Pressure To Convert To Buddhism?

[Ajarn_Jonesy]

Actually, what do you think they would have said to each other if they ever met.

Jesus would have done what pretty much every spiritual seeker did when they met the Buddha and felt his powerful spiritual aura - he would have become a follower of the Buddha and probably one of his most advanced disciples.

WOW!! (scratches head)

[twschw]

If you have a thai spouse, one time or another your spouse probably tried to convince you to convert your religion to Buddhism.

You as a foreigner, have you ever tried to convince your spouse to convert from Buddhism to belief in your religion.

and how did that worked out.

I have never been asked to "convert". Have been asked to go to the temple to make merit by feeding the fish in the river. I enjoyed that.

I, as a foreigner, would never think to press my religious beliefs upon any Thai or anyone anywhere for that matter.

[Xangsamhua]

Actually, what do you think they would have said to each other if they ever met.

Jesus would have done what pretty much every spiritual seeker did when they met the Buddha and felt his powerful spiritual aura - he would have become a follower of the Buddha and probably one of his most advanced disciples.

WOW!! (scratches head)

Yes, pretty unlikely given that Jesus was an observant Jew. Also, Jesus was not just on about enlightenment through non-attachment, right mindfulness, right practise, etc, but about inaugurating a new kind of society and a new interpretation of Torah (not a rejection of it).

[traveller5000]

Actually, what do you think they would have said to each other if they ever met.

Jesus would have done what pretty much every spiritual seeker did when they met the Buddha and felt his powerful spiritual aura - he would have become a follower of the Buddha and probably one of his most advanced disciples.

WOW!! (scratches head)

Yes, pretty unlikely given that Jesus was an observant Jew. Also, Jesus was not just on about enlightenment through non-attachment, right mindfulness, right practise, etc, but about inaugurating a new kind of society and a new interpretation of Torah (not a rejection of it).

Unlikely? I'm not so sure. The Buddha 'converted' many different types of people with all sorts of world views in opposition to Buddhism, even polytheists who have many more Gods to contend with than the Jews.

Also, even though Buddhism is more than 600 years older than Christianity, India was a more spiritually advanced culture than the one Christ was born into, and there were a number of competing teachers with high knowledge (gurus, messiahs, whatever u want to call them), and in this competitive environment Buddhism flourished and was successful, 'converting' many others, a great number who would later go on to reach full enlightenment.

And the remarkable thing is, the Buddha never had to resort to brainwashing or false promises and threats of sin etc to 'convert' his followers - the 'conversion' came from a completely different direction - that respected the individual.

[Xangsamhua]

Actually, what do you think they would have said to each other if they ever met.

Jesus would have done what pretty much every spiritual seeker did when they met the Buddha and felt his powerful spiritual aura - he would have become a follower of the Buddha and probably one of his most advanced disciples.

WOW!! (scratches head)

Yes, pretty unlikely given that Jesus was an observant Jew. Also, Jesus was not just on about enlightenment through non-attachment, right mindfulness, right practise, etc, but about inaugurating a new kind of society and a new interpretation of Torah (not a rejection of it).

Unlikely? I'm not so sure. The Buddha 'converted' many different types of people with all sorts of world views in opposition to Buddhism, even polytheists who have many more Gods to contend with than the Jews.

Also, even though Buddhism is more than 600 years older than Christianity, India was a more spiritually advanced culture than the one Christ was born into, and there were a number of competing teachers with high knowledge (gurus, messiahs, whatever u want to call them), and in this competitive environment Buddhism flourished and was successful, 'converting' many others, a great number who would later go on to reach full enlightenment.

And the remarkable thing is, the Buddha never had to resort to brainwashing or false promises and threats of sin etc to 'convert' his followers - the 'conversion' came from a completely different direction - that respected the individual.

I can't see the Buddha going out of his way to "convert" Jesus or the other way round. The Buddha probably had a broader outlook on life and the world than Jesus had because the Buddha was older and had taught for about 40 years. Jesus, on the other hand, died in his 30s and his mission, as recorded in the gospels, lasted somewhere between 6 months and 2 years. He did live on a trade route and Nazareth was only 4 miles or so from Sepporis, a Roman town. Still, there's an awful lot we don't know about Jesus, despite his impact.

Jesus operated within the Jewish framework of his time, place and background. The Buddha may have been more deracinated, but still drew on pre-Buddhist images and concepts to get his message across. Both were calling for "metanoia", a radical transformation in one's life, away from deluded attachments and toward the things that really mattered - the search for enlightenment on the one hand; the inauguration of a just society based on right relationships with God and fellow humans on the other. Both would have recognised the metanoia in the other and the different routes by which it was attained. I don't think either of them would have said "Yes, but...."

[IMChris]

Thank you , now Im a BORN AGAIN BUDDHIST

[suegha]

Okay so people are still making reference to Christianity so I need to clarify a few points raised above, Christianity is 6,000 years old (at least) as it stared with the fall of mankind in the Garden of Eden.

Jesus ministry lasted 3 years and 6 months almost to the day.

According to the Bible Jesus only followed the way of God (his Father) and no one else. He therefore would not have become a follower of Buddha or anyone else.

Let's keeps the references to Christianity out of this discussion.

[CuriousGeorge77]

One farang I know around town is in the process of "educating" about 15 or so Thai children (buddhists presumably), neglected by their parents or orphans, looking after them kindly etc, but with the covert intention of converting them. I've no doubt if one day these children after growing up and with a head-start in life, one day turned their back on Christianity (for whatever reasons), that (conditional) love would evaporate.

As far as I know, followers of Buddhism are not burdened with that type pressure.

Christianity in Korea has gone wild because of these same orphanages... especially since the war left so many orphans

[CuriousGeorge77]

I went to a Christian schools from 5 y/o to 19. I have found that studying it has led me directly AWAY from any sort of faith in it. The fundamental tenet of Christianity is that the is one God, and that Jesus was his son. If you don't believe that, you are outa luck. Period. Everything else is extra. There are good things said, certainly there are. Lots of good things. However, anyone calling themselves a "Christian" is then morally bound to believe that Jesus is God, and 100% right. The key factor in Christianity is not good acts, it is faith. It is not understanding, it is trust.

To sum it up into "one sentence": Christianity(Judiasm, Islam) places 100% of the power into the hands of God. buddhism places it firmly and irreducibly into your hands. The name "Islam" means exactly that. "Submission"

Every post in this forum is selectively choosing what is in the Bible. I would argue that you can't do that. Take it, as a whole, or leave it. If one wants to bring history into it - i.e. talking about Jesus as a historical figure, then that is a whole new ball of wax. it is an interesting and highly contested subject, but there is really not much evidence that Jesus existed. What evidence there is, suggests that religion in Israel, prior to the Roman masacres, was VERY different than it is today, for closer to Egyptian religion.

And, while Christianity falls apart when you objectively take this step, Buddhism retains its power completely disassociated from history or any personage. The ideas are strong and stand on their own.

IMHO, It is the ideas, - the function - that matters. And certainly, in this context, I think you will mostly all agree. The posts about how Buddhism and Christianity are fundamentally the same thing cherry pick the parts of the Bible that fit what they want to see. Again, the fundamental tenet of Christianity is to believe. I don't think, having read the Bible and grew up in religious schools, that you can take that part out of the equation. if you do, then it is no longer Christianity. Then, it be becomes "Christian-esque" or kind of "Christian-y". I don't think ANYONE here will argue that the good parts of the Bible are wrong.

[suegha]

I went to a Christian schools from 5 y/o to 19. I have found that studying it has led me directly AWAY from any sort of faith in it. The fundamental tenet of Christianity is that the is one God, and that Jesus was his son. If you don't believe that, you are outa luck. Period. Everything else is extra. There are good things said, certainly there are. Lots of good things. However, anyone calling themselves a "Christian" is then morally bound to believe that Jesus is God, and 100% right. The key factor in Christianity is not good acts, it is faith. It is not understanding, it is trust.

To sum it up into "one sentence": Christianity(Judiasm, Islam) places 100% of the power into the hands of God. buddhism places it firmly and irreducibly into your hands. The name "Islam" means exactly that. "Submission"

Every post in this forum is selectively choosing what is in the Bible. I would argue that you can't do that. Take it, as a whole, or leave it. If one wants to bring history into it - i.e. talking about Jesus as a historical figure, then that is a whole new ball of wax. it is an interesting and highly contested subject, but there is really not much evidence that Jesus existed. What evidence there is, suggests that religion in Israel, prior to the Roman masacres, was VERY different than it is today, for closer to Egyptian religion.

And, while Christianity falls apart when you objectively take this step, Buddhism retains its power completely disassociated from history or any personage. The ideas are strong and stand on their own.

IMHO, It is the ideas, - the function - that matters. And certainly, in this context, I think you will mostly all agree. The posts about how Buddhism and Christianity are fundamentally the same thing cherry pick the parts of the Bible that fit what they want to see. Again, the fundamental tenet of Christianity is to believe. I don't think, having read the Bible and grew up in religious schools, that you can take that part out of the equation. if you do, then it is no longer Christianity. Then, it be becomes "Christian-esque" or kind of "Christian-y". I don't think ANYONE here will argue that the good parts of the Bible are wrong.

No, no, no, no, no! This is exactly what I mean. People who judge Christianity from their own limited experience! The statement that Jesus is God is typical! Not all Christians believe this, I certainly don't! Nowhere in the bible is this true! Also the statement that "The key factor in Christianity is not good acts" So totally untrue and incorrect, if your faith does not manifest itself in good works, your faith is dead. James 2 vv 20-26.

Christianity is 100% about personal responsibility! Not placing in all in the hands of your God.

I do agree, however, that many people do quote the bible incorrectly and that it should be read as a whole. I have been reading it for 30 years and can tell you that constant study is what is necessary for a fuller understanding.

The point about not much historical evidence about Jesus is a joke. Many historians cite many of the gospels accounts, Josephus for one details much of the trial and execution detail. And Josephus was not a Christian believer! So Christianity does not fall apart with an objective step. It only falls apart with an ignorant subjective view! And this statement "Buddhism retains its power completely disassociated from history or any personage." What? Do you not believe that Buddha was a real historic character? Think things through before posting!!!

And also, I ask, have you or any of the other posters with no idea about Christianity, actually read the bible with an open mind un-polluted by any orthodox prejudices?

Mods - can we reiterate that to denigrate Christianity is totally off-topic?

[Tilokarat]

It would seem that most religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Daoism, Judaism and Christianity have a more philosophical side as well as a more faith-based side. For example, the Tao that can be explained is not the eternal Tao. But in folk Taoism there are thousands of gods that one prays to and you have faith in. In Chinese Buddhism there are two shortcuts to salvation or enlightment. One is Ch'an (meditation) Buddhism. The Japanese call it Zen. The other shortcut is the Pure Land School, which surprisingly has become very popular in Thailand of late. It is centred around the female bodhisattva/Buddha figure (Khwan Yum, Khan Yin). The Pure Land School of Buddhism is faith-based. For example, if you say Khwan Yum's name ten times you will be re-born in the Western Paradise. Their are ten rules similar to the Ten Commandments.

Furthermore, watch some of the Thai people at the wats during major celebrations. While the monks chant, are the people gathering the Buddha's message or do they have faith that they will earn merit by the simple act of listening to the chanting.

Around twenty years ago, I was at the important Wat Suan Dok in Chiang Mai during a major celebration.

Tied to the Buddha figure were numerous white strings that radiated outwards to the monks who were chanting. The white strings (a Hindu idea) also went from the Buddha figure down the centre of the wat. At each row the strings went left and right down the rows and hung down and were tied around the wrists of the people in the wat. It looked like a large streetcar (tram) barn. Obviously, the strings were carrying the power of the Buddha and the chanting monks to the laypeople in attendance thereby increasing their merit. To me, this seems like faith more than a search for nibbana in the future. The people are hoping for a better life in the here and now too. The message did not seem that much different than the one given to parishioners at the Anglican Church I attended as a youth. Have faith, life will improve. Instead of Christian scriptures the monks chanted sutras. Same-same.

Edited March 15, 2008 by camerata
Hard-to-read font changed.

[jumnien]

Buddhism and Christianity are remarkably similar and potentially effective paths. Likewise, hatred and resentment towards Buddhism and/or Christianity is similarly corrosive to the creative soul.

[traveller5000]

Actually, what do you think they would have said to each other if they ever met.

Jesus would have done what pretty much every spiritual seeker did when they met the Buddha and felt his powerful spiritual aura - he would have become a follower of the Buddha and probably one of his most advanced disciples.

WOW!! (scratches head)

Yes, pretty unlikely given that Jesus was an observant Jew. Also, Jesus was not just on about enlightenment through non-attachment, right mindfulness, right practise, etc, but about inaugurating a new kind of society and a new interpretation of Torah (not a rejection of it).

Unlikely? I'm not so sure. The Buddha 'converted' many different types of people with all sorts of world views in opposition to Buddhism, even polytheists who have many more Gods to contend with than the Jews.

Also, even though Buddhism is more than 600 years older than Christianity, India was a more spiritually advanced culture than the one Christ was born into, and there were a number of competing teachers with high knowledge (gurus, messiahs, whatever u want to call them), and in this competitive environment Buddhism flourished and was successful, 'converting' many others, a great number who would later go on to reach full enlightenment.

And the remarkable thing is, the Buddha never had to resort to brainwashing or false promises and threats of sin etc to 'convert' his followers - the 'conversion' came from a completely different direction - that respected the individual.

I can't see the Buddha going out of his way to "convert" Jesus or the other way round.

Just on this point,

Firstly I would like to say that in Buddhism there is not "conversion" as such (anyhow i'll continue to use it for now for lack of a better word).

I'm sure the Buddha would have answered any questions Jesus may have posed, he most certainly wouldn't have preached or pontificated to Jesus. He would has simply talked to Jesus like a normal human being. And I think Jesus would have respected that.

A lot of spiritual seekers in the time of the Buddha has experiences of some sort or another and wrongly interpreted them to be the highest - a type of false nirvarna, "God", etc. Yet they had only scraped the tip of the iceberg so to speak. And in doing so, they effectively stunted their spiritual growth. I believe this is what happened to Jesus. Lets not forget Jesus had no knowledge of karma or past lives - or if he did he kept silent about it, which points to the probability his insights were not particular deep.

I doubt Jesus may have started to try preaching to the Buddha. Indian spirituality at the time was light years ahead of anything else in the world, and on some intuitive level Jesus would have recognised this.

Had they met, there is every chance Jesus would have asked to become a Buddhist monk. Why?

1. He was already inclined towards the ways of renunciation.

2. He would have sensed the Buddhas higher spiritual knowledge.

3. He was a sincere spiritual seeker.

And in doing so, all of Jesus's disciples would have become Buddhist monks also.

In fact the Buddha did just this when he "converted" about 500 followers of a fire worshipping cult. Actually he only converted the leader and then the rest of the group followed. Interestingly he "converted" the leader through a display of magical tricks, defeating the fire worshipping leader through a magic trick competition. I'm not sure he could have used this method with Jesus, as Jesus had some quite powerful magic skills, like parting a river, etc.

[Brucenkhamen]

I'm afraid I must give in to temptation.

No, no, no, no, no! This is exactly what I mean. People who judge Christianity from their own limited experience! The statement that Jesus is God is typical! Not all Christians believe this, I certainly don't! Nowhere in the bible is this true!

So you are saying that if I flip through my Bible there is nowhere Jesus claims to be the Son of God, and no reference to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being God? Now I can only assume you must be objecting to him being referred to as God rather than the Son of God but I think that's just splitting hairs.

Also the statement that "The key factor in Christianity is not good acts" So totally untrue and incorrect, if your faith does not manifest itself in good works, your faith is dead. James 2 vv 20-26.

What comes first the faith and conversion experience or the good acts?

I do good acts sometimes, what differentiates me from a Christian that does good acts? I would suggest it's the faith and conversion experience and so this could be described as the key factor, nobody is suggesting Christians shouldn't engage in good acts though.

Christianity is 100% about personal responsibility! Not placing in all in the hands of your God.

I don't know what brand of Christianity you practice but in my extensive experience I've never come across any type of Christianity where this is the case.

Anyway if it were then you wouldn't need God now would you.

And this statement "Buddhism retains its power completely disassociated from history or any personage." What? Do you not believe that Buddha was a real historic character? Think things through before posting!!!.

It's irrelavent whether I believe that the Buddha lived was an historical fact or not. The Buddhist scriptures could have been written my a troop of intoxicated Baboons and it would make no difference. Buddhism is about me applying the practices and techniques here and now and seeing the results.

By contrast if Jesus the Son of God never came to the earth 2000 years ago and preached and died on the Cross for my sins then what's the point in me believing that Jesus the Son of God came to the earth and preached and died on the Cross for my sins? I might be inspired to good works but surely I could do that anyway.

And also, I ask, have you or any of the other posters with no idea about Christianity, actually read the bible with an open mind un-polluted by any orthodox prejudices?

Mods - can we reiterate that to denigrate Christianity is totally off-topic?

This particular thread is about conversion to Buddhism. We can't really talk about conversion to Buddhism without discussing what we converted from. Some of us may have converted from no religion but a lot of us have Christian influences in our past.

I for one spent 8 years deeply involved in a Pentacostal church in my younger days and I'm getting tired of being told I know nothing about Christianity.

Now your particular school may be different but here we are talking about what we have experienced as being common Christian belief and I think CuriousGeorge's post is on the money.

Yes I agree we digress into this topic a tad too much but it's no use crying to the mods, if what you read here offends you then don't read it, most of us are not being disrespectful just critical at times.

[jamesc2000]

I just love magic shows and I think its great some people practise it to entertain others.

As for Jesus parting a river, I think it was actually Moses that did that! Jesus however did calm a lake when some of his disciples were worried that their boat will capsize.

But Jesus didn’t perform miracles to show off or for one upmanship but rather he only did it to assist people in distress.

I really don’t think any great leader is interested in showing off for the sake of showing off but to help people.

Hence I am not so sure when people says Jesus would have done this or Buddha would have done that is entirely helpful.

All this talk about magic reminds me of the story of two brothers who met on opposite sides of a river after a lifetime apart.

One brother shouted, its great to see you again brother, what have you spent your lifetime up to?

The other brother shouted, I will show you exactly what I have spent my lifetime learning to do, and promptly walked on water across the river to his brother’s side.

When he got there, his brother said, you have spent your life doing what paying a boatman just one rupee would have done, take you across the river?

And he asked his brother what have you devoted your life to? His brother replied seeking enlightenment.

Edited March 15, 2008 by jamesc2000

[garro]

I just love magic shows and I think its great some people practise it to entertain others.

As for Jesus parting a river, I think it was actually Moses that did that! Jesus however did calm a lake when some of his disciples were worried that their boat will capsize.

But Jesus didn't perform miracles to show off or for one upmanship but rather he only did it to assist people in distress.

I really don't think any great leader is interested in showing off for the sake of showing off but to help people.

Hence I am not so sure when people says Jesus would have done this or Buddha would have done that is entirely helpful.

All this talk about magic reminds me of the story of two brothers who met on opposite sides of a river after a lifetime apart.

One brother shouted, its great to see you again brother, what have you spent your lifetime up to?

The other brother shouted, I will show you exactly what I have spent my lifetime learning to do, and promptly walked on water across the river to his brother's side.

When he got there, his brother said, you have spent your life doing what paying a boatman just one rupee would have done, take you across the river?

And he asked his brother what have you devoted your life to? His brother replied seeking enlightenment.

Huh, isn't Jesus the guy who turned water into wine.

Who were the distressed people he was helping there? Alcoholics?

[sabaijai]

if we don't stick to the OT here, we may have to close this thread as it's going nowhere. We have no objections to members comparing Christianity and Buddhism, respectfully of course, and without evangelism, but best to create a separate thread.

[Brucenkhamen]

Huh, isn't Jesus the guy who turned water into wine.

Who were the distressed people he was helping there? Alcoholics?

Wedding guests one assumes.

What would the Buddha have done? I think he would have pointed out that nothing is certain, things don't always go to plan, so instead of relying on me to bail you out all the time learn to deal with disappointment and serve your guests Coca Cola.

[traveller5000]

:D

[traveller5000]

If you have a thai spouse, one time or another your spouse probably tried to convince you to convert your religion to Buddhism.

You as a foreigner, have you ever tried to convince your spouse to convert from Buddhism to belief in your religion.

and how did that worked out.

Firstly, Buddhism has never been about ramming the Dhamma down the throats of others...

Secondly, the Thai culture is not one to impose something on another in the way other cultures might do.

Thirdly, concerning conversion (to or from Buddhism) in marriages, the hidden message is "if you don't convert I won't love you anymore." Which is basically conditional love, the opposite of the unconditional love taught by Jesus and the Buddha.

It is really unfair to the spouse. All this should be sorted out before getting married.

[jamesc2000]

Huh, isn't Jesus the guy who turned water into wine.

I think he did.

Who were the distressed people he was helping there?

Thirsty people.

Alcoholics?

I am not sure.

Edited March 15, 2008 by jamesc2000

[garro]

Huh, isn't Jesus the guy who turned water into wine.

I think he did.

Who were the distressed people he was helping there?

Thirsty people.

Alcoholics?

I am not sure.

So he turned water into wine to help distressed thirsty people.

He obvioulsy didn't know about the diuretic propertied of alcohol.

Sorry back on topic.

I don't think that there is any pressure for westerners to convert to Buddhism from their Thai partners.

I would argue that far more pressure comes from the opposite direction. (i.e. the westerner wanting their partner to take on their religion)

[suegha]

Huh, isn't Jesus the guy who turned water into wine.

I think he did.

Who were the distressed people he was helping there?

Thirsty people.

Alcoholics?

I am not sure.

Yes Jesus did turn water into wine. It was a wedding feast and running out of wine would have caused 'loss of face' for the bride and bridegroom. The Jewish wedding feast went on for days and days.

One has to ask why this was Jesus first ever miracle? And why before he had properly started his ministry? Read the full account in John 2. The believers in Revelation are described as the 'bride' (rev 21) and the joining together with the Christ as the wedding feast. Maybe this prefigured the perfection of that ultimate feast!

Also, wine is used as a memorial for his poured out blood. Shed for the 'sin' of the world. (yes it is 'sin' singular! John 1:29)

More to it than meets the eye then...

Edited March 15, 2008 by suegha

[traveller5000]

^

[PeaceBlondie]

I have never heard of a Buddhist partner pressuring a farang to become Buddhist. Surely my partner has not tried to influence me.

[CuriousGeorge77]

Buddhism and Christianity are remarkably similar and potentially effective paths. Likewise, hatred and resentment towards Buddhism and/or Christianity is similarly corrosive to the creative soul.

 

They are only similar if you ignore half of the book.  Its like taking an apple and an orange and saying,  well, they are both sweet,  and they both contain water,  and they are both food,  and ...  

Certainly hatred and/or resentment toward either of them,  or anything,  is corrosive.  I agree.  Hopwever, I disagree that you can take the good parts out of Christianity and call it 100% good.  Christianity and Buddhism are very different paths.   They can reach the same goal,  but they are very different paths.  

It would seem that most religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Daoism, Judaism and Christianity have a more philosophical side as well as a more faith-based side. For example, the Tao that can be explained is not the eternal Tao. But in folk Taoism there are thousands of gods that one prays to and you have faith in. In Chinese Buddhism there are two shortcuts to salvation or enlightment. One is Ch'an (meditation) Buddhism. The Japanese call it Zen. The other shortcut is the Pure Land School, which surprisingly has become very popular in Thailand of late. It is centred around the female bodhisattva/Buddha figure (Khwan Yum, Khan Yin). The Pure Land School of Buddhism is faith-based. For example, if you say Khwan Yum's name ten times you will be re-born in the Western Paradise. Their are ten rules similar to the Ten Commandments.

A lot of these are where Buddhism has combined with native traditions.  These are not "Pure Buddhism" ...  Similarly,  Ted Haggard is not exemplar of "Pure Christianity"  I would want people judging either religion by either one of those exampl

es.  People pray to Christian God to win the lottery or smite their enemies just 

as often.  It doesn't accurately reflect the religion, though.    

[CuriousGeorge77]

No, no, no, no, no! This is exactly what I mean. People who judge Christianity from their own limited experience! The statement that Jesus is God is typical! Not all Christians believe this, I certainly don't! Nowhere in the bible is this true! Also the statement that "The key factor in Christianity is not good acts" So totally untrue and incorrect, if your faith does not manifest itself in good works, your faith is dead. James 2 vv 20-26.  

 

This makes my point presicesly.  Good acts are a measure of faith.  Faith is the important issue,  and good acts modify it,  and/or are caused by it.  

I'm not arguing that belief in a kind and benevolent God (although that would 

certinaly exclude the OT God), as well, as Firm Laws to treat others in a specified manner does not lead to good acts.  Not at all.  I am simply stating that it is a very VERY different path than Buddhism.  

Christianity is 100% about personal responsibility! Not placing in all in the hands of your God.  

Yes,  in that it is your personal responsibility to place yourself in the hands of God.  If you do not place yourself in the hands of God,  you are not going to go to heaven.  There are some pretty final periods placed on that statement in the Bible, as I recall.   That is fundamentally different than Buddhism,  and it is absolutely distinct from it.  They are not incompatable, but they are definiately not the same thing,  restated.  

I do agree, however, that many people do quote the bible incorrectly and that it should be read as a whole. I have been reading it for 30 years and can tell you that constant study is what is necessary for a fuller understanding.  

 

Which is why you can't take out the fundamental underpinning of the religion when you compare it to something else.  If you said "aspects of Christianity are very similar to aspects of Buddhism" I would say that is clearly true.  But there are points where they greatly differ.  

The point about not much historical evidence about Jesus is a joke. Many historians cite many of the gospels accounts, Josephus for one details much of the trial and execution detail.

 

Since you brought it up ...  

Josephus was not there,  and neither was he an objective witness.  He EASILY could have used the Bible as source material.  But that is wholly aside the point.  The Bible as a historical document is sorely lacking.

For example, Nebuchennezzar pumped a lot of money into Judea and built up the area.  Much of the builkding attributed to Sol

omon was really from ol' Neb.  

The entire populace of Judea was not exile.  Neb installed a King form the House

 of David,  who made a secret pact with the Egyptians,  Neb's biggest enemy (he didn't really see Cyrus coming!).  Neb killed him,  and installed someone else from the House of David,  with the same results.  Neb then shipped all the Egyptian lovers off to Bagdhad,  where they got high paying jobs and owned land.  Point is Ezekial wasn't exactly an impartial, unbiased witness either.  When he got back from "exile" he re-wrote the Bible,  saying that Jews couldn't marry non-Jews,  and other intolerant laws.  The Bible is not 100% accurate.  

Then there is the widely (but certainly not universally!) accepted view that James was Jesus' brother.  You don't see that anywhere in the Bible,  either!  There are Egyptian records of a Jewish man named Moses who was the leader of a leper colony.  They got expelled from Egypt for having the plague.  These records are a few hundred years after Moses was supposed to have left Egypt,  but you hopefully get the picture ..  that is that the picture isn't clear.  Yet Christianity would have you believe that it is clear,  and this is the fundamental point that seperates Christianity from Buddhism - Faith.  

And also, I ask, have you or any of the other posters with no idea about Christianity, actually read the bible with an open mind un-polluted by any orthodox prejudices?

I let this comment to be evidence of my point of view.  

Open, honest,  objective debate is simply not to be tolerated if Faith is the prime motivator.  You cannot have Faith is you question it.  If it is proven to you, then it is no longer Faith.  If you have to ak,  you don't know.  You aren't supposed to look behind the curtain to see the Wizard.  

The Jesuits or the Episcopalians might disagree, but they are the exception - and both have been persecuted for it in the past.  This is exactly why I don't consider myself to be a Christian.  I think there ARE a great many great things to be learned from the Good Book and the Good, Honest Christians that make up the bulk of the religion.  However,  I think the faith isn't one of them. For me,   that is not something that I can live with.  It doesn't make sense to me and it doesn't ring true.  If you find a path that makes sense for you,  and that helps you to becomes a better person,  I am all for it. That is great.  But, that is not the same as having 84,000 Dharma doors.  

[camerata]

Sorry folks, but this is back off-topic and going nowhere. Topic closed.