There are no "Religions of peace".....

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I don't care. 

Clearly, you do.

 

You don't need Jainism or Buddhism or Christianity or Hinduism or any religion to say, "Don't get violent with other humans".

Agreed.  Isn't it lucky that no one said so?

Jainism didn't invent peace anymore than any other religion.

 
Agreed.  Isn't it lucky that no one claimed Jains invented peace?

And just like the Amish, funny how it is easy to claim a minority religion with no majority would claim to be peaceful.

 
But Jains don't just 'claim' to be peaceful.  It is a basic tenet of their religion, as much as the resurrection is of Christianity.

Problem is majorities worldwide in our species history don't have to worry as much about the welfare of a minority.

 
True, but trite, and not really relevant to your original claim.  But you just keep moving those goalposts, there's a good lad.

So any given minority worldwide can easily market themselves as peaceful, when the the reality would be, that if they were the majority, and not the minority, they probably would not be so accommodating.

You keep missing the point that Jains don't 'market' themselves as peaceful.  You also seem to be having trouble understanding the words 'minority' and 'majority'.  By definition, the only 'majority' religion in the world is Christianity.

Again, this is not for me about Jainism, or Amish, or Jewish or Muslim, or Rasta or Muslim or Christian or Hindu.

Funny, that.  You titled your thread 'There are no "Religions of peace', then proceed to exclude eight religions.

It is very easy for humans as they unfortunately do a majority of the time, to forget that while they can be an oppressed minority geographically depending on history, does not mean they will always be the underdog and will always be kind to others. 

Which has nothing to do with your topic.

There is only a species regardless of label, capable of compassion. But our ability to do good or bad is not based on a label. Our species failure is assuming that a label is a cure all. Our actions are a solution, but our respective labels are still in no way universal and have no magic powers.

Which has nothing to do with your topic.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Jain empires have engaged in land grabs and preemptive strikes against infant princes.  A jain that beats someone to death with a steel dildo would be entirely representative of the common jain in jainisms golden age.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Jain empires have engaged in land grabs and preemptive strikes against infant princes.  A jain that beats someone to death with a steel dildo would be entirely representative of the common jain in jainisms golden age.

Immaterial.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

If you say so, but it does shed some light on what brian may have been trying to communicate with the notion that religions tend to preach peace when powerless and then ruthlessly expand when in the majority.

What do you think a "good jain" would have been conceptualized as, then? A person who refused to engage in the campaigns? They were executed.

[Brian37]

You cannot name one single religion in the world that has never had conflict between sub sects and or other religions.

Jainism.

Church of the Brethren. 

Mennonites.

Quakers.

Raelism.

Now, shut up.

Boru

Jainism, started in ancient India, bet there is no overlap with Hindus or Sikhs. Funny how Jains still reference "Karma" like both Hindus and Buddhists also buy.


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/pankaj-ja...53890.html

Church of the Bretheren, Christian spin off.

Mennonnites, also a Christian sub sect.

Quakers, again a Christian sub sect.

Raelism..... Why would Catholics object to their version of baptism if they were so original?

You can argue all of them are currently minorities. I'd agree with that. But again, I doubt if they over time became majorities in a political power context would need to worry about accommodating outsiders.

[The Grand Nudger]

They didn't seem to be worried about accomodating others historically, more like annexing, lol. 

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

If you say so, but it does shed some light on what brian may have been trying to communicate with the notion that religions tend to preach peace when powerless and then ruthlessly expand when in the majority.

What do you think a "good jain" would have been conceptualized as, then?  A person who refused to engage in the campaigns?  They were executed.

Again, this is the difference between 'a religion of peace' and 'peaceful religionists'. A believer violating the tenets of a religion doesn't change what those tenets are.

Boru

[Brian37]

They didn't seem to be worried about accomodating others historically, more like annexing, lol. 

I agree.... 

There is a tendency  even among well intended liberals to fall for the "underdog" motif. While nobody likes a bully, the problem with time itself, is that history shifts and powers change, and humans regardless of that shift behave in a predictable manor. It is normal to want to protect the small, the weak and the oppressed. But that well intended mentality never takes into account that times change, and once the abused can become the abuser.

Give any given group enough time and power, while they can have good intent in the short term, they can lose sight of the past when they become the majority long term.

Point is, labels are nothing. A hero now can become a bully in the future.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you say so, but it does shed some light on what brian may have been trying to communicate with the notion that religions tend to preach peace when powerless and then ruthlessly expand when in the majority.

What do you think a "good jain" would have been conceptualized as, then?  A person who refused to engage in the campaigns?  They were executed.

Again, this is the difference between 'a religion of peace' and 'peaceful religionists'. A believer violating the tenets of a religion doesn't change what those tenets are.

Boru

They weren't violating the terms of their religion.  The jain religion doesn't prevent killing, as so many believe.  It asserts responsibility for killing in service with pretext.  

That's exactly what the jain emperors did, offered pretext, and in that event it was the non murdery jains who were violating their religious tenets.  They were supposed to "defend" the good and righteous people against "evil". It just spo happened that those infant princes and their competing kingdoms were evil..so obviously they had to strike first.

(and, you know, "liberate" the inhabitants and their resources to live under the benevolent and enlightened jain dictatorship, lol)

---

-for completeness of thought,that the modern incarnation of the religion emphasizes those peaceful aspects over the less-than-peaceful is a product of subsumation into later islamic authority that didn't exactly treat them well.  

It has nothing to do with jainism being a religion of peace, which it isn't..even when the religion -is- full of peaceful religionists, as it largely is today. Th notion that it's a religion of x isn't much more than our indicating preference over which -parts- of their religion we enjoy..and by default those who play with those parts are the "good jains"..the rest would be "doing it wrong".

[Brian37]

Again, this is the difference between 'a religion of peace' and 'peaceful religionists'. A believer violating the tenets of a religion doesn't change what those tenets are.

Boru

They weren't violating the terms of their religion.  The jain religion doesn't prevent killing, as so many believe.  It asserts responsibility for killing in service with pretext.  

That's exactly what the jain emperors did, offered pretext, and in that event it was the non murdery jains who were violating their religious tenets.  They were supposed to "defend" the good and righteous people against "evil".  It just spo happened that those infant princes and their competing kingdoms were evil..so obviously they had to strike first.

(and, you know, "liberate" the inhabitants and their resources to live under the benevolent and enlightened jain dictatorship, lol)

---

-for completeness of thought,that the modern incarnation of the religion emphasizes those peaceful aspects over the less-than-peaceful is a product of subsumation into latter islamic and hindu authority that didn't exactly treat them well.  

It has nothing to do with jainism being a religion of peace, which it isn't..even when the religion -is- full of peaceful religionists, as it largely is today.

Isn't funny how every religion has a concept of defending good and righteous against evil?