What religion would you join if you HAD to join 1?

MadArchitect

Chris OConnor: Nationalism isn't a religion, but it could be classified as a dangerous belief. I'm not going to disagree if this is your position.

I'm not going to push to have people try to see nationalism as a religion, but they have more in common than most people give them credit for. And more often than not, nationalism has fallen back on or made use of religion in order to bolster its own claims of validity.

It would be nice if we could keep politics in the politics forum and religion in the religion forum. Naturally, they merge and intersect at times.

I think nationalism has a place in a philosophy forum. And one of my interests in terms of religion is the way in which it gets modified and abused to serve political ends. But this is a religion thread so I'll drop it for the moment.

Buddhism is much more peaceful and harmless than any of the religions named.

It's easy to overlook the examples. Certain sects of Buddhist monks were trained as warriors, and the Zen Buddhism of the Japanese found much of its expression in the development of a feudal warrior culture, and Japanese Buddhist monastaries sometimes led wars against one another during this period. Buddhism in general has often found its expression in the martial arts, and not merely as a symbollic display. The Buddhist monks of Tibet have signalled their protest of that nation's Chinese occupation by dousing themselves in gasoline and setting themselves aflame.

In the West, Buddhism has been championed as an uncharacteristically moderate and peaceful religion, but that perception has been reinforced mostly by ignoring the examples of Buddhism that call the version into doubt. What, precisely, about Scientology makes it as dangerous as a religion that provided the foundation for nearly a thousand years of martial culture in Japan?

Buddhists don't worship imaginary beings.

Buddhism allows for the existence of both gods and demons. Personally, I don't see why you wouldn't see the concept of a transcendent human existence as something imaginary.

Name a time in history where Buddhists attempted to spread their religion through violence.

Buddhism took hold in mostly the same way that Christianity took hold in Europe -- it was taught to the rulers of empires, who then declared it the official religion of their realm. Even if you find that Buddhism compares favorably to Roman Catholic Christianity in this regard, you can hardly claim that Mormonism or Scientology have waged many physical battles in the name of their faith.

Buddhists are tolerant and peaceful by nature. Can you say the same for Catholics?

I can't even say it of the majority of Buddhists that I know. "By nature" is a phrase that doesn't readily apply to people on the basis of their religious affiliation. I suspect that the naturally tolerant and peaceful Buddhists that I know would be just as tolerant and peaceful if they were Zoroastrians or Medes.


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT