If it's a rainy Sunday afternoon and you're bored, try answering the Ten Questions I'd Ask If I Could Interview Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha) Today which I found on a Christian Evangelist site.

If that doesn't entertain you, try Jesus Christ 2, Buddha 0 in which an enraged Japanese immigrant threatens his son with a sushi knife and breaks a coffee table with a karate chop when his son becomes a Christian.

This is where I fail as a Buddhist. This is why I hate this religion. The personnal attacks, the let's not debate, but find a way to look down and them and make them look stupid! They are no better then the fundamentalists Muslims blowing themselves up and killing other in the name of their God.

I am thankful that here in America, the heart of Christian fundamentalism, there is such a thing as moderates.

The mere creation of that website is a sign that the evangelist is insecure about his/her religion.

Why can't they just believe what they want to, without trying to run down the beliefs of others?

Its interesting because not all religious Christians feel this way.

My grandmother was a 7th day Adventist but she respected my husband's beliefs. In fact, she told my mom that she was more worried about me because I didn't believe in anything. She felt it was more important to have a set of beliefs to fall back on in times of trouble than it was for those beliefs to be Christian.

Her open-minded attitude blew me away.

We really must learn to respect each others differences. These types of links are everywhere on the web. It's not just 'x to christianity', it's christianity to x'. The web is full of this stuff which is of no help to any body.

Let us all earnestly search for the truth. We must find the path ourselves, no one else can find it for us!

I thought the Ten Questions I'd Ask If I Could Interview Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha) Today was quite good. they're legitimate questions from the point of view of a Christian believer. One ot two were purile nonsense of course.

If, as you are reported to have said, nirvana is "beyond...good and evil", then, in the ultimate sense, there is really no difference between Hitler and Mother Theresa, or between helping an old lady across the street and running her down--correct?

The answer to this one would have to be yes. Ultimately Hitler and Mother Theresa are the same and all actions, ultimately, are the same. Relatively there are differences of course.

They do get narrow-minded with their ignorant bashing of the inter-faith dialogue Thich Nhat Hanh book and most intelligent Christains would agree I'm sure.

If, as you are reported to have said, nirvana is "beyond...good and evil", then, in the ultimate sense, there is really no difference between Hitler and Mother Theresa, or between helping an old lady across the street and running her down--correct?

I think what the guy is suggesting is that because nirvana is beyond good and evil, there is no point in differentiating between good and evil actions - Hitler and Mother Theresa are equal as human beings. My answer would be that Hitler, MT and the rest of us aren't in/at nirvana, so good and evil are still valid concepts. Evil takes us away from nirvana, good takes us closer. So we should try to do good, just as a Christian would.

I found a more interesting question in another article, Why I stopped following Buddha and started following Jesus. The question was, "Why were beings punished for actions they would be unable to remember?"

If, as you are reported to have said, nirvana is "beyond...good and evil", then, in the ultimate sense, there is really no difference between Hitler and Mother Theresa, or between helping an old lady across the street and running her down--correct?

I think what the guy is suggesting is that because nirvana is beyond good and evil, there is no point in differentiating between good and evil actions - Hitler and Mother Theresa are equal as human beings. My answer would be that Hitler, MT and the rest of us aren't in/at nirvana, so good and evil are still valid concepts. Evil takes us away from nirvana, good takes us closer. So we should try to do good, just as a Christian would.

Exactly. The problem is that they highlight the differences between the beliefs instead of the common points.

Belief systems are tough for many people to deal with ... why? I dunno .... TheChristians and jews and muslims ... all have the only true way .....

We Buddhists do too ;-) we just don't worry so much about other people getting there this life

I found a more interesting question in another article, Why I stopped following Buddha and started following Jesus. The question was, "Why were beings punished for actions they would be unable to remember?"

This is question is typical of what happens when one tries to equate tersm/concepts of one religion to that of another which is in fact fundamentally different.

Beings aren't being "punished" per se. It is just cause and effect, impersonal. The "purpose" (in quotes since there is no personal agency responsible) is to help them learn what they need to learn, that's all.

Example: someone was rich and selfish, next life becomes poor. A Christian views this as "pubnishment" but it is not. It is simply that the spiritual evolution of all beings requires the development of compassion. This person has not yet developed it enough to be able to handle affluence and needs to experience poverty in order to develop it.

I found a more interesting question in another article, Why I stopped following Buddha and started following Jesus. The question was, "Why were beings punished for actions they would be unable to remember?"

This is question is typical of what happens when one tries to equate tersm/concepts of one religion to that of another which is in fact fundamentally different.

Beings aren't being "punished" per se. It is just cause and effect, impersonal. The "purpose" (in quotes since there is no personal agency responsible) is to help them learn what they need to learn, that's all.

Example: someone was rich and selfish, next life becomes poor. A Christian views this as "pubnishment" but it is not. It is simply that the spiritual evolution of all beings requires the development of compassion. This person has not yet developed it enough to be able to handle affluence and needs to experience poverty in order to develop it.

Not sure what you're saying here. Christians don't believe in reincarnation. The Bible certainly doesn't teach it.

I found a more interesting question in another article, Why I stopped following Buddha and started following Jesus. The question was, "Why were beings punished for actions they would be unable to remember?"

This is question is typical of what happens when one tries to equate tersm/concepts of one religion to that of another which is in fact fundamentally different.

Beings aren't being "punished" per se. It is just cause and effect, impersonal. The "purpose" (in quotes since there is no personal agency responsible) is to help them learn what they need to learn, that's all.

Example: someone was rich and selfish, next life becomes poor. A Christian views this as "pubnishment" but it is not. It is simply that the spiritual evolution of all beings requires the development of compassion. This person has not yet developed it enough to be able to handle affluence and needs to experience poverty in order to develop it.

Not sure what you're saying here. Christians don't believe in reincarnation. The Bible certainly doesn't teach it.

What about that bit when Jesus asks the disciples "Who do men say I am?" And the disciples say “Some say you are John the Baptist, whom Herod beheaded. Others say you are Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets who died long ago.”? Seems like they were familiar with the concept of reincarnation at least. And then there's the Three Wise Men who go off to look for the great child who has just been born. A bit like the search parties Tibetans send out to find a reincarnated lama. I don't know if it necessarily means anything.

I found a more interesting question in another article, Why I stopped following Buddha and started following Jesus. The question was, "Why were beings punished for actions they would be unable to remember?"

This is question is typical of what happens when one tries to equate tersm/concepts of one religion to that of another which is in fact fundamentally different.

Beings aren't being "punished" per se. It is just cause and effect, impersonal. The "purpose" (in quotes since there is no personal agency responsible) is to help them learn what they need to learn, that's all.

Example: someone was rich and selfish, next life becomes poor. A Christian views this as "pubnishment" but it is not. It is simply that the spiritual evolution of all beings requires the development of compassion. This person has not yet developed it enough to be able to handle affluence and needs to experience poverty in order to develop it.

Not sure what you're saying here. Christians don't believe in reincarnation. The Bible certainly doesn't teach it.

What about that bit when Jesus asks the disciples "Who do men say I am?" And the disciples say “Some say you are John the Baptist, whom Herod beheaded. Others say you are Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets who died long ago.”? Seems like they were familiar with the concept of reincarnation at least. And then there's the Three Wise Men who go off to look for the great child who has just been born. A bit like the search parties Tibetans send out to find a reincarnated lama. I don't know if it necessarily means anything.

I wouldn't say that. John the Baptist was alive while Jesus was, and the reference to Elijah and Jeremiash would be closer to ghosts or spirits of, in human form.

Jesus supposedly rose from the dead. A sort of rebirth -- as himself.

Life in heaven for good Christians or hel_l for bad ones is another transmigration of souls.

How about an interview with Jesus...

What 10 questions would a Buddhist ask?

#1 How can I be saved from your followers?...

#2 Why is the "Thou shall not kill" commandment so loosely interpreted by your followers?

...

Example: someone was rich and selfish, next life becomes poor. A Christian views this as "pubnishment" but it is not. It is simply that the spiritual evolution of all beings requires the development of compassion. This person has not yet developed it enough to be able to handle affluence and needs to experience poverty in order to develop it.

Not sure what you're saying here. Christians don't believe in reincarnation. The Bible certainly doesn't teach it.

What about that bit when Jesus asks the disciples "Who do men say I am?" And the disciples say “Some say you are John the Baptist, whom Herod beheaded. Others say you are Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets who died long ago.”? Seems like they were familiar with the concept of reincarnation at least. And then there's the Three Wise Men who go off to look for the great child who has just been born. A bit like the search parties Tibetans send out to find a reincarnated lama. I don't know if it necessarily means anything.

When references are made to John the Baptist or Elijah returning it is in reference to the work they do and what they will accomplish, not them 'personally'.

Jesus supposedly rose from the dead. A sort of rebirth -- as himself.

Life in heaven for good Christians or hel_l for bad ones is another transmigration of souls.

Jesus was resurrected from the dead, as you say, as himself. This was promised all the way through the OT.

Your mention "Life in heaven for good Christians or hel_l for bad ones is another transmigration of souls." Depends on whether you believe in Heaven going or hel_l going at death. I don't believe in this at all. Resurrection from the dead is what is promised at the return of Jesus. And 'hel_l' is just another word for the grave which is where we all end up!

Beings aren't being "punished" per se. It is just cause and effect, impersonal. The "purpose" (in quotes since there is no personal agency responsible) is to help them learn what they need to learn, that's all.

Example: someone was rich and selfish, next life becomes poor. A Christian views this as "pubnishment" but it is not. It is simply that the spiritual evolution of all beings requires the development of compassion. This person has not yet developed it enough to be able to handle affluence and needs to experience poverty in order to develop it.

Not sure what you're saying here. Christians don't believe in reincarnation. The Bible certainly doesn't teach it.

What I was trying to say was that this Buddhist concept, seen through Christian eyes, would be interpreted as punishment. as a sort of Buddhist equivalent to going to hel_l for ones sins, but that this is not the case and the two concepts are in fact not similar.

BTW, the concept of reincarnation was certainly known and believed by some groups -- including some Jewish mystical sects and some early Christian sects -- suring and immediately after Jesus' time.Gnostic sects in particular. It was not until the Nicene Council several hundred years after the death of Christ that a single uniform set of beliefs (and scriptures) was decided upon as the basis for Christianity which from there on became an institutalized religion. And those decisions were made by people with vested political interests. However it is certainly true that for the most early Christianity and certainly institutionalized Christianity did not incorporate the concept. I find it helpful when looking comparatively at Buddhism and Christianity to remember that they each came about in the setting of an established religious tradition and that jesus and buddha needed to use the "language" and concepts of the established tradition in their explanations. So the conceptual native "language" of Christianity was Judaism while that of Buddhism was Hinduism.

It's important to note that the Buddha did not so teach reincarnation so much as try to correct misunderstandings about it as it was a well-entrenched concept in the Hindu world. The key Buddhist concept of anatta is clearly at odds with the idea of a transmigration of souls. "The Questions of King Milinda" (Milindhapanha) is my favorite Buddhist text on this issue as it explains the Buddhist take on rebirth clearly through a set of analogies. However, the folk beliefs which prevail today in ostensibly uddhist countriesd regarding rebiorth are pretty much along Hindu lines, although Thais, Cambodians etc don't realize it. probably because the Hindu concept of reincarnation of souls is both simpler to understand and more comforting in times of grief.

Re recent posts: let's try to avoid Christian bashing if possible. True religious teachings are one thing, what ignorant people go and do with them is quite another and no religious tradition has a monopoly on twisting things around for ulterior purposes....

Beings aren't being "punished" per se. It is just cause and effect, impersonal. The "purpose" (in quotes since there is no personal agency responsible) is to help them learn what they need to learn, that's all.

Example: someone was rich and selfish, next life becomes poor. A Christian views this as "pubnishment" but it is not. It is simply that the spiritual evolution of all beings requires the development of compassion. This person has not yet developed it enough to be able to handle affluence and needs to experience poverty in order to develop it.

Not sure what you're saying here. Christians don't believe in reincarnation. The Bible certainly doesn't teach it.

What I was trying to say was that this Buddhist concept, seen through Christian eyes, would be interpreted as punishment. as a sort of Buddhist equivalent to going to hel_l for ones sins, but that this is not the case and the two concepts are in fact not similar.

BTW, the concept of reincarnation was certainly known and believed by some groups -- including some Jewish mystical sects and some early Christian sects -- suring and immediately after Jesus' time.Gnostic sects in particular. It was not until the Nicene Council several hundred years after the death of Christ that a single uniform set of beliefs (and scriptures) was decided upon as the basis for Christianity which from there on became an institutalized religion. And those decisions were made by people with vested political interests. However it is certainly true that for the most early Christianity and certainly institutionalized Christianity did not incorporate the concept. I find it helpful when looking comparatively at Buddhism and Christianity to remember that they each came about in the setting of an established religious tradition and that jesus and buddha needed to use the "language" and concepts of the established tradition in their explanations. So the conceptual native "language" of Christianity was Judaism while that of Buddhism was Hinduism.

It's important to note that the Buddha did not so teach reincarnation so much as try to correct misunderstandings about it as it was a well-entrenched concept in the Hindu world. The key Buddhist concept of anatta is clearly at odds with the idea of a transmigration of souls. "The Questions of King Milinda" (Milindhapanha) is my favorite Buddhist text on this issue as it explains the Buddhist take on rebirth clearly through a set of analogies. However, the folk beliefs which prevail today in ostensibly uddhist countriesd regarding rebiorth are pretty much along Hindu lines, although Thais, Cambodians etc don't realize it. probably because the Hindu concept of reincarnation of souls is both simpler to understand and more comforting in times of grief.

Good point.