Originally Posted by kezboard
I don't know. I mean, Buddhist suicide bombers seem a little absurd, but I'm sure they could find some
justification somewhere. I think there were some Buddhist rebellions
in early modern China. The Sri Lanka conflict has been pretty brutal, too, and you have Buddhists on one side and Hindus on the other.
With all due respect: You don't know what you're talking about. Neither of these conflicts have any Buddhist doctrine upon which they can stand. These examples you cite were / are purely political civil conflicts. White Lotus was in no way a genuinely Buddhist tradition. It was another one of many wacky Chinese syncretistic religious sects.
To call the Sri Lankan conflict a matter of "Buddhist" against "Hindu" is like calling our own Civil War an essentially "Christian" conflict. Absurd.
If you had ever undertaken any even moderately serious reading on Buddhist tenets, you'd know that your assertion is wildly off-base. Theistic religions tend, when feeling threatened or hostile, to glorify slaughter of infidels.
As I noted earlier (post #17 in this thread), Buddhism is neither theistic nor atheistic. In spite of Bob's occasional errors on this account (In these "God" diavlogs, he's sometimes ventured such judgments himself or approved diavlog counterparts' assertions to this effect), Buddhism is and always has been non-theistic. War, especially "holy war," is just not a Buddhist thing.