Peaceful Buddhists

[JustKari]

Buddhists are just a peaceful people, so when I read this article it really made me sad that this peace-loving group would be driven to this level of unrest.   

— More than 1,000 Muslims who fled Myanmar's latest bout of sectarian violence huddled Thursday in a Buddhist monastery guarded by army soldiers as calm returned to this northeastern city, though burnt out buildings leveled by Buddhist rioters still smoldered.

The army transported terrified Muslim families by the truckload out of a neighborhood in Lashio where overturned cars and motorcycles that had been charred a day earlier left black scars on the red earth — the sectarian crisis clearly a grave one.

The rioting began Tuesday after a Muslim man splashed gasoline on a Buddhist woman and set her on fire. Buddhist mobs responded by burning down several Muslim-owned shops, a mosque and an Islamic orphanage. Roving motorcyclists continued the violence on Wednesday, leaving one person dead and four injured.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/30/muslims-are-terrified-fear-for-their-lives-after-buddhist-rioters-burn-buildings-amid-myanmars-sectarian-violence/

[Solar]

I can't blame them, they saw what was coming under Sharia and wanted no part of it, so they took matters into their own hands.
Muscum problem eliminated in a short time.

[taxed]

So, even Buddhists have to defend against muzzies....

[Darth Fife]

Buddhists are just a peaceful people, so when I read this article it really made me sad that this peace-loving group would be driven to this level of unrest.   
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/30/muslims-are-terrified-fear-for-their-lives-after-buddhist-rioters-burn-buildings-amid-myanmars-sectarian-violence/

So, are you saying they should have adopt the Christian policy of "turning the other cheek" when they saw an innocent Buddhist woman burned alive by a Muslim zealot?

-Darth

[JustKari]

So, are you saying they should have adopt the Christian policy of "turning the other cheek" when they saw an innocent Buddhist woman burned alive by a Muslim zealot?

-Darth

I don't think I implied that at all.  I was saying that it got so bad that the buddhists gave up their version of heaven to illuminate the problem.

By the way, do you understand what "turn the other cheek means"?  During the period of the sermon on the mount, hitting a man with the palm of your hand was offensive, however hitting a man with the back of your hand (if you offered the other cheek) was akin to hitting like a woman.  It would have been like saying, "are you so out of control that you have no manhood at all?"  When Jesus said to turn the other cheek, he was telling us to take the upper hand in a non-violent way.  He was giving an example of how that could be done in that time.

[Darth Fife]

I don't think I implied that at all.  I was saying that it got so bad that the buddhists gave up their version of heaven to illuminate the problem.

It is a common misconception that Buddhist are required to be pacifistic under any and all circumstances. 

By the way, do you understand what "turn the other cheek means"?  During the period of the sermon on the mount, hitting a man with the palm of your hand was offensive, however hitting a man with the back of your hand (if you offered the other cheek) was akin to hitting like a woman.  It would have been like saying, "are you so out of control that you have no manhood at all?"  When Jesus said to turn the other cheek, he was telling us to take the upper hand in a non-violent way.  He was giving an example of how that could be done in that time.

Interesting history lesson, but we are not dealing with the events of the 1st Century CE. The current understanding of the phrase is the one I used is the one popularly understood my most people - including Christians. Either way, it makes no difference to the scenario I presented.

Kind of hard to take "the upper hand in a non-violent way" when one sees a woman burning alive, don't you think?

-Darth

[JustKari]

It is a common misconception that Buddhist are required to be pacifistic under any and all circumstances. 

Interesting history lesson, but we are not dealing with the events of the 1st Century CE. The current understanding of the phrase is the one I used is the one popularly understood my most people - including Christians. Either way, it makes no difference to the scenario I presented.

Kind of hard to take "the upper hand in a non-violent way" when one sees a woman burning alive, don't you think?

-Darth

So I expressed sadness that this group was driven to violence by what was obviously a horrible situation and this bothers you.  Why, please share why my sadness over these poor Buddhists makes you angry enough to attack me over MY faith?

[Darth Fife]

So I expressed sadness that this group was driven to violence by what was obviously a horrible situation and this bothers you.  Why, please share why my sadness over these poor Buddhists makes you angry enough to attack me over MY faith?

Because, and perhaps this was unintentional on your part, it sounded like you were mocking them and their religion for not being able to remain non-violent.

Perhaps, I over reacted. If I did I certainly apologize.

I am currently studying Buddhism. I have a lot to "unlearn"...

-Darth

[JustKari]

Because, and perhaps this was unintentional on your part, it sounded like you were mocking them and their religion for not being able to remain non-violent.

Perhaps, I over reacted. If I did I certainly apologize.

I am currently studying Buddhism. I have a lot to "unlearn"...

-Darth

No I was not mocking them, on the contrary, I felt and continue to feel genuinely heartsick over this.  I tried to convey that in my OP, the internet is not always a good or easy way to display emotion.

[Darth Fife]

No I was not mocking them, on the contrary, I felt and continue to feel genuinely heartsick over this.  I tried to convey that in my OP, the internet is not always a good or easy way to display emotion.

Then I most definitely and humbly apologize. There are some emotions that even emoticons cannot convey on the internet!

-Darth

[JustKari]

Then I most definitely and humbly apologize. There are some emotions that even emoticons cannot convey on the internet!

-Darth

I am sorry as well, I should have asked for clarification right away instead of getting my dander up. 

[MFA]

The solution is better emoticons...

[Moishe3rd]

Buddhism is not a "non-violent" religion or philosophy.
All religions have gone through periods of savage religious wars amongst themselves and of the State adopting the religion and fighting State wars in the Name of ...., in this case Buddhism.
After all, if you meet the Buddha in the road, you should kill him...   

[Mountainshield]

Buddhism is not non violent, Pol Pot was considered to be a highly developed buddhist by many in his khmer rouge party because he was so cold and emotionless.

Buddhism is a hipster religion in the west, I see people claim to be buddhist all the time in my uni yet they always buy all the newest apple products and show exuberant emotions of joy and sadness all the time.

In any case as Buddhism teaches life free of fear as ideal I know it is incompatible with christianity as the ideal life is a Godfearing life.

I don't think I implied that at all.  I was saying that it got so bad that the buddhists gave up their version of heaven to illuminate the problem.

By the way, do you understand what "turn the other cheek means"?  During the period of the sermon on the mount, hitting a man with the palm of your hand was offensive, however hitting a man with the back of your hand (if you offered the other cheek) was akin to hitting like a woman.  It would have been like saying, "are you so out of control that you have no manhood at all?"  When Jesus said to turn the other cheek, he was telling us to take the upper hand in a non-violent way.  He was giving an example of how that could be done in that time.

Nicely stated, this is the most misunderstood proverb of the Bible.