up on Buddhist attacks on Christians in Sri Lanka?

Or perhaps you are unfamiliar with deadly samurai and ninja training as an outgrowth of roots in Zen Buddhism

Or maybe you just haven't had time to read up on the Dalai Lama's defense of India developing nuclear weaponry?

[edit on 21-12-2008 by dr_strangecraft]

[edit on 21-12-2008 by dr_strangecraft]

I'd have to put my money on either Buddhism or the Quakers(I know, I know, it's technically a denomination of Christianity, and not a separate religion in and of itself).

I can't think of a single violent act which these religions as a whole have committed(though I'm sure there's something).

Originally posted by thetruthhurts78
i would say hinduism or buddhism. or something could be said for scientology since it is rather new and has not had time to get bloody?

From what I've heard, it sounds like they've made a LOT of the short time they've been around. I've heard some pretty horrifying stories about people who threatened to expose them.

Whether or not those stories are true is a whole different thread, but Scientology certainly doesn't seem to have a clean slate in the public consciousness.

Scientology, operates like the mob but in place of bullets and racketeering they use their own in-house army of psych ops and lawyers.

I'm leaning towards Taoism and Jainism (banning even violence against bugs, plants and mold).

Interesting to note; it seems that the farther you get from dogmas and closer you get to a life philosophy... the more peaceful the purpose of the cause.

[edit on 23-12-2008 by The All Seeing I]

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
I'm leaning towards Taoism and Jainism (banning even violence against bugs, plants and mold).

But those brutes ignore the billions of bacteria and virii killed by your body, using your lymphocites and white blood cells to fend off infection--you heartless brute, you.

All those spores and bacteria--they'd be alive today, if not for you!



There is a non-pc branch of tibetan lamaism which isn't discussed in the west, which says that inflicting pain on life is inevitable, so you might as well do it when it suits your purpose, since something will eat you, eventually. They eat meat and even offer sacrifices to propitiate local spirits when they feel it might make life easier on the village level.

.

lol... yes... yes... those bastards... how dare they KILL innocent little helpless fundamental building block elements of life... micro piss-ant dna structural compounds... who the hell do they think they are?!?!

As for your 2nd reflection, i'm in full agreement:
True to nature and darwin's records of reality, for good or bad, the survival of the fittest is part of our basic essence/existence. Once we have addressed our needs for survival, we should invest our energies in bettering the world around us, not limited by our beliefs or other limiting scope of understanding one another as equals.

[edit on 23-12-2008 by The All Seeing I]

Sure all of them have their violence, but in my experience and what I've learned it's Buddhism that is the most peaceful.

That is really obvious for me, personally. Just from my own experience and what I've read.

That might be because it is one of the least dogmatic of all the religions. Also, it gets to the core of all this craziness, violence, and hatred - which is attachment.

In this category the worst thing Christianity has going for it is how a focus on conversion was picked up later on. Islam also has this focus on conversion.

Also it can be seen that there is a part of Christianity that deals with attachment, but the way it is dealt with it is through faith and dogma. Buddhism has a much more common sense and less dogmatic approach to dealing with attachment. It is really unnecessary to conquer your attachment through surrender, but I guess there can be a purpose in taking the more difficult/narrow road.

I am glad to have learned from both Christianity and Buddhism, wouldn't want to know one over the other or one without the other.

Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor. All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk!
I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences!

Explanation: N/A

Personal Disclosure: Jainism gets my full 100% vote as THE most peaceful Large religion.

Jainism Wiki

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Originally posted by thetruthhurts78
i would say hinduism or buddhism. ....

Maybe that's because you're unfamiliar with Hindu attacks on muslims and other religious miniorities?

I have not finished reading all the links to your posts but i must say this first one is not representative of true hinduism. This group Sangh parivar is empowered by the BJP government. Its more about Political power and oppression. Not only are they attacking muslims, they also are attacking christians and other hindus. I think this is not what most hindu believers would consider to be a hindu following group.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Originally posted by thetruthhurts78
i would say hinduism or buddhism. ....

Or because you haven't read up on Buddhist attacks on Christians in Sri Lanka?

Or perhaps you are unfamiliar with deadly samurai and ninja training as an outgrowth of roots in Zen Buddhism

Or maybe you just haven't had time to read up on the Dalai Lama's defense of India developing nuclear weaponry?

[edit on 21-12-2008 by dr_strangecraft]

[edit on 21-12-2008 by dr_strangecraft]

I hope to not have offended you Just read your signature....

I am not gonna try to dispute all of these and will concede i might have taken a mainstream viewpoint of these faiths without doing my research. I have just 1 point and 1 question.

My point (or point of view is that in the case of samurai and ninjas this is not part of the buddhist religion but a reaction to outside forces. I don't see it as a part of everyday worship of buddha to train kids to become ninjas. I could see a group that could have been getting attacked training its people to defend themselves. Was there a time in history where the ninjas and samurai's were sent out not to avenge but to attack lets say another country with different beliefs? I thought there was an honor code in these martial arts. That it is not to be used out of aggression but only for justice.
When i mentioned christianity as violent i was mainly thinking of the crusades not every offshoot that performed violent acts. i think there should be a seperation of the main religion from the "cells" that might not represent the majority of the group.

my question is if you think that when this question is asked that any and every person that claims they are a follower of the faith should and can be taken as representative for the faith as a whole? I mean should majority rule in these topics or is anything fair game?

the dalai lama is someone i would consider capable of speaking for his religion he is respected as a leader. his comments on thermonuclear testing were not even a driect quote and did not really say anything shocking even though it was paraphrased. The "developed" countries, he says, must realize that India is a major contender and should not concern themselves with its internal affairs.

so the author quoted him on the word "developed" and then summarized the rest of what was said? also what was left out here and in most stories was what was later stated. Although, in contrast, the World Tibet Network News service later claimed that the Dalai Lama was "saddened to hear about the series of nuclear tests conducted by India," and was "fundamentally against the existence and stockpiling of any weapons [sic] of mass destruction.

Did the Dalai Lama support India’s nuclear testing?

TW: His Holiness has always spoken against violence, arms sales; he has signed with the other Nobel laureates against arms sales and nuclear disarmament. When India exploded a bomb, he said India is a big country and has its foreign concerns, so it would be unfair with its security concerns to deny of that ability to defend itself. He also said that in the long run, all the nuclear countries should work towards total disarmament.

I dont see whats wrong with this.

I see a lot of excellent nominations for the peace prize.

On a similar note... "Religulous", a documentary by Bill Maher, in parts i think does a great job of addressing the OP as well. Was officially released in the theaters this past october... here's the whole doc via google video:

Google Video Link

...and a ATS thread on the Religulous





[edit on 1-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]

These folk are sooooo peaceful

www.subgenius.com...

lol... ah yes the Great Holiness of Slackerdom, BOB.

A long the same vein, you could say the same for FSM.