To be accurate, the Old Testament was before the birth of Jesus and his subsequent crucifixion for the forgiveness of sins. In the Old Testment, there was no talk of forgiveness of sins. It wasn't that "God changed his mind."
I didn't write you off. I determined that you sounded bitter by the fact that you said you didn't give a rats ass what Buddhism teaches and then you recounted being blown off by a Buddhist. Sounds bitter to me. If you don't give rats ass then why bother? I really don't have any great need to defend Buddhism to anyone. Its teachings stand on their own. It's pretty much believe if you'd like and don't if you don't like. It doesnt bother me either way what you think about it but at least be accurate. My contention is that his violence has nothing to do with the teachings. If you want to say so what, he's a Buddhist who commits violence so it doesn't matter what the teachings are then I'd say that's pretty jaded and I'd disagree.
Bodhidharma was a monk. A significant figure but certainly not the Buddha. How is that different from a priest or an imam preaching similarly? It's not. They're men giving their own interpretations of the faith.
I'm not sure I agree. In many world religions you will usually find reasonable people in the "thrones of power". There's always some super-obsessive-compulsive group lurking within the bigger whole. I think that's just a sad fact of human nature.
From a quick Google search I can't find a link for the story of the merchant past life of the Buddha I had heard the story from Tibetans so it might be part of a separate Tibetan tradition and not included in other Buddhist traditions. The story of the killing of Emperor Langdarma by the monk Palgyi Dorje is also particular to Tibetan tradition and commemorated in the Black Hat dance. http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Lhalung_Palgyi_Dorje <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/IP6BwNOpy5w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Langdarma is a real historical Emperor of ancient Tibet who was assassinated. I am going to tend to agree but as others have noted the same could be said about most other religions and the violence perpetuated by their followers. We also have to keep in mind that while the teachings of the Buddha, The Dharma, are very important just as important are the followers of the Buddha, The Sangha, while I don't believe in collective responsibility the actions of Buddhists like Wirathu do not reflect well on the Sangha. Further I think it is important to not get caught up in a belief that Buddhism (the teachings, the institution, the followers) are perfect and superior to all other faiths. My own feeling is that Buddhism ultimately is about one's understanding of one's place in the Universe and arguments about the purity and superiority of one's doctrine lead to the type of sectarianism that the Buddha sought to avoid.
A few points which I've posted here in D&D before: Selective reading is what you're supposed to do in Islam as far as I understand it. There is only you, the Quran, and God. You use your common sense. You use the best knowledge and reasoning available to your culture at the time. You also consult with friends, family, and others in your community. Your intentions should be pure and polished after much pondering. Don't be hasty. Most importantly, your interpretation of a passage should adhere to tawhid. It means oneness or unity, but these words are merely estimations of that concept. As a human being, one must strive to be at 'one' with herself, with her community, with the environment, and with God. Though you were sardonic, it should feel right in your gut like a bespoke suit jacket does in the shoulders. The specific verse you quoted only addresses what the Muslims after the Battle of Badr were to do once one side (an aggressor) resumed war after agreeing to peace at first. It applies to warfare only. It was a brutal, efficient instruction to recover the broken peace agreement in that passage because resuming peace was of utmost priority. However, if anyone wanted to surrender, then they would be forgiven. There may come a time for self-defense which this verse is for. Today, this verse has little utility. It's not a few thousand villagers versus another in a desert setting around 800 AD/CE anymore. The religion can't be killed off as easily now as in that time. There is no single group of Muslims at war with someone else. Laws, attitudes, and warfare itself have changed. How is tawhid is achieved by fighting every 'non-believer' on this planet? Using the best of my knowledge and life experiences, knowing this a very limited verse, there are other ways of being at one with my community. Hence, verses like this should be ignored or selectively read against. There is no bright-line, black letter law on how to interpret holy texts or how to live your life. Have a good heart and use your best judgement to live a life of love and knowledge for all things. Exercise that brain! Even if what I say is BS (probability says it is), it's still a decent creed to live by. This world is one of many; this life is not the end game. Or, it could be eternal darkness upon death...
No I agree that what this monk is doing put the religion in a terrible light. Not only that he's a Buddhist but that he is a monk and is using his position to further a hateful agenda. It's despicable, disappointing, and I certainly condemn it. I think it's important to note that cultural traditions and stories that naturally evolve over time tend to get melded with the teachings of the Buddha. I think this is really straying from what he intended and but maybe that's inevitable for humanity. There is an arrogance in Buddhists sometimes that totally runs contrary to what I feel is the humble nature of a true Buddhist concerning the belief, probably guilty of that myself sometimes. Of course all of us are really Buddhists in perpetual training until we can walk the path.
