Anyone believe Jesus was partly copied from Buddha ?

[only1]

AYJAYDEE,

My good intentions.

By sharing the truth behind their religion, I will not only prevent more people from being cheated by them but also let their people understand life and don't get disappointed to find no heaven as promised, after their death.

Also, I can reduce the sins of their pastors. No way I can be wrong for doing it. Isn't it ?

[nidieunimaitre]

Somebody needs to google "megalomania".

[xylophone]

I think some of you missed my point.

My point is Jesus and Christianity is just one example that how people can use Buddhism to create another for bad intentions.

Although religions are not meant to be bad but if there are enough proofs or evidence found that it was false and bad, I think one should not cover it but expose it.

The Buddha taught people not to lie and I am sure that includes covering up any lie.

christianity is not bad, some of the people who subscribe to christianity are.

Quote: "christianity is not bad, some of the people who subscribe to christianity are"

Maybe in the early days when a man called "Jesus" was supposedly performing miracles, the idea of a deity/super-being seemed like a good idea because it fulfilled the need I have spoken about before, but what has transpired is a moneymaking machine with greed and corruption at the very top and on the way down the ladder, paedophile (and other unsavoury) behaviour which is knowingly covered up by the powers in the moneymaking machine.

If I was ever to subscribe to a "religion" then I would possibly follow the Gnostic path, because although they believed that there was a Jesus and wrote about him in their gospels (the gospel according to Philip is one) they believed that you would find "God" within yourself, i.e. that it was a state of mind and that churches and priests and all the paraphernalia were not necessary because the answer lay within you – – I suppose you could almost say that it was form of psychology/meditation.

Of course this represented a huge threat to Christianity in the early days, so they were branded as magicians/charlatans and mystics and were persecuted, and their books burned.

[piersbeckett]

I thought Buddha was after Christ by some 300 years but I'm afraid the belief that they could 'change the world' has been exploited as a means of control more successfully than their messages have actually changed the world.

Do you not live in Thailand?... In the year of the Buddha 2558...

I am sorry; I was thinking of Mahayana Buddhism being introduced to the South of Thailand about that time and concentrating too much on the failure of religion in general to effect peace.

[coulson]

I thought Buddha was after Christ by some 300 years but I'm afraid the belief that they could 'change the world' has been exploited as a means of control more successfully than their messages have actually changed the world.

This year in Thailand is 2558 BE (Buddha Enlightenment).

This year in Thailand is 2015 AD (Anno Domini).

This means that Buddha was around some 543 years before Christ so you are about 800 years out.

Close, but sorry, no cigar.

Add another 80 years onto that figure.

[AYJAYDEE]

AYJAYDEE,

My good intentions.

By sharing the truth behind their religion, I will not only prevent more people from being cheated by them but also let their people understand life and don't get disappointed to find no heaven as promised, after their death.

Also, I can reduce the sins of their pastors. No way I can be wrong for doing it. Isn't it ?

many ways you can be wrong, it all depends how you go about it. ends do not justify means.

[only1]

Maybe you can tell me what are the wrong ways so that I can avoid them ?

[AYJAYDEE]

Maybe you can tell me what are the wrong ways so that I can avoid them ?

no thanks

[only1]

Then you are just as good as trolling, for not being able to back up your own words.

[AYJAYDEE]

Then you are just as good as trolling, for not being able to back up your own words.

i said there is a wrong way. are you suggesting there isnt a wrong way?

[coulson]

AYJAYDEE,

My good intentions.

By sharing the truth behind their religion, I will not only prevent more people from being cheated by them but also let their people understand life and don't get disappointed to find no heaven as promised, after their death.

Also, I can reduce the sins of their pastors. No way I can be wrong for doing it. Isn't it ?

Are you Nepalese Hindu? Edited August 27, 2015 by coulson

[only1]

No, why ?

[coulson]

No, why ?

It would have aligned with your exclamations.

I'm not far off though....

[only1]

It doesn't matter who am I.

What matters are the truth behind a religion.

[AYJAYDEE]

It doesn't matter who am I.

What matters are the truth behind a religion.

I have never met anyone who can guarantee to me that their religion is the truth

[coulson]

It doesn't matter who am I.

What matters are the truth behind a religion.

I don't remember reading about the Buddha ever having problems revealing his background to those he attempted to teach

[coulson]

When i was travelling in India, i was told by some monk that both Jesus and Buddha are avatars of Vishnu, same as Rama, Krishna etc.

The most important similarity between them, IMHO, is that they were against the bigotry of the priests, and their exploitation of their status for material gains.

The fact that religions have been used as an excuse for crimes and wars, is not a proof that the world would be better without religions..

.. And a religious man is not necessarily better than an atheist, and viceversa.

Bhagavad Gita is a good account of Arjuna's dilemma, roughly 3000 BC. So i guess.....its before the time of Buddha....no less. Krishna the warlord gives his insights on mortality and......behold.....attachment.

OP.....being from that part of the world....could you perhaps enlighten us as to what religious system Krishna was ripping off at the time of his speech to Arjuna?

[only1]

The background of a teacher is not important. Only the teachings are.

[coulson]

The background of a teacher is not important. Only the teachings are.

Tell that to your next immigration officer

[AYJAYDEE]

The background of a teacher is not important. Only the teachings are.

the validity of the teachings are judged by the background of the teacher.

[mauGR1]

When i was travelling in India, i was told by some monk that both Jesus and Buddha are avatars of Vishnu, same as Rama, Krishna etc.

The most important similarity between them, IMHO, is that they were against the bigotry of the priests, and their exploitation of their status for material gains.

The fact that religions have been used as an excuse for crimes and wars, is not a proof that the world would be better without religions..

.. And a religious man is not necessarily better than an atheist, and viceversa.

Bhagavad Gita is a good account of Arjuna's dilemma, roughly 3000 BC. So i guess.....its before the time of Buddha....no less. Krishna the warlord gives his insights on mortality and......behold.....attachment.

OP.....being from that part of the world....could you perhaps enlighten us as to what religious system Krishna was ripping off at the time of his speech to Arjuna?

I was referring to a similarity in the life of Buddha and Jesus. As far as i know, there is no mention of religious systems in the life of Krishna.

[VincentRJ]

AYJAYDEE,

My good intentions.

By sharing the truth behind their religion, I will not only prevent more people from being cheated by them but also let their people understand life and don't get disappointed to find no heaven as promised, after their death.

Also, I can reduce the sins of their pastors. No way I can be wrong for doing it. Isn't it ?

I tend not to get involved in religious discussions at this level. However, since 'Only1' has placed great importance on logic, in many of his posts, I would like to point out the total absurdity and complete lack of logic in part of his comment, as quoted above, which I've highlighted in bold.

If there's no life after death, it's impossible to get disappointed. One can only be disappointed if there is life after death, and if that life doesn't meet one's expectations.

There's a related concept known as Pascal's Wager, which some consider is flawed, but it does contain an element of logic. Basically, Pascal's argument is that one has nothing to lose if one abides by Christian principles in this life. One's life should be more harmonious and fulfilling if one gives the most importance to Christian values such as 'loving one's neighbour and enemy', and 'doing unto others as you would have them do unto you', and so on. The 'flow on' effects of such behaviour should be sufficient reward in themselves.

If it turns out there is no after-life, then there's no problem. One won't exist to be aware of it. If there is an after-life, then it's possible that one will get a bonus for one's good behaviour whilst on Earth.

The flaw in the argument is, one can't necessarily be certain, logically, that the Christian principles one is following, represent the actual will of God, assuming that God exists. They might have been misinterpreted, at least to some extent, if not completely, so what any individual might consider to have been impeccable behaviour on this Earth, might be considered by God to have been flawed behaviour, not deserving of the highest rewards of everlasting heaven.

[only1]

How sure are you or we that there is no life or hell after death ?

[AYJAYDEE]

How sure are you or we that there is no life or hell after death ?

not sure at all

[nidieunimaitre]

How sure are you or we that there is no life or hell after death ?

Of course I can only speak for myself.

100%.

[VincentRJ]

How sure are you or we that there is no life or hell after death ?

Descriptions of Heaven after death, which one goes to if one has behaved properly, are enticements and encouragement for people who might otherwise not behave properly. Descriptions of Hell for misbehaviour, reinforce that encouragement to behave properly. This is known as the 'carrot and stick' approach, to get people to behave in a particular way, often used by governments and the taxation system.

[only1]

Exactly, no one can be sure, meaning a person may end without heaven despite believing with the church an entire life. All the more my actions are proven good intentions and right thoughts.

[VincentRJ]

Exactly, no one can be sure, meaning a person may end without heaven despite believing with the church an entire life. All the more my actions are proven good intentions and right thoughts.

You've missed the point. It doesn't matter whether or not there is life after death, or a heaven and hell. The placebo effect is a real effect. We don't fully understand it yet, but we recognise that all belief has a placebo effect. It's why Drug companies need double-blind tests using placebos to test the efficacy of their new drugs. The placebo effect is always at work, even if the drug is useless. An effective drug is one that has an effect that is greater than the placebo effect. It's estimated that, on average, about 30% of the effectiveness of any drug, can be attributed to a placebo effect. It's always present.

Religion can have a tremendous placebo effect. I've got no objection to that. The problem is with those who try to reinforce the placebo effect by killing anyone who disagrees with their belief. I think you know who I am referring to.

[slipperylobster]

Certainly...

Jesus was painting easter eggs when this great black hooded cobra fell from the sky and knocked him out.

Never was the same after that. Started speaking hindu and walked in the wilderness for 40 days.

He even missed Christmas, but wrote to Santa Claus about wanting a bike.

[slipperylobster]

Certainly...

Jesus was painting easter eggs with a pink bunny, when this great black hooded cobra fell from the sky and knocked him out.

Never was the same after that. Started speaking hindu and walked in the wilderness for 40 days.

He even missed Christmas, but wrote to Santa Claus about wanting a bike.

Edited August 28, 2015 by slipperylobster