|
The reason I made a longer post about your original post on religion because you are incorrect about it. I corrected you, I did not bring it in further or make my entire argument about religion, but also countered that secular personal ethics are just as important. Stop trying to wiggle out of things.
You said Liusaidah brought it up first, so if you're going to talk about it quote it. Otherwise YOU brought it up. And you tried to use it to back up your beliefs, saying that outside of religion and society personal ethics are vain. Also that we should protect "righteous souls".
The reason laymen were able to become soldiers was because it wasn't believed that they would reach enlightenment, and so never took the vow, if you wanted to achieve enlightenment you became a monk, Buddhist scriptures and tales rarely tell of wise laymen. It didn't make it any less wrong, and the monks knew that. And even that paper you linked to mentioned how it failed to confirm to the tenets of ahimsa, confirming that by going to war they were going agaisnt Buddhism. Nice try though. In the West now the population of religious Buddhists are mostly laymen, and most of those laymen do take the vow of ahimsa very seriously.
Before Jonathan posted you were all for killing to defend property because entering a home was a significant threat. The fact that you are denying this now makes me think how very very dishonest you are, or you are a terrible debater, maybe you should take some classes on how to make a point properly and not leave everything to the opponent to decipher.
|