Chirstianity and Buddhism

Originally posted by Devil King
I'm cool with that. (Even when it's a commercialized acceptance of buddhism 😉) But what I'm not cool with is how rarely the supporters of Christianity take the time to consider that their religion, New Testament-self-espoused version, runs congruently with Buddhism. Sadly, more often than not, it's subscribers cling to the Old Testament as a defining factor in their own religion. You and I both agree that Jesus himself would be ashamed of his own followers, for the most part. Most of the pro-Jesus members that have posted in this thread would likely be shocked by their Messiah's attitude towards homosexuals. At this point, we have the major media outlets talking about "Virgin Births" in a shark. I'm sadly stunned by how many people will ignore the absurdity of the virgin-birth story of an asexual shark reproduction in favor of saying how logical it is for a human to do it in favor of an all=knowing god sending a mythical creature to earth in order to facilitate such an event on his/her/it's own behalf. At least Buddha figured it all out on his own. At least he didn't feel the need to claim god needed him as much as we supposedly need God. The Christians simply say they know it all because god decided to favor them and impart some measure of absolute enlightenment to them via that favoritism. I think there is a very large and obvious difference between self-enlightenment and looking to the obviously and blatant unknown for our answers.

I agree. If Jesus ever returns, he would be appalled by most of his self-proclaimed followers. I remember last year, my son Joe told me that a couple members of the Westboro Baptist Church were at his campus with there usual signs, and one of them got into a heated argument with a Hindu student. They called him an idol-worshipping pagan and that he won't be able to meditate when he's burning in hell. The Hindu then mentioned the famous quote by Gandhi about how so many Christians are unlike their Christ. The WBC guy then said that Gandhi was in hell, the Hindu responded that Gandhi was not a Christian but he was more like Jesus than he ever will be.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I really believe in Simultaneous Incarnation and not reincarnation, but most people don't know the difference.

What is the difference? I've never heard of Simultaneous Incarnation.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Karma, on the other hand, is not supernatural if you remove the reincarnation part.

But with reincarnation it is and plenty of Buddhists believe in that, so those ones at least are religious. And Karma in any form is sufficiently mystical in that "the universe balances itself" for a reason not based on science that I see it as essentially supernatural.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What is the difference? I've never heard of Simultaneous Incarnation.

But with reincarnation it is and plenty of Buddhists believe in that, so those ones at least are religious. And Karma in any form is sufficiently mystical in that "the universe balances itself" for a reason not based on science that I see it as essentially supernatural.

Sure, there are people who look at science in a mystical way. You can look at anything and make it mystical.

Karma has nothing to do with balance. I have a thread that gives a detailed description of Karma. You should check it out, because I think your opinion of Karma is based on Christian propaganda.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sure, there are people who look at science in a mystical way. You can look at anything and make it mystical.

Karma has nothing to do with balance. I have a thread that gives a detailed description of Karma. You should check it out, because I think your opinion of Karma is based on Christian propaganda.

I'd call it Hindu/Secular rather than Christian . . .

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'd call it Hindu/Secular rather than Christian . . .

However, there is a big difference between Karma as defined by the Hindu and Buddhist religions. Buddha used and redefined the Hindu term Karma to better fit his teachings.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, there is a big difference between Karma as defined by the Hindu and Buddhist religions. Buddha used and redefined the Hindu term Karma to better fit his teachings.

So he stole it?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You can look at anything and make it mystical.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
So he stole it?

Used it is more like it. He had to find ways to teach ignorant people. They knew what Karma was, so all he had to do was redefine the term. In many ways it would be better if he had used a new term, but he was very practical.

Doesn't Buddhism have a few demi-gods? Like there are four of them or something, and they help guide people, or something along those lines? I am pretty ignorant of Buddhism, but have no problem whatsoever with it.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Doesn't Buddhism have a few demi-gods? Like there are four of them or something, and they help guide people, or something along those lines? I am pretty ignorant of Buddhism, but have no problem whatsoever with it.

Buddhism has a Mythology, but it is just stories that help illustrate the teaching of Buddha. No one in their right mind would read a Sutra (teaching of Buddha) and take it literally.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Buddhism has a Mythology, but it is just stories that help illustrate the teaching of Buddha. No one in their right mind would read a Sutra (teaching of Buddha) and take it literally.

I had a Vietnamese employee who took it literally.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Buddhism has a Mythology.

Religion.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I had a Vietnamese employee who took it literally.

I'm sorry to hear that. However, it is his Karma.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm sorry to hear that. However, it is his Karma.

Lets not judge now...

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Lets not judge now...

😕