They don't hate us, they love their God

Setana, I agree that their have been some nasty Buddhist sects throughout history. But in todays world you do not see any wars being fought in the name of Buddhism. Budhism is a humanistic philosophy. To start a war in its name would be contrary to the philosophy, thus, it would not be a war in the name of Buddhism.

0 Replies

clubpenguinrocks wrote:

I love God enough that if he wanted it I would die for somebody else.
I've lived a bad life and i am only 11

Welcome to the forum, penguin. You will find many here who can help you.

Stick around.

We'll grow on ya.

0 Replies

NickFun wrote:

Setana, I agree that their have been some nasty Buddhist sects throughout history. But in todays world you do not see any wars being fought in the name of Buddhism. Budhism is a humanistic philosophy. To start a war in its name would be contrary to the philosophy, thus, it would not be a war in the name of Buddhism.

What consolation do you think would be afforded to the survivors of anyone killed by a buddhist in contemplating the lack of a proselytizing motive?

0 Replies

Quote:

Muktar Said Ibrahim, 29, Yassin Omar, 26, Ramzi Mohammed, 25, and Hussain Osman, 28, were convicted of conspiracy to murder at Woolwich Crown Court.

Their bombs failed to explode properly.

Open magazine with interview with Sheik Omar Bakri, who praises the martyrs of the glorious 7/7 attacks.

Head of MI5 says they are actively monitoring 219 extremist cells.

"48 British Universtities have been inflitrated by Al Majahroun"

According to a well educated British muslim woman, "most" muslims in Britain silently support or have sympathy with terrorists; if only by not condemning it without equivocation.

New head of counter terrorism Alan West says it will take at least 10 -15 years to counter Islamic violence in Britain.

Former member of Hizb ut Tahrir Hassan Butt says its nothing to do with British foreign policy.

These people think they are building the global Islamic caliphate through jihad.

I'm getting rather tired of them.

We should all stand up and shout "screw the caliphate"

0 Replies

Count me in, Steve.

0 Replies

bookmarking

be back later.

0 Replies

Sometimes you gotta take a step back and think...man, what a truly extraordinary animal.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

NickFun wrote:
Setana, I agree that their have been some nasty Buddhist sects throughout history. But in todays world you do not see any wars being fought in the name of Buddhism. Budhism is a humanistic philosophy. To start a war in its name would be contrary to the philosophy, thus, it would not be a war in the name of Buddhism.

What consolation do you think would be afforded to the survivors of anyone killed by a buddhist in contemplating the lack of a proselytizing motive?

I'm afraid you lost me here. I don't know of anyone killed by a buddhist in contemplating the lack of a proselytizing motive

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

NickFun wrote:
Setana, I agree that their have been some nasty Buddhist sects throughout history. But in todays world you do not see any wars being fought in the name of Buddhism. Budhism is a humanistic philosophy. To start a war in its name would be contrary to the philosophy, thus, it would not be a war in the name of Buddhism.

What consolation do you think would be afforded to the survivors of anyone killed by a buddhist in contemplating the lack of a proselytizing motive?

You gotta be f#@ken kiddin me.

0 Replies

http://www.sangam.org/articles/view2/1078.h2.gif

This is the first picture of a buddhist I ever saw. At the time, (mid 60s) I think I remember thinking that this protest against the Diem (Viet Nam) government was shockingly brave, but the more I thought about it I came to the conclusion that it just shows the common people how little value life holds. That is distructive in deeper ways than just shooting them.

Joe(staying here, alive, is always the tough, and better, choice)Nation

0 Replies

Let me try and help you out.

Setanta makes the very valid point that to the victims of violence it makes no difference as to the particular brand of religion or philosophy that engenders that violence.

In that respect Buddhism is no different from Christianity or Islam.

0 Replies

Holy cow
I just cant believe these religious nuts.

They're like children. Their pet cow has to go to cow hospital.

Uncle shiva will make him better.

Then you can have a new cow. Just keep him free of bovine tuberculosis this time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/6251062.stm

0 Replies

NickFun wrote:

Setanta wrote:
NickFun wrote:
Setana, I agree that their have been some nasty Buddhist sects throughout history. But in todays world you do not see any wars being fought in the name of Buddhism. Budhism is a humanistic philosophy. To start a war in its name would be contrary to the philosophy, thus, it would not be a war in the name of Buddhism.

What consolation do you think would be afforded to the survivors of anyone killed by a buddhist in contemplating the lack of a proselytizing motive?

I'm afraid you lost me here. I don't know of anyone killed by a buddhist in contemplating the lack of a proselytizing motive

OK, i'll go slowly . . . the topic is religiously inspired violence. Whenever that comes up, if a buddhist drops by, they are quick to say, basically: "We don't do that." But buddhists do kill other people--so any attempt to claim that the practice of buddhism prevents violence is suspect.

As for the statement of mine which you butchered, i wrote: What consolation do you think would be afforded to the survivors of anyone killed by a buddhist in contemplating the lack of a proselytizing motive? Why should anyone whose loved on was killed by a buddhist be consoled because the buddhist did not kill them from a religious motive? Their loved one is just as dead.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

Let me try and help you out.

Setanta makes the very valid point that to the victims of violence it makes no difference as to the particular brand of religion or philosophy that engenders that violence.

In that respect Buddhism is no different from Christianity or Islam.

Bingo ! ! !

Somebody give that boy a cee-gar.

0 Replies

The Buddhist philosophy does not advocate violence. Any Buddhist committing a violent act is acting contrary to his beliefs. It is a reflection of the weakness of the individual. However, that is different from the individual who believes in the rightness of violence, in principle, to obtain his goals (such as the suicide bomber). The person who feels justified in violence based on his beliefs is harder to reason with. They may kill without regret. They have lost touch with their humanness.

0 Replies

I see . . . so now your are an expert on how Buddhists should act. Do you allege that the Amida Buddhists, and their Japanese adherents in Ikko-Ikki were no true buddhists? Do you allege that the Tendai buddhists of Mout Hiei were not true buddhists? Whether or not that were true, it still constitutes evidence that buddhism, no more than any other religious belief set, does not serve to prevent violence in its adherents.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I see . . . so now your are an expert on how Buddhists should act. Do you allege that the Amida Buddhists, and their Japanese adherents in Ikko-Ikki were no true buddhists? Do you allege that the Tendai buddhists of Mout Hiei were not true buddhists? Whether or not that were true, it still constitutes evidence that buddhism, no more than any other religious belief set, does not serve to prevent violence in its adherents.

The teachings of Buddha and the canonical Mahayana texts do not advocate violence. If any followers of Buddhism are violent, it is either the result of personal weakness, wrong teaching, or a legitimate defense from attack.

0 Replies

Now you're the authority on "canonical" texts in buddhism? How charming. Leaving aside that the Mahayana tradition is one to two major traditions (without considering minor traditions)--the other being the Theravada tradition--upon what basis do you assert that the Mahayana tradition is definitive? Siddarha Gautama lived in the 5th century BCE, and the earliest Mahayana texts date to the first century CE. Therefore, you have even less credibility for your preferred scriptural canon than do the Christians with their "testaments," for which, at least, copies dating to the 3rd century CE exist, albeit in fragmentary form. So your "canonical" Mahayana texts date from 500 years or more after Gautama Buddha lived, whereas there are fragmentary "canonical" texts in Christianity which date to at the latest, 250 years after the death of the putative "Christ." The Quran is far better founded, with copies dating to little more than a century after the death of the Prophet having been studied by non-Muslim scholars and declared to be authentic artifacts of the late 8th century.

This is highly amusing, though, as it reminds me of the standard Christian defense against charges of murderous behavior of Christians--"well, they're not real Christians."

Pardon me for a moment, i have to go puke. I'll be back.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

This is highly amusing, though, as it reminds me of the standard Christian defense against charges of murderous behavior of Christians--"well, they're not real Christians."

Well, if someone who calls themselves a Christian exhibits "murderous behavior", they are not following the teachings of Christ. So, it seems legitimate to say that they are "not real Christians".

Quote:

Pardon me for a moment, i have to go puke. I'll be back.

Exactly what about my statements causes such revulsion in you?

0 Replies

The puling hypocrisy of the religionist.

0 Replies

They don't hate us, they love their God

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know