Is your religion peaceful?

[toasterwater]

I had a debate with a coworker today about the possibility of world peace. My basic hypothesis was that if the whole world were to unite as one nation, then essentially, there would be no need for war (the only exception for this would of course be a civil war). His argument was that there are too many religions (specifically speaking about those religions in the middle east) that are aggressive/defensive in nature. He basically said that there is no way that these religions could live together in the same nation peacefully (of course i rubutted with a comment on how there is a least a representative population of most religions in the united states... and they seem to be capable of living in harmony).

I believe that those who start wars based on religion must be perverting their religious contexts in a manner to suit their own desire for war. I would hope that most (if not all) religions are peace oriented in nature. So this is my question: what is your religion, and do you believe that it would be possible for people of your faith to live harmoniously with people of another faith? Of course, this is assuming that the other parties will be peaceful as well... its not expected that you live peacefully if you are attacked, but the main idea is that everyone be peaceful with one another, regardless of beliefs.

also, do you think that it would be possible that the entire world live as one peaceful nation?

[WanderingOak]

In the context that you gave, yes my religion is peaceful. As for your second question, I do not think the entire world can live together peacefully under one government. At times, I am surprised that the United States has survived for as long as it has. I think perhaps a more realistic model would be a global alliance of independant nations. A single global government would be extremely dificult to administrate and manage, and would more than likely result in global homoginization of regional and cultural differences into cold, grey, concrete.

[JHL]

In my experience, religion per se is irrelevant: its people that are the problem.

Although I am not observant of my religion I have met several people who are. Some have been the epitomy of kindness, generosity, wisdom, warmth and lovingness. Others, however, have been downright narrowminded, judgemental and condescending of those who are not as observant as they. I'm guessing you would find the same thing in any religion.

But what does that say about the religion itself? Nothing, of course.

The principle remains that people make of things are they will, not as things are.

World peace will ensure only when every person reaches peace within themselves and they have no inner conflict to project out onto the world.

Until then, things like religion, race, politial affiliation (and just about everything else) will continue to serve as constant reminders of the warring disparities within ourselves.

[Mnemosyne]

Religions aren't violent, people are violent.

Every religion I've ever learned about teaches of love and harmony. I've never seen one that teaches violence. Not even the middle-east religion your friend referenced.

What causes violence is people's interpretation of their religion, and their ego. The ego is that which pushes you to survive, and it doesn't always align itself with the altruistic values that religion teaches.

[Michael Chui]

This discussion (I wasn't involved in it) might be worth reading by those interested in this topic.

Warning: It's long, and may require a dictionary nearby.

the_sinistral: The measure of Iniquity in the name of Justice

[Nicketas]

Is it possible? Yes.

Is it practical, beneficial, and desirable? NO.

Example: America is a melting pot of almost every major world culture, and while we're arguably the best country on the planet to live in, we still have a lot of problems.

[Angela]

[quote=Mnemosyne;22885]Every religion I've ever learned about teaches of love and harmony. I've never seen one that teaches violence.QUOTE]

You kiddin'???? God's law, as outlined in the christian bible, says you must kill your child if he talks back. You must stone a woman who commits adultery. I'm talking the law part, not the parables, which would not leave it open to interpretation. And how about the muslim directive to convert or kill? and to murder apostates? (this one was recently almost carried out in Afghanistan, remember?) I'm glad people ignore some of the crazier poop, but let's not kid ourselves: religion is a nasty business.

[Michael Chui]

To reply properly to the OP, I pull a quotation out of the dialogue I just linked.

Without commenting on the usefulness of considering the ideas raised by the world’s great religions, which I grant are often sources of utility and deep fascination, I have frankly never respected the concrete rules and laws laid out for mankind by these religions, because all of them cut off human curiosity in some integral capacity. A religion cannot function amongst curious people, because religions rely upon absolute truths while humanity has a penchant for discovering new “absolute” truths to replace the old ones with the passing of every generation. In order to keep pace with the times, the religion must be reformed, and in my estimation that removes a great deal of its right to claim a monopoly on the truth.

Take this, and then take another basic truth: dead men tell no tales. The strength, therefore, of traditional religions lies ultimately in their means to wage war in order to implement their disagreements lethally. Every major religion in the world today has shed blood. Most religions have a kernel of organizational identity: if this were changed, then our entire belief system is invalidated. Such statements, which can be as simple as "God exists", are rarely verifiable. But if they were verifiable, you are suddenly greeted with the need to fundamentally change your identity. This is a difficult enough task for an individual; it is nigh impossible for a religion. Thus, you either fight or die.

Neither option is acceptable. The conclusion I would draw from this is to deny religion altogether: never claim a monopoly on the truth.

To reply properly to the poll, which I really don't see how it relates to the OP or to the question in the thread title...

It depends on your definition of a nation.

Identity is a very, very troublesome topic. If we were to bring about some Pan-Galactic Civilization, people would still say, "I'm a farmer from Tatoonine." Is that one nation? I mean, let's say we did have an Empire or Republic: immediately, you divide space into sectors, sectors into star systems, star systems into planets, planets into nations, nations into states, states into counties, counties into cities, cities into neighborhoods, neighborhoods into streets, streets into housing complexes, complexes into rooms.

So what I have to assume is meant by "one nation" is "one government". Can we live on Earth where we are all answerable to the same government? The answer, perhaps surprisingly, is no.

You will always have anti-governmental radicals, I believe. But I don't see these people as problems, because the benevolence of the government will necessarily minimize their numbers; at which point, their dissent because negligible.

World government is one of those things I want to happen. The United Nations is a great idea, but I cannot help but see major flaws in its structure. One of my favorite depictions of this possibility is the Shadow Saga, by Orson Scott Card, from Ender's Shadow to Shadow of the Giant (4 books).

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

Religions aren't violent, people are violent.

Every religion I've ever learned about teaches of love and harmony. I've never seen one that teaches violence. Not even the middle-east religion your friend referenced.

What causes violence is people's interpretation of their religion, and their ego. The ego is that which pushes you to survive, and it doesn't always align itself with the altruistic values that religion teaches.

I don't really approve of the website this is on, but I was searching for a list of punishments, and this one fit the bill pretty well. It's hard to deny explicit quotations from the Bible.

Ten Commandments

These aren't teachings of violence, no. They're commandments.

[Angela]

Goodness! Well said, Michael.

[Baltar]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I don't really approve of the website this is on, but I was searching for a list of punishments, and this one fit the bill pretty well. It's hard to deny explicit quotations from the Bible.

Ten Commandments

These aren't teachings of violence, no. They're commandments.

Wow, these are actual direct quotes? This looks very much like a rigid system for the control of the masses to me. Breaking any of these commandments is punishable by death despite the fact that killing is explicitly forbidden by one of them. And of course leaving the religion is punishable by death in itself. People wonder where extremist Muslim groups came from, but Islam has Judeo-Christian roots and those extremists simply take these things very literally. I think the only way humanity will come together is when religion ceases to exist (at least in its current form). Religion as it is today only serves to distance us from one another, not bring us together.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Baltar

This looks very much like a rigid system for the control of the masses to me.

To be absolutely fair, most Christians today probably have no idea this stuff is in their Bible. They've taken all those wonderful little books and condensed them into about a paragraph that sums up their beliefs. Maybe two paragraphs. To take a gander at it...

"God exists. He made the world in seven days. The Israelites went into slavery in Egypt, but Moses brought them out by parting the Red Sea. Then there were a couple kings. Later, Jesus, the Son of God, was born. Jesus talked about a lot good things, but because the Pharisees were haters, they got Judas to betray him, so he went and prayed in some garden, and then got nailed to the cross. He died, and then rose again in three days.

"All the important stuff comes after that. The sermons only cover that part, so the rest is irrelevant. Oh, and David had a bunch of songs earlier."

The irony is that the second sentence is only there because of the creationism debate, and the third only because they show that damn movie every Easter. No one actually reads the Pentateuch. Which is understandable. I tried once, and I barely managed to hold on through Leviticus and gave up when I hit Numbers.

[Mnemosyne]

So the Bible teaches killing your children over loving your neighbors? Is that what Christianity is about?

Seriously though, what are the major tennants of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and Wicca? What is the ultimate goal?

Baltar's quote:
Religion as it is today only serves to distance us from one another, not bring us together.

Right, because people interpret their religion differently. Some interpret it very litterally, others very symbolically. As I'm starting to see in this thread, people become very defensive if you don't take their point of view about their religion.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

So the Bible teaches killing your children over loving your neighbors? Is that what Christianity is about?

No. I feel it's very important to make the distinction. The word "Christianity" is essentially meaningless, except in very broad strokes. You have to come to see Christians not as "members of Christianity", but as people who have a set of beliefs strongly aligned to that of their church, which is to say, a lot of other people.

The Bible does not explicitly teach a lot of what people claim it teaches. You have to realize that the vast majority of the Old Testament is a historical record, though not written by a historian in the modern sense. From memory, the only teachings to be found outside of dialogue are Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the epistles of Paul, James, and John. Maybe Jude; I don't feel like looking it up.

Noteworthy, for instance, is that the book of Esther does not contain the word God. What does that teach us? Don't speak the name of God while in exile? It doesn't teach anything.

The point is that people don't know what's in the Bible. People don't know enough paleontology, archaeology, or mythology to recognize the context of the historical settings in the Old Testament. People don't have any idea of church history, neither their own or in general.

But they believe that the Bible teaches good things, and that the Bible is true. It doesn't actually matter what's inside.

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

Seriously though, what are the major tennants of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and Wicca? What is the ultimate goal?

I don't think a religion has an ultimate goal. I view religions as a set of rules for the way a society operates based on a mythological justification. I'm also too unfamiliar with the other religions to deliver an argument regarding them.

However,
Judaism draws from the same historical stories as Christianity. Another poster has provided a list of verses from the Qu'ran which sounds fairly deplorable (though we're promised a dissenting perspective on the same verses, so we'll see how that goes). Hinduism is rich with blood, though the blood itself is often a touch... symbolic. Buddhism and Taoism are decidedly peaceful, in comparison, but I can't claim to know enough about either to remark. Certainly both belief systems are central to a large number of martial arts, from the Shaolin to the samurai. And I know Wicca has roots in Celtic culture, which does involve blood sacrifice and such, but again, I'm ignorant.

I'm generally more lenient about non-Christian perspectives in America, because the overwhelming dominance of Christianity means that anyone choosing to not be a Christian is likely to have put enough thought into their religion that any random acts of insanity may be countered without reason. It's a probability thing.

Though, if you ask me, the absolute most hilarious product of Christianity has been Satanism, which is basically a carbon copy of Catholicism with a massive, massive dose of melodrama. Any Satanists reading are welcome to respond to that. Seriously, not even Catholics are that pretentious.

[Christian223]

It is so sad to say that most Christians dont read the bible, but thats so true, most Christian (i mean the more normal ones, not the cults or crazy sects around the world, wich teach to read not the bible but their own materials and texts wich teach very crazy stuff created by very crazy people...) are taught that you dont have to do anything because Jesus allways forgives you so thats why they do nothing, not even read what the bibles teaches, how can they do what their god likes if they dont even want to read what he likes or dislikes?, they are miss-guided actually...

Anyway, i read the bible often, and from what i have learned is that there are 2 main pacts between god and his choosen people, old and new testament as commonly known, the first one was very violent, they had to kill everyone around them to stay pure, if they got contaminated they where punished by god with wars, and many ugly things, then came the second pact, where we just dont have to do that anymore since god himself paid for all of the impurities of the world, we just have to forgive as he had forgiven us and have lots of patience trough love until the day we die, then he will judge us all in one day to see if we did what he asked to us, if not, then eternal torment awaits, if we did well, then eternal happyness with him.
No more violent acts are asked to us, they are forbidden, the bible says that we must not take revenge but leave judgment to Jesus so he will punish when the day comes, when he decides, not when we want it.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

So the Bible teaches killing your children over loving your neighbors? Is that what Christianity is about?

Maybe that's not what Christianity is about, but violence is a huge part of Christian teachings, as it is in most other religions. You had mentioned that you'd never seen violence as part of any religion.

Seriously though, what are the major tennants of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and Wicca? What is the ultimate goal?

The ultimate goal of religion is to impart social order.

That's a pretty daunting task that's sometimes (of course there are exceptions) made easier for a small group of dominant individuals by declaring that there's a supernatural entity who has established a human heirarchy consisting of -- guess who? -- the dominant individuals (to whom advantages are usually funneled). Next, these d.i.'s make some rules, put together some documentation, hurt or kill dissenters, use psychological manipulation to help people fall in line, -- et voila! Social order.

[SteveG]

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

As I'm starting to see in this thread, people become very defensive if you don't take their point of view about their religion.

Some people become very offensive, ie. they go on the attack, if you don't agree with their anti-religion viewpoints. I always respected other people's religious beliefs, no matter what religion they followed, even when I was an atheist.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by SteveG

I always respected other people's religious beliefs, no matter what religion they followed, even when I was an atheist.

Really? Do you respect the religious belief that calls for every young girl's clitoris to be sliced off? How about the religious belief that called for the murder of Salman Rushdie, do you respect that? Have you always respected the religious belief that mandates that the punishment for having doubts is being killed? I have no such respect.

[SteveG]

Originally Posted by Angela

Really? Do you respect the religious belief that calls for every young girl's clitoris to be sliced off? How about the religious belief that called for the murder of Salman Rushdie, do you respect that? Have you always respected the religious belief that mandates that the punishment for having doubts is being killed? I have no such respect.

Just because I respect someone's beliefs doesn't mean I agree with them or support what they believe in, nor does it stop me thinking that they're just plain wrong. I don't advocate any of the examples you've given, but then none of those are in the context of the discussion. Your post is a good example of someone that goes on the attack when they don't like something someone says.

[Cron]

One of the criteria I judge a religion and any given follower by is how they deal with people who will never become one of them.