Religion of peace

Some topics tend to get heated and go off track in unwholesome ways quite quickly. The "hot topics" sub-forum is a place where such topics may be moved so that each post must be manually approved by moderator before it will become visible to members.
sentinel
Posts: 2408
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Religion of peace

Post by sentinel » Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:48 am

Do you find that buddhism is a religion of peace ?I find this video soothing . All Buddhists can sit together in harmony . Different sect but same origin .
However , Muslims regard their religion Islam advocate peace too .




Mod : should this move to other category ?
Mod : please rectify the topic title , thanks .
Last edited by sentinel on Tue Jul 02, 2019 2:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
:coffee:

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 5447
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Religion of peace

Post by Ceisiwr » Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:58 am

The claim that Islam is a religion of peace is ahistorical.

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 12670
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Religion of peace

Post by DNS » Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:53 pm

Fortunately, Buddhists tend to be very tolerant and peaceful to other sects, denominations. Monks often stay at each others' temples and monasteries, even though they are from different traditions.

Typically, you don't find that in Islam for example between Sunnis and Shiites. Or in Christianity between some protestants and catholics.

SarathW
Posts: 12767
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Religion of peace

Post by SarathW » Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:37 am

I can recall once Ven. Dhammanando said that he could not get lodging in a temple because he is from another sects.
I may be wrong.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

Caodemarte
Posts: 961
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Religion of peace

Post by Caodemarte » Wed Jul 03, 2019 3:15 am

DNS wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:53 pm
Fortunately, Buddhists tend to be very tolerant and peaceful to other sects, denominations. Monks often stay at each others' temples and monasteries, even though they are from different traditions.

Typically, you don't find that in Islam for example between Sunnis and Shiites. Or in Christianity between some protestants and catholics.
Historically you do typically find Sunni and Shiite coexisting quite nicely in Islamic countries as you even do Protestants and Catholics in Europe or the Americas. It depends on where and when you look. The Islamic countries have historically been far more tolerant than in Europe, but you also find religious tensions and even wars as you do everywhere. The Buddhist record is pretty similar (see, for example, the religious wars between Buddhist Burma and Buddhist Thailand or the violence perpetrated in Buddha’s name today in Sri Lanka and Burma today). Sadly, any religion or anything else that preaches love and peace can and has been abused to rationalize violence, hatred, and greed. This is not a criticism of religion, but of its abuse. As the Buddha taught the fault does not lie somewhere outside ourselves.

SarathW
Posts: 12767
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Religion of peace

Post by SarathW » Wed Jul 03, 2019 3:43 am

What they do in public is not what they do in private.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

Caodemarte
Posts: 961
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Religion of peace

Post by Caodemarte » Wed Jul 03, 2019 8:52 pm

Ceisiwr wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:58 am
The claim that Islam is a religion of peace is ahistorical.
No, in fact a simple examination of actual history would more nearly show the opposite. Islam is clearly at least
as much a religion of peace as any other. But to return to the OP historically Buddhism is as much a religion of war and violence as any other because most Buddhists do not study and practice Buddhism just as most adherents of other religions do not practice their own. The temptation to twist the noblest expressions of humanity into supports for greed, ego, and hatred is very strong. The lesson for us is to be aware of and resist those temptations and actually practice.

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:53 am

Re: Religion of peace

Post by Sherab » Wed Jul 03, 2019 11:31 pm

It is the views that a religion propagates that will determine whether it is peaceful or not.

I think in general, humans are generally good. But they are also easily subjected to group-think. In that sense, nobel laurette Steven Weinbeg was correct to say that:

“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”

Caodemarte
Posts: 961
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Religion of peace

Post by Caodemarte » Thu Jul 04, 2019 12:50 am

Sherab wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 11:31 pm
It is the views that a religion propagates that will determine whether it is peaceful or not.

I think in general, humans are generally good. But they are also easily subjected to group-think. In that sense, nobel laurette Steven Weinbeg was correct to say that:

“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”
A religion cannot act. Specific people do specific acts. Sometimes because of their beliefs. More often, their beliefs are used to justify the acts after they have occurred.

Dan74
Posts: 3187
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: Religion of peace

Post by Dan74 » Thu Jul 04, 2019 5:33 am

Sherab wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 11:31 pm
It is the views that a religion propagates that will determine whether it is peaceful or not.

I think in general, humans are generally good. But they are also easily subjected to group-think. In that sense, nobel laurette Steven Weinbeg was correct to say that:

“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”
Instead of 'religion', it would be more correct to say 'a strong belief' or 'a conviction'.
_/|\_

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 5447
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Religion of peace

Post by Ceisiwr » Thu Jul 04, 2019 3:47 pm

Caodemarte wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 8:52 pm
Ceisiwr wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:58 am
The claim that Islam is a religion of peace is ahistorical.
No, in fact a simple examination of actual history would more nearly show the opposite. Islam is clearly at least
as much a religion of peace as any other. But to return to the OP historically Buddhism is as much a religion of war and violence as any other because most Buddhists do not study and practice Buddhism just as most adherents of other religions do not practice their own. The temptation to twist the noblest expressions of humanity into supports for greed, ego, and hatred is very strong. The lesson for us is to be aware of and resist those temptations and actually practice.

There is an easier logical pathway between Islam and violence than there is between Buddhadhamma and violence. One lends itself to it, even embracing it, whilst the other does not. Violence was with Islam right from the beginning, which isn’t surprising considering its morally questionable founder.

Islam’s “peace” was the suppression or death of gays, slavery and the relegation to 2nd class status for religious minorities within its territory usually after butchering its way through. And of course, we have the calamity of Islam in modern times to look at.

Caodemarte
Posts: 961
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Religion of peace

Post by Caodemarte » Thu Jul 04, 2019 5:22 pm

Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 3:47 pm
...
There is an easier logical pathway between Islam and violence than there is between Buddhadhamma and violence. One lends itself to it, even embracing it, whilst the other does not. Violence was with Islam right from the beginning, which isn’t surprising considering its morally questionable founder.

Islam’s “peace” was the suppression or death of gays, slavery and the relegation to 2nd class status for religious minorities within its territory usually after butchering its way through. And of course, we have the calamity of Islam in modern times to look at.
I am amazed that DW is again allowing random attacks on other religions, but ok.

This is simply wrong as any examination of actual history and religious texts shows. Your statements about what the Muslim religion preach sound like something sourced in late medieval Christian propaganda. First, violence is conducted by people, grouped in states for wars, not religions. If we are going to paint with a broad brush and sweeping generalizations, you will find historically more tolerance for gays (look at Persian literature alone), religious tolerance (which is why Jews fled to Turkey and other Muslim states, why Christian minorities and Jews rioted in Spain to open the gates to Muslims rather than submit to the persecution of the “Christian” armies) and for racial/ethnic minorities than in any European state of the period up to the post-Nazi era. (To be clear, I am not saying that Muslim states were Edens ruled by early hippies!)

If we look at the Buddhist world we find Buddhists conducting numerous “religious wars” in SE Asia and ideological purges and suppression as monasteries compete for favor in Sri Lanka. Look at the Tibetan Empire and East Asia (see “Buddhist Warfare,” eds. Michael Jerryson, Mark Juergensmeyer or any of the many authoritative books on SE Asian history). I have personally heard a senior monk in Sri Lanka, based on what he claimed were Buddhist principle, calling for the murder of every Tamil Hindu baby, child, woman, and man (he also said this in several public speeches). I assume he is now following the general trend and attacking Muslims and Christians on the same grounds now. In Burma we see genocide, led by Buddhist monks, before our very eyes.

None of this means that Buddhism or any religion is “inherently” violent or the cause. It is touching that some believe that people, en masse, actually follow their own religion or ideals in a pure way, It is not so touching to use religion, or specifically to use Buddhism, to support our ego by justifying attacks (physical or otherwise), bigotry, and willful ignorance. As the Buddha made clear, anything, even Buddhism, can be abused to build up our false sense of self and the delusions that flow from that.

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 5447
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Religion of peace

Post by Ceisiwr » Thu Jul 04, 2019 7:20 pm

Caodemarte

I am amazed that DW is again allowing random attacks on other religions, but ok.
The Buddha criticised other religions. Of Makkhali Gosala he said it would have been better if he had never been born because of the destructive doctrine that he taught. Not all religions are wholesome or deserving of respect. The Aztec death cult comes to mind, among others.


This is simply wrong as any examination of actual history and religious texts shows. Your statements about what the Muslim religion preach sound like something sourced in late medieval Christian propaganda.


Muhammad kept sex slaves, killed many in battle as well as prisoners of war and tailored his "revelations" to suit his own primitive needs. The Qur,an as well as the several Hadiths are, on the whole, deplorable especially towards sexual minorities.

First, violence is conducted by people, grouped in states for wars, not religions.
Partly true. Violence is commited by people, sometimes because of ideology and sometimes still because of religious ideology. Violence is within the Qur'an, the Hadiths and the Old Testament. It isn't within the Pali Suttas except where its condemned.

If we are going to paint with a broad brush and sweeping generalizations, you will find historically more tolerance for gays (look at Persian literature alone), religious tolerance (which is why Jews fled to Turkey and other Muslim states, why Christian minorities and Jews rioted in Spain to open the gates to Muslims rather than submit to the persecution of the “Christian” armies) and for racial/ethnic minorities than in any European state of the period up to the post-Nazi era. (To be clear, I am not saying that Muslim states were Edens ruled by early hippies!)
Whilst it's true that the likes of the Ottoman Empire flouted the Islamic doctrine somewhat in terms of homosexuality they did so despite their faith not because of it, assuming they were sincere Muslims. Islam itself, by which I mean the mainstream versions, is pathologically opposed to homosexuals very often to the point of death. Its also true that medieval Christian Europe was a deplorable place in many ways. Your whataboutism fails here as I'm not defending Christianity. I'm attacking Islam. I can sit here and agree with you all day about the problems of Christianity and Islam will still be an awful religion although, I have to say, Pauline Christianity is marginally better than Islam.
If we look at the Buddhist world we find Buddhists conducting numerous “religious wars” in SE Asia and ideological purges and suppression as monasteries compete for favor in Sri Lanka. Look at the Tibetan Empire and East Asia (see “Buddhist Warfare,” eds. Michael Jerryson, Mark Juergensmeyer or any of the many authoritative books on SE Asian history). I have personally heard a senior monk in Sri Lanka, based on what he claimed were Buddhist principle, calling for the murder of every Tamil Hindu baby, child, woman, and man (he also said this in several public speeches). I assume he is now following the general trend and attacking Muslims and Christians on the same grounds now. In Burma we see genocide, led by Buddhist monks, before our very eyes.

Once again, there is no logical pathway between Buddhadhamma and such things. These things are done in spite of the Dhamma, not because of it. In terms of Islam vile acts are committed because of it.

None of this means that Buddhism or any religion is “inherently” violent or the cause. It is touching that some believe that people, en masse, actually follow their own religion or ideals in a pure way, It is not so touching to use religion, or specifically to use Buddhism, to support our ego by justifying attacks (physical or otherwise), bigotry, and willful ignorance. As the Buddha made clear, anything, even Buddhism, can be abused to build up our false sense of self and the delusions that flow from that.
It's not "bigotry" to find certain ideologies morally questionable and to criticise them. Religions can't get a free pass just because they are religions, which is what you seem to imply. The only issue here seems to be a sorry bout of Islamophilia ;)

Caodemarte
Posts: 961
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Religion of peace

Post by Caodemarte » Thu Jul 04, 2019 8:37 pm

Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 7:20 pm
...
Once again, there is no logical pathway between Buddhadhamma and such things. These things are done in spite of the Dhamma, not because of it. In terms of Islam vile acts are committed because of it...
Really? This is almost the definition of hypocrisy and mindless prejudice. If Turks, for example, practice some degree of toleration then they are not sincere Muslims or understand their own religion because they do not live up to ill informed examples of religious bigotry? Your other statements on history and what I have "implied" are just nonsense and do not deserve repetition, but if you really believe the historical claims you made I would beg you to read any standard, authoritative history. All Muslims are not saints. All Buddhists are not genocidal sutta quoters like the senior cleric I cited earlier.

At this point, I am sliding into participating into DW's return to being a spreader of hate and bigotry rather than a forum for Buddhist discussion. Following Buddhist principles I will take my leave and return to the study and practice of the dhamma.

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 5447
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Religion of peace

Post by Ceisiwr » Thu Jul 04, 2019 8:57 pm

Caodemarte
Really? This is almost the definition of hypocrisy and mindless prejudice. If Turks, for example, practice some degree of toleration then they are not sincere Muslims or understand their own religion because they do not live up to ill informed examples of religious bigotry?
People can do wonderful things and they can do terrible things despite their religion, yes. The question is if Islam is a religion of peace not if Muslims can do good things. In order to answer the question we have to look at what Islam preaches and what it leads to if followed devoutly.

At this point, I am sliding into participating into DW's return to being a spreader of hate and bigotry rather than a forum for Buddhist discussion. Following Buddhist principles I will take my leave and return to the study and practice of the dhamma.
Quit the hysterics. We are discussing if Islam is a religion of peace or not. To do so isn’t to spread hate by myself nor by DW. Criticising a religion isn’t being hateful. To think so stinks of either the lefty liberal penchant for authoritarianism or the theocratic one.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests