Alex123 wrote:Those "hostile" were not as hostile as some faiths today. Guess who contributed to driving Buddhism out from Northern India in 12th century?
I am honestly trying to remain calm and civil about this, but the "things are different now" is one of least favorite logical fallacies. I honestly could never stand it, not when I was a kid and "the needy are different now" was trotted out by Catholic priests to excuse why we were ok being not so charitable, and certainly not now.
If worldy conditions can change so much that something as clear cut as the Buddha's staunch pacifism no longer applies, then why follow anything in the Dhamma?
I don't care what happened in the 12th century. To hold people responsible now for what someone did hundreds of years ago is worse than ridiculous and foolish. How does that make any sense? At all?
There are some points of Dhamma that seem open ended. Ahimsa is not one of these. Violence is never the answer for Buddhists. Never. Those who use violence or bigotry in the name of Buddhism are liars, hypocrites, and worse.
How did the Buddha react to Devadatta? Peacefully
How did he react to Nalagiri? Peacefully
The Kosalans killing the Sakyans? Peacefully
Rival ascetics who disparaged him, his sangha, his dhamma? Peacefully
-Don't bother warning the disbelievers. Allah has made it impossible for them to believe so that he can torture them forever after they die. 2:6-7
-Allah will make disbelievers' lives miserable in this world and torture them forever after they die. 2:114
-Those who fail in their duty to Allah are proud and sinful. They will all go to hell. 2:206
-War is ordained by Allah, and all Muslims must be willing to fight, whether they like it or not. 2:216
-Those who disbelieve, promise them a painful doom. 3:21http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/q ... /long.htmlhttp://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/q ... ndex.htm#6
I don't care what someone else's holy book says. I don't care how they act. I care about Buddhism and how Buddhists are expected to act. My religion preaches tolerance and peace. If people from that religion act contrary to the teachings of that religion, they are wrong. Tolerance and peace always win in the long run, and the bigots and the murderers (and their supporters) are remembered in history as exactly that.
Once again, this is not even touching the fact that the Buddhists are the agressors, that the Muslims (in general) have been peaceful for generations.
Violence is always wrong. Violence in the name of peace even more so.
There is no scriptural or historical support for Buddhist monks acting this way. If you are worried that the mean old Muslims are too warlike, ask yourself how Buddhism has survived this long in a warlike world without genocide. It clearly has, so even this point is not valid.
Please show me where the Buddha said racism, opression and war were ok for the right reasons, and I will back down from these points