Lol! As in "You pay homage to the Father with your lips but your hearts are far from Him". Not saying this is all christians.
So just because they both mention him means its probably more true than not, even if the stories contradict each other?
that's the theory. Problem with history is that other than archeology all we have to go on is testimony (old testimony, usually from somebody with an agenda). It's like cross examing witnesses; One says "He did it", the other says "no, he did it" but they both say it happened outside the 7-11 so it probably did.
So its not exclaiming ignorance, its critical thinking and not just accepting what you've been spoonfed from birth.
The one thing i appreciate about buddhism compared to christianity is that i think its a lot more humble and true in its philosophy....I mean christianity says theres this ultimate being up there in the sky looking after us all and we must dedicate our lives to him. whereas buddhism, from what i know of it, is nowhere near as extreme as that. Buddha was just this guy who discovered meditation and taught people compassion, right. They dont worship anybody and seem to stay pretty true to themselves. Im not sure where the Dalai Lama comes into this, i guess he is worshipped and revered by Buddhists. But his demands are not as severe as say the demands christians place themselves under in worshipping their god. Buddhists seem more concerned with helping themselves and others in a practical way, whereas christianity largely involves praying to an invisible being!? Sure I guess this provides comfort for those who believe in it but Buddhism is actually practical in its philosophies and its practices (meditation etc)...seems far more worthwhile than christianity to me. Sorry if ive rambled on a bit!
To the best of my ability so far yeah. I rejected the church I was brought up in a long time ago. I've checked out alot of "Christian" churches since then, even lived on a Christian commune for a cpl weeks and a cpl christian co-ops for a few days here and there and I rejected them too, mostly on the basis that they couldn't--or wouldn't--answer a few simple questions. I figure if somebody's trying to sell you something but they won't answer your questions about it they're hiding something. Problem with trying to establish the historosity of Christianity is that, even though we have a few references to Jesus from reputable ancient historians, the records themselves have been kept mosty by the church all these century's. In other words they've been passed down to us mostly from people who've had ample opportunity, and motive, to do some creative editing. So none of it is something you can take one persons word for. So far I'm willing to accept that Jesus of Nazareth existed, but that's all I'm willing to commit to so far.
Jesus was a man, not a god, but he recognized that he was enlightened. Like other enlightened folk, he performed miracles and taught compassion. It is historically very likely that he did indeed exist, given the nature of the various accounts outside the bible that mention him. Jesus did not borrow from eastern religions, nor did he travel there in his lifetime. He was a master of kaballah, which is very similar to buddhism in a lot of ways.
I guess the most basic would be: Me: "Why should I believe this"? The answer I usually got was: Them: "Because you'll go to hell if you don't". Which would typically turn into this kind of debate: "Why should I believe I'm going to hell if I don't accept this"? "Do you want to go to hell? are you that in love with your rebellious life that you're willing to suffer through all eternity?" "Well that's what I'm saying, why should I believe that I'm going to hell if I don't accept christianity"? "because your immortal soul depends on it, because it says in the bible...". "But why should I believe the bible"? "Because it's the word of God". And so on and so on. In order for their argument to have any effect they'd have to be arguing with someone who already believes what they're trying to convince them of. Other examples: "It says in Matt: 'It is the will of the Father that none of these should perish but that all should be saved'. if god's will is law wouldn't that mean that nobody's going to hell?" "Well if you want to interpret it that way..." (not exactly a straight answer). "Why do you use the King James version?" "What?!? How can you ask that?!? Don't you see the good works we're doing? Don't you see how we're changing people's lives?" (in other words he didn't know). "Hey look, I think I found something in Matthew that say's nobody's going to hell" *reads passage*. "Oh well I guess He was just kidding when He said it in all those other places" "Which other places specifically"? "Whatever, I gotta go..." Thing is, at this point I realise some of my questions were flawed, but my point still stands: These people felt threaten and insulted by someone asking perfectly reasonable questions about something they supposedly believed in. Leads me to believe that many of them don't actually believe in this thing they're trying to sell to the world. If the salesman doesn't believe in the product why should anybody else?
OK. It seems that they were ineffective in answering more than being secretive. Thanks for the run down.
I dont think there is any correlation between christianity and buddhism. Buddhist take on a more existentialist perspectiove in life. The main method of 'practice' is introspection whereas christianity is outward looking (western perspective). There is A "gOD" OUT there , they would say. The underlying foundation of the two faiths are on opposite spectrums. It's sort of like comparing a whale and a human and claiming they are both mammals. Although that would make SOME sense, i think the comparison is vague and ambiguous. like comparing christianity and buddhism. Yes there is something to be learned from christianity on the basis of love/compassion but i dont agree with the emphasis on "sin" and the debasing authoritative structure. Anyhow cheers to jesus for being a good man, but dont deify him.
Both of which are questionable, one (I forget which) being pretty well known to be a fraud, with the bits about Jesus added later by churchmen. As it is, it's quite possible Jesus didn't exist, but it really doesn't matter at this point. That's how the CHURCH teaches it, but the question wasn't about the Church and Buddhism, it was about Jesus and Buddhism. If you read Jesus' statements (not Pauls or anyone elses), you see him saying things like "the kingdom of heaven is within you". Many of his teachings, if not taken literally, can be seen in very much the same way as Buddhism's teachings. He talks about when you pray, you should go into your inner room, rather than stand on the steps of the temple and pray in front of others. Could this mean to meditate and look within, rather than speaking empty words? I read through the gospels reading it this way, from a Buddhistic perspective, and many many similarities can be found.
We were just talking about the original question in world religions today, and my teacher said that Buddhists probably view jesus as a Bodhisotfa(sp) or one who has reached full enlightment, ie Nirvana.
Jesus had nothing to do with Buddhism. He was an escene or studied Kaballah. These are jewish mystical traditions, and are VERY similar to buddhism, but are not at all linked.
