Topic: Religion breeds peace | |
---|---|
Edited by
smiless
on
Fri 03/06/09 05:29 AM
|
|
We have a thread called "religion breeds atrocities http://mingle2.com/topic/show/207351 " and it has been shown that it can do this also.
Now I would like to be educated on how religion has preserved peace also. If you can show parts of history that has shown that religion has breed peace then I thank you for the lesson. Doesn't matter which religion as long as it is proven that religion can also breed peace. |
|
|
|
Well I think empathy breeds peace.
|
|
|
|
Well I think empathy breeds peace. Good morning to you my friend. I would cook you a breakfast, but you are too far away. yes you have a good point. |
|
|
|
I don't think religion breeds peace either. people can take any belief and do good or bad with it under it's name. it's mankind not necessarily a belief.
people from many religious beliefs/non-beliefs help thise in need every day....even if it's just a shoulder to cry on. some beliefs teach to help others....for some it just knowing that they tried to help others |
|
|
|
What I am trying to figure out if any religous body ever found a way to influence kings or queens, leaders to not wage a war, or even influence nations not to do bad to people in history.
If there were times religion did do good and preserved peace for mankind at the time. This would interest me. |
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Fri 03/06/09 08:30 AM
|
|
That's an interesting question Smiless. Unfortunately I can't think of an example of the top of my head. But I also wonder if we should give credit to a particular religion just because some of it's followered just happened to spread peace?
I mean take this one Mediterranean religion as an example. In their doctrine their God is quoted as having said the following: Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Therefore, anyone who attempts to use that religion to spread peace is clearly spitting in the face of their God. They would need to be heretics to use the religion to spread peace. How can you go against the very objectives that your God has proclaimed in your doctrine and claim to be "Following" the religion? Some religions just aren't designed for peace. |
|
|
|
That's an interesting question Smiless. Unfortunately I can't think of an example of the top of my head. But I also wonder if we should give credit to a particular religion just because some of it's followered just happened to spread peace? I mean take this one Mediterranean religion as an example. In their doctrine their God is quoted as having said the following: Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Therefore, anyone who attempts to use that religion to spread peace is clearly spitting in the face of their God. They would need to be heretics to use the religion to spread peace. How can you go against the very objectives that your God has proclaimed in your doctrine and claim to be "Following" the religion? Some religions just aren't designed for peace. Wow this is written in the bible? That is amazing. Well I don't understand why Mathew would write this? Was it to scare people to believe in the religion or suffer the consequences? What exact reason did Mathew write this for? |
|
|
|
Religion is exclusive, which excludes all that DO NOT believe. Therefore it is not uniting. Bringing peoples together, bringing peace.
|
|
|
|
Edited by
smiless
on
Fri 03/06/09 09:01 AM
|
|
Religion is exclusive, which excludes all that DO NOT believe. Therefore it is not uniting. Bringing peoples together, bringing peace. It is funny you say this. For half of my life I have been around people that didn't speak any of the languages I knew. Times where difficult as we tried to find a way to communicate. One thing I have learned is that "food and good drink" makes peace. Yes as ironic as it may sound, but food is something we can all get along with. Try it one day if possible. I once invited 7 different nationalities. Some could communicate and others could only offer a small smile. lol Yet big smiles, laughter, and joy was given when the food and drinks where served. Although some of us couldn't communicate we were able to share laughter. A language we can all agree with. or maybe(just joking here) I was just lucky to have food everyone liked or had a paper stuck to my ass reading "the fool who tried to make peace" and that made everyone laugh making me believe the food was the reason |
|
|
|
oh for the note, I would have cooked a great meal for everyone who posted in here
|
|
|
|
Wow this is written in the bible? That is amazing. Well I don't understand why Mathew would write this? Was it to scare people to believe in the religion or suffer the consequences? What exact reason did Mathew write this for? If you read the Bible you'll see that the different authors had differing opinions on what they would like Jesus to have stood for. It does seem that John tried to convey a message of love, whilst the other gospels tended to opt for the sword and threats. Paul was more interested in belittling women more than anything else. It's kind of funny, if you look at the cannon the way it was put together. First we have the conflicting Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Matthew as addressing the Jews in particular and did ineed try to threaten them into believing in Jesus. Mark was more of a generalized historic approach to the life if Jesus. Luke tried to sell Jesus to the non-Jews. John tried to paint Jesus as a man of love. The next 13 or so books were Paul giving his interpretations of all of this. Only he didn't really focus on Jesus so much, he was more focused on his own opinions. Paul was very male chauvinsitic. I act I remember my Christian aunt used to always be peeved at Paul. She used to say that she wished his books had never been included in the Biblical Cannon. That would basically wipe out about 75% of the New Testament. Near the end of the new testament John sneaks back in to try to undo the damage that Paul did and turn it all back into love again. The book is almost like an arugment between the authors really. Each one having their own opinions. It was the medieval equivalent of Interent Forum posts, where Paul had the most posts, and a lot of posts were deleted (not added to the Cannon) and those member were banned from the conversation (i.e. not recognized by the church even to this day) It's clearly a book of opinions of men as far as I can see. Jesus never even got to give his views! He was long since dead, assuming that he ever existed at all. Why people give these texts so much faith is beyond me. It's impossible to have faith in Jesus. At best we can do is put our faith in the hearsay of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the male chauvinistic pig Paul. Jesus isn't even in the Bible at all. |
|
|
|
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man All men are Socrates All religion's have h@te dogma in their holy texts Power corrupts absolutely [Fill in the blank, I lost my train of thought] |
|
|
|
All men are mortal Socrates is a man All men are Socrates All religion's have h@te dogma in their holy texts Power corrupts absolutely [Fill in the blank, I lost my train of thought] (Fill in the blank) Okay I will try and milkshakes taste good |
|
|
|
I will drink your milkshake!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL, I heard your milkshake brings all the boys to the yard, you teach us, but you'd have to charge...
|
|
|
|
Religion is an ideology, and ideologies such as these are generally based upon “We know what’s best” principle. Find an ideology that actually respects, then you will have your answer, because there would be no wars.
|
|
|
|
Edited by
jessicapickle
on
Fri 03/06/09 12:45 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
BAH! You must be dislexic. Religion breads anything BUT peace! Watch the videos, you'll see my point, loud and clear!
|
|
|