I prefer peanut butter m&m's to other types of m&m's. Don't derail by responding to this. If you'd like to discuss this please start a new thread.

false analogy...your example doesn't say one thing about Buddhists while mine does even if you don't like the message..IOW I am somewhat on topic while you're merely criticizing.

True. Your post did make me think though, that once Christians give up on Christ ever actually returning to Earth they will be flocking towards Buddhism.

You should read Peck's The Road Less Travelled then.

I sometimes think Buddhism is Christianity that didn't mature all the way. They are more alike than you think.

Splendour is such a joke and a nuisance on this forum.

I'm no expert in buddhism, but I'm going to go with: No. Given how positive Buddhism is, I'm not surprised Christians want to be associated with it though.

Kentucky?

Most Christians just want to be Christians. I only looked at some aspects of Buddhism myself because several atheists on here seemed to want Christians to do a religious comparison so I compared them.

I was reared a fundamentalist in the flavor of christianity that I would refer to as being analogous to christianity as the taliban is to islam. So, I have read the entire bible many many times in several translations. That said, there ARE some similarities that one can pick out. If you read Ecclesiastes, or pick out some of the comments made by Jesus in the gospels, and even some from the letters of Paul...there are examples that you could for sure point to and say "see it is similar". (or even more specifically examples in the apocryphal text the Book of Thomas iirc and others that really sound buddhist)

I think the judeo-christian mythology borrows far far more from Egyptian and Zoroastrian mythology amongst others actually.

To be clear the Dalai Lama and many buddhist people have a very unitarian view of it and choose to highlight similarities. Obviously, I am not personally one of those. For me, there for all the scriptures that say god is love, love your neighbor as yourself, to love your enemies...etc...there are others that to say the very least are far from aligned to a peaceful philosophy predicated on loving-kindness.

It is scary to ponder the mysteries of the universe and people have long invented stories to explain it. It can't be that big a surprise that there are similarities in those mythologies. But as I said...I do not put any stock whatsoever in the supernatural mythology surrounding the buddha. I just think he was probably a rich guy that tried to figure out what life is all about and decided having some balance and being loving and kind are a good idea. Sounds like a good idea. But, if you think he was anything other than just a random dude that had some good ideas, like Aristotle, I think that is silly.

Source?

See number 1:

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/buddhaongod.asp

From Wiki on Buddha and his Dhamma:

. The Buddha did not promise to give salvation. He said He was Marga Data (Way Finder) and not Moksha Data (Giver of Salvation).

Most religions are describe as revelations, but Buddhas' religion is not a revelation. A revealed religion is so called because it is a message of God to His creatures to worship their makers(i.e., God) and to save their souls. The obligation of the prophet is to ensure salvation to the faithful. Salvation of the faithful means the saving of their souls from being sent to hell, provided they obey God's commands and recognise the prophet as his messenger. The buddha never claimed that he was prophet or a messenger of God, he repudiated any such description. A more important point that this is that his religion is a discover, as such it must be sharply distinguished from a religion which is called Revelation. His religion is a discovery in the sense that it is the result of inquiry and investigation into the conditions of human life on earth; and understanding of the working of human instincts with which man is born; the moulding of his instincts and dispositions which man has formed as a result of history and tradition, and which are working to be detriment. All prophet has promised salvation. The Buddha is the one teacher who did not make any such promise. He made a sharp distinction between a moksha data and marga data one who gives salvation and one who shows the way. He was only a marga data. Salvation must be sought by each for himself by his own effort. What is salvation? With Mohammad and Jesus, salvation means saving the soul from being sent to hell by the intercession of the Prophet. With Buddha Salvation means Nibbana and Nibbana means control of passions. What promise of salvation can there be in such a Dhamma?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Buddha_and_His_Dhamma

I'm not sure of the source for this quote, the writer just says "Buddha said this" and he doesn't give a reference. But even if it is valid, you've misunderstood it.

I bolded the "should"s to show you the point. It doesn't mean "should" as in "a person should do x", it means should as in, "Given x, y should follow". This is clear from the analogy to the pot, which obviously cannot make a choice.

It's clear from the points following #1 quoted above that the author, Buddha or whomever, is arguing that there is not a god, not that he should be worshipped if there is.

Buddha lived 500 years before Christ.

He made an "if" statement.

We don't know if he would have recognized Christ as the Son of God but its pretty clear how he would have responded had he recognized him as such.

Buddha's statement:

"If God is indeed the creator of all living things, then all things here should submit to his power unquestioningly.

It is an "if statement" that proceeded Christ's arrival in the world.

Like the vessels produced by a potter, they should remain without any individuality of their own. If that is so, how can there be any opportunity to practice virtue."

This is Buddha's reasoning. But the bible should be the source of reasoning on the potter. The potter is mainly described in the Book of Ezekiel and maybe a few other places in the bible. Again Buddha lived before Christ and wasn't a Hebrew to have access to the Hebrew scriptures. Yet he knows to acknowledge God. So its a matter of timing here and access to the scriptures.

Splendour, you have completely misunderstood your own source. I'd paste that series of numbered points here but that site won't allow me to copy, but I'd recommend you read the whole thing. The whole series is an argument that there isn't a god. It even ends with the statement "We should therefore abandon the heresy of worshipping god and of praying to him". The first stanza does not mean "if there's a god, we should choose to submit to him".

Your statement above "Buddha knows to acknowledge God" is completely incorrect. Buddha did not ever acknowledge any sort of supreme deity or creator. It is found nowhere in his teachings. In fact, the concept of dependent origination stands in direct conflict with the notion of any sort of creator god.

That's cause its not my source.

I just located a source so you can see I didn't make up what the Buddha said.

I read the quote that Buddha said we would have to obey God absolutely if he existed a couple of years back. I'm not a walking catalogue on sources.

Don't over read into things. I didn't cite the whole article above. I said #1.

Buddhism claims to be "a way". Christ said he was The Way, the Truth and the Life. What do you think that difference means?

You don't think Buddha wouldn't have acknowledged Christ if he had the opportunity? Buddha most likely was walking in darkness trying to find the right path and found a path of sorts. The light didn't enter the world until Christ came. Christ is the Light of the World.

I don't know where you got that idea. The Buddha taught that the Dhamma is the sole path to liberation -- it's not a way, it's the way.

Not a chance. Buddha would've praised a lot of Jesus's moral teachings, but there is absolutely no way he would have believed Christ was actually divine. You have to understand, the cosmology that the Buddha taught does not have a creation point, the phrase "since beginningless time" is often used, so there cannot be a creator god, and there sure can't be a creator god's son. Buddha would have tried to explain dependent origination to Jesus, probably failed, and they would have gone on their separate ways.

We have different opinions so I'll just leave it at that.

I don't claim to be a Buddhist but I have read Buddhist literature and meditate regularly. I really don't know how I would classify myself and have given up trying to reach any conclusion. Whatever "the truth" is will occur no matter what I think so I intend to just let things unfold as they may.

Sorry for the misattribute. I thought you stated you were a Buddhist in a thread a while back.

Loved the talks by Matthieu Ricard and Jon Kabat, thanks alot.

What is your opinion on the Dalai Lama?

You are most welcome. : )

Hard to imagine how you could not like the guy. From what I have heard from others who were 100% science people and not sentimental about buddhism whatsoever...they say he is absolutely as advertised with everyone. He talks to housekeepers at hotels or busboys in restaurants precisely as he does heads of state.

To be the kind of man that seeming does not have a gear for seeing people as a role even when busy or in a formal social context is a fascinating thing right there.

I would aspire to be like that. I achieve it sometimes, and others miserably fail. I reckon every day is another chance to do better.

I suppose he would be a very interesting man to meet and get to know, but I don't see him as anything supernatural at all. He is actually a Geshe or sort of like a Ph.D. in Tibetan buddhist teaching as well, and not just a figurehead of sorts for a deposed govt. in exile. He is a skilled teacher and learned student, and most fascinatingly is willing to challenge every single thing he believes and is completely open to changing any of it. There are not many of us without a large chunk of beliefs that we don't challenge and reexamine frequently. It would be nice if more were.

You added the sentence: 'but I don't see him as anything supernatural at all'. Why did you? Does he himself think he is? Which of his followers think he is? Or is it just a western concept?

Well he does not see himself as anything but a humble monk who is in a special situation. Tibetan buddhist consider him the 14th reincarnation of the Dalai Lama, which is obviously an elevated position.

I am sure westerners have a broad range of opinions about him that would vary by perspective and how informed they are. I am sure fundamentalist relatives of mine in Kentucky would consider him some flavor or false profit. lol

I said it because I think he is just a guy and not a reincarnated anything. But, an exceptional guy to be sure.

I've started listening to a podcast called The Secular Buddhist (should be able to find it in itunes). Seems interesting, I will give it a listen for awhile.

This is irritating, because I'm pretty sure you're being dishonest by creatively misinterpreting the Buddha quote, but you can either pretend to be ignorant and that you don't understand that it's a misinterpretation, or you can say 'it's just my opinion' and we're supposed to let you on your merry way.

I do have hope that one day someone will be able to dig through your layers of denial, arrogance, and bluster and have a normal conversation with you.

I've never heard of it. I will give it a sample. : )