Buddhism is superior to Christianity. Here's why

[The Heretic]

Lately I have been distinguishing Buddhism from Christianity in my recent readings. Althought, at bottom, both religions are nihilistic and decadent, I have realized Buddhism is a much healthier and more realistic view of life and philosophically superior.

Unlike the Christian, who is always teeter-tottering on a razor edge trying to avoid sin, the Buddhist's main goal is to just reduce suffering itself. You can see how the Buddhist does not fall in to the same trap of self-deception as the Christian does, and on a philosophical level there is no black and white thinking that polarizes with good and evil, the moral presuppositions. Buddhism has already left them far behind, with the realization that they are all illusons, deceptions. In conclusion, the Buddhist is free, free from resentment and free from the obligation of preaching morality where she or he judge others.

The buddhist succeed in the reduction of suffering by living a passive and non-urgent way life. He or she does not become angry or bitter, resentful, no matter how severe the crimes someone has committed against him or her. With a greater self-discipline the buddhist is better prepared to control his or her desires and avoid exciting his or her senses, whereas the Christian, unfortunately, does the exact opposite by living an ascetic lifestyle that represses the natural desires and engages in prayer that maintains an emotionally charged relationship with his or her God.

The Buddhist, by avoiding suffering, is capable of managing a steady peace, experience tranquility, be calm, and express compassion in his lifestyle and character. What most do not realize is that the Buddhist actually succeeds in the avoidance of suffering, while the Christian cannot and does not at all succeed avoiding sin. Sadly, the Christian is in perpetual need of "redemption" and "forgiveness," and continually fails to acquire the "grace" of God, the only possible absolution.

Conclusion: the Buddhist is entirely capable of attaining his or her goals: an actual peace of mind and a tranquil life today.

 

[ismi]

I disagree. Buddhism has just as much potentially harmful dogma as any other religion. Its saving grace (pun intended) is its refusal to insist on being the one and only path to a goal (whether you want to call that goal salvation, the end of samsara, or something else).

 

[Teresh]

I disagree. Buddhism has just as much potentially harmful dogma as any other religion. Its saving grace (pun intended) is its refusal to insist on being the one and only path to a goal (whether you want to call that goal salvation, the end of samsara, or something else).

Agreed. Arguments that any religion is better than any other or that adherents that don't live a certain way aren't really adherents violates the No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[The Heretic]

Au countraire, Ishmi!

I disagree. Buddhism has just as much potentially harmful dogma as any other religion. Its saving grace (pun intended) is its refusal to insist on being the one and only path to a goal (whether you want to call that goal salvation, the end of samsara, or something else).

This specious argument is the equivalent of saying that since Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, the amount of energy in dog shit is potentially as damaging as that of uranium. Not only is this counterargument weak, it is also false.

There is no such frozen dogma, creed, or doctrine in buddhism, given that the Buddha does not rest his claims on a "higher authority" for his teachings, besides his own experience. The teachings themselves are philosophical, ethical, and psychological (respectively, wisdom, kindness/compassion and meditation). These aspects are called Dharma, a dynamic system of development, unlike a frozen set of statements found in all dogmatic systems. Perhaps you mistake these ideas and concepts as permanent doctrines the buddhist must advocate. These ideas are actually medicine for the ills of life, somewhat a Drano that eliminates clogs in pipes. Once the water flows smoothly, the Drano is no longer necessary.

 

[The Heretic]

The fallacy of fallacy!

Agreed. Arguments that any religion is better than any other or that adherents that don't live a certain way aren't really adherents violates the No True Scotsman fallacy.

This is quite incorrect.

The No True Scotsman fallacy takes place only after someone makes the objection that no Christian would do such a thing, when another person offers evidence that a Christian did so, and then the first person insists that that Christian is not a true one. Refresh your memory.

Nowhere did i say that whosoever doesn't live a certain lifestyle is not a true Christian. Go back and re-read my opening post.

 

[Teresh]

This is quite incorrect.

The No True Scotsman fallacy takes place only after someone makes the objection that no Christian would do such a thing, when another person offers evidence that a Christian did so, and then the first person insists that that Christian is not a true one. Refresh your memory.

Nowhere did i say that whosoever doesn't live a certain lifestyle is not a true Christian. Go back and re-read my opening post.

Your opinion is that "no true Buddhist" would do something bad, thus confirming what I originally said.

 

[The Heretic]

Your opinion is that "no true Buddhist" would do something bad, thus confirming what I originally said.

Argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam, for I hold no such opinion. I do not care whether you believe or not; I care about accuracy. Thus, when you post an inaccurate statement such as the one above, I must--noblesse oblige correct it.

 

[Teresh]

Argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam, for I hold no such opinion. I do not care whether you believe or not; I care about accuracy. Thus, when you post an inaccurate statement such as the one above, I must--noblesse oblige correct it.

Read your original post, Mr. Scotsman. Your opinion is quite clearly stated that a true Buddhist would not "fall in to the same trap of self-deception as the Christian does".

 

[VamPyroX]

Hmm... I think I'll become a Buddist!

 

[The Heretic]

Non-sequiturs of mind-numbing grossness

Read your original post, Mr. Scotsman. Your opinion is quite clearly stated that a true Buddhist would not "fall in to the same trap of self-deception as the Christian does".

Ipse dixit and incorrect.

This utterly fails to make the case that I committed the "No True Scotman" Fallacy. Apparently, Teresh remains unfamiliar with this fallacy. Here's a case where the fallacy actually applies:

Me: A buddhist does not do X.
Scotsman: Here's a buddhist who does X.
Me: Jesus H. Christ, that's no "true" buddhist at all!

What this individual has clearly failed to do so, and spells his or her ignorance of the subject, is actually complete the 2nd step. I gather making j'accuses are much easier than that!

One day, he/she may string together a coherent thought and compose it in a post! I know, I expect too much, but I remain an optimist.

 

[ismi]

There is no such frozen dogma, creed, or doctrine in buddhism, given that the Buddha does not rest his claims on a "higher authority" for his teachings, besides his own experience. The teachings themselves are philosophical, ethical, and psychological (respectively, wisdom, kindness/compassion and meditation). These aspects are called Dharma, a dynamic system of development, unlike a frozen set of statements found in all dogmatic systems. Perhaps you mistake these ideas and concepts as permanent doctrines the buddhist must advocate. These ideas are actually medicine for the ills of life, somewhat a Drano that eliminates clogs in pipes. Once the water flows smoothly, the Drano is no longer necessary.

Eh ... no. The fundamental principles of Buddhism are relatively non-dogmatic, but like every religion, there is a dogma in practice. If you belong to a sangha, if you practice Mahayana versus Theravada versus Pure Land, etc. etc., there is indeed dogma and interpretation. So in order to make a statement like the one you made originally, you have to separate Buddhism the philosophy from Buddhism the religion.

The impression you have is a common one in the US. But I suspect the only reason for this impression is that Buddhists are not common in the US, so it's easy to idealize their beliefs. I say this, BTW, as someone whose spirituality takes inspiration from much of Buddhism, though I am not a Buddhist myself.

If you want to see some examples of dogma and intolerance in Buddhism (and this is not a knock at Buddhism, just a statement that it has flawed followers like any other belief system), check out the Wikipedia article on Rajneesh, whose Buddhist cult carried out the first bioterror attack on the US in the 20th century.

EDIT: On preview, Heretic, here's your Step #2.

 

[The Heretic]

If you want to see some examples of dogma and intolerance in Buddhism (and this is not a knock at Buddhism, just a statement that it has flawed followers like any other belief system), check out the Wikipedia article on Rajneesh, whose Buddhist cult carried out the first bioterror attack on the US in the 20th century. EDIT: On preview, Heretic, here's your Step #2.

Aye, I am well aware of the fact that there are buddhists who committ violent acts, and I am incapable of dividing them from the so-called "true" buddhists. However, perhaps the mistake is thinking that there is one perfect buddhist in reality, where in reality there are thousands of variants of the religion, as much as there are different christians.

That said, my opening post does not depend on individual examples, who do not fit in neat categories, but the philosophical representation of the religion itself. In other words, the buddhist in my OP is an ideal representative who is capable of achieving a peace of mind, while the Christian cannot ever escape sin. Perhaps the mistake lies in the short-sighted reader who chooses to interpret this as a universal claim, that all buddhists are calm and peaceful.

 

[Reba]

...Buddhism is a much healthier and more realistic view of life and philosophically superior.

How so? Do you mean physical, or emotional, or spiritual health? Or all three?

More realistic view in what way? Realistic about what?

... the Buddhist's main goal is to just reduce suffering itself.

Does that mean to reduce self suffering, or suffering of other people, or both? If it includes other people, how does the Buddhist reduce the suffering of them? Does this include avoiding and preventing suffering, too, or just reducing already existing suffering?

You can see how the Buddhist does not fall in to the same trap of self-deception as the Christian does...

What would be that self-deciption?

...Buddhism has already left them far behind, with the realization that they are all illusons, deceptions.

Do you mean that Buddhists have no concept of right and wrong?

The buddhist succeed in the reduction of suffering by living a passive and non-urgent way life.

How does that reduce suffering?

He or she does not become angry or bitter, resentful, no matter how severe the crimes someone has committed against him or her.

That's not exclusive to Buddhists.

With a greater self-discipline the buddhist is better prepared to control his or her desires and avoid exciting his or her senses, whereas the Christian, unfortunately, does the exact opposite by living an ascetic lifestyle that represses the natural desires and engages in prayer that maintains an emotionally charged relationship with his or her God.

What is the difference between controlling desires and repressing desires?

The Buddhist, by avoiding suffering, is capable of managing a steady peace, experience tranquility, be calm, and express compassion in his lifestyle and character. What most do not realize is that the Buddhist actually succeeds in the avoidance of suffering...

Do you mean the Buddhist doesn't experiece physical or emotional pain? What about his or her relationships with other people and society? What does the Buddhist do to reduce the suffering of other people? You state that the Buddhist expresses compassion in his lifestyle; can you give a concrete example, please?

...Sadly, the Christian is in perpetual need of "redemption" and "forgiveness," and continually fails to acquire the "grace" of God, the only possible absolution.

God's grace to the Christian is constant, never ending, and without limit, so a Christian doesn't "fail to acquire the 'grace' of God." A Christian is redeemed once, forever, so there is no "perpetual need of 'redempton'." Christians do sin, and they do need to repent in order to enjoy the close fellowship and blessings of God, but their position as eternally redeemed children of God never changes.

Conclusion: the Buddhist is entirely capable of attaining his or her goals: an actual peace of mind and a tranquil life today.

Is reaching a personal goal the utmost goal of life? Doesn't it depend on what that goal is?

Just asking.

 

[indie]

Lately I have been distinguishing Buddhism from Christianity in my recent readings. Althought, at bottom, both religions are nihilistic and decadent, I have realized Buddhism is a much healthier and more realistic view of life and philosophically superior.

Unlike the Christian, who is always teeter-tottering on a razor edge trying to avoid sin, the Buddhist's main goal is to just reduce suffering itself. You can see how the Buddhist does not fall in to the same trap of self-deception as the Christian does, and on a philosophical level there is no black and white thinking that polarizes with good and evil, the moral presuppositions. Buddhism has already left them far behind, with the realization that they are all illusons, deceptions. In conclusion, the Buddhist is free, free from resentment and free from the obligation of preaching morality where she or he judge others.

The buddhist succeed in the reduction of suffering by living a passive and non-urgent way life. He or she does not become angry or bitter, resentful, no matter how severe the crimes someone has committed against him or her. With a greater self-discipline the buddhist is better prepared to control his or her desires and avoid exciting his or her senses, whereas the Christian, unfortunately, does the exact opposite by living an ascetic lifestyle that represses the natural desires and engages in prayer that maintains an emotionally charged relationship with his or her God.

The Buddhist, by avoiding suffering, is capable of managing a steady peace, experience tranquility, be calm, and express compassion in his lifestyle and character. What most do not realize is that the Buddhist actually succeeds in the avoidance of suffering, while the Christian cannot and does not at all succeed avoiding sin. Sadly, the Christian is in perpetual need of "redemption" and "forgiveness," and continually fails to acquire the "grace" of God, the only possible absolution.

Conclusion: the Buddhist is entirely capable of attaining his or her goals: an actual peace of mind and a tranquil life today.

Your allowed to have your belif but I don't think its for you to decide weather one religion is superior to another.

 

[RedFox]

Read your original post, Mr. Scotsman. Your opinion is quite clearly stated that a true Buddhist would not "fall in to the same trap of self-deception as the Christian does".

Saying that they won't fall into the same trap is not the same as saying that they would never fall in any trap. It leaves the possiblity of other kinds of traps that they could fall into. Saying that Buddhism does not have the same flaws of Christianity is not saying that Buddhism is flawless.

 

[The Heretic]

whew!

Apologies on the lateness of my response. Work and all, and personal projects keep getting in the way. Thank you for your questions, and although I am not a buddhist myself, I will try and answer them to the best of my ability.

How so? Do you mean physical, or emotional, or spiritual health? Or all three? More realistic view in what way? Realistic about what?

All of them, certainly. Buddhism is more realistic: understanding the nature of existence, where its epistemology is an austere phenomenalism.

Does that mean to reduce self suffering, or suffering of other people, or both? If it includes other people, how does the Buddhist reduce the suffering of them? Does this include avoiding and preventing suffering, too, or just reducing already existing suffering? Do you mean that Buddhists have no concept of right and wrong? How does that reduce suffering?

Buddhism is opposed to revenge and lacks moral presuppositions - there is no ground in resentment against life, and no longer wages war against 'sin.' Accordingly, Christianity has its origins in resentment, the chief sentiment of the Hebrew class during the Roman Empire era. The Hebrews inherited the concepts of good and evil from Babylon, where Zoroastrianism was popular and infiltrated to the exiles during their 70 year stay.

Buddhists treat suffering, instead of sin, with a cure for the horror of the world, rather than hide behind the dishonest grammar of Christianity. Buddhism is superior because it has dropped the self-deception of moral concepts, and has already evolved past the spurious marketing in the Christian doctrine. There are no myths of original sin that were invented in order to reinforce certain conditioned feelings of sinfulness. Both "good" and "evil" lack essence or substance, for they are the products of impermanent events and conditions.

One philosopher noted that Buddhism was beyond good and evil, but this does not mean a Buddhist cannot determine if an action is right or wrong. He or she is more sensitive to dualist thought, because both good and evil are interrelated, inseparable, and with the awareness that they are also relative concepts, the ethical way to live depends on dharma: enlightenment and ignorance. If one is not enlightened, one does not truly know one's own motivations. What is commendable is that there is no one path to enlightenment, and that Buddhism actually encourages thought and contemplation.

What would be that self-deciption?

The Christian concepts of moral experience (sin, afterlife) are entirely imaginary as well as psychologically pernicious. These categories undervalue human experience, making it much more vile than it really is. Thus, those moral concepts motivate Christians to adopt a paranoid and hostile attitude towards their behavior and that of others. Since they are convinced of their sinfulness, that they are deserving of eternal damnation, Christians are compelled to seek spiritual reassurance that comes a large cost of their own mental health and their relationships of others.

Ex. Christians are eager to escape their embodied selves, given their convictions of their own sinfulness. Because they believe they're sinners and are beholden to an unfulfillable law of perfect love, the Christian is convicted he is a failure. In order to ameliorate this sense of guilt, they look to others in the hopes of finding worse sinners. The moral worldview of Christianity has convicted the advocate that their position is perilous, which drives them to judge others to be sinners in order to gain some "upper hand" over them. Therefore, the moral worldview of Christianity inspires uncharitable judgments of other people, despite paying lip-service to neighborly love.

Such misrepresentation of reality results in dishonesty from the adherents, especially when they judge themselves and others. Moreover, the worldview also encourages a disgust with earthly life for the sake of another reality. Worst of all, the insistence on an absolute conformity to a single standard of human behavior causes further psychological damage to the believer. However, there is no "one-size-fits-all" morality. When the Christian, in the attempt to abolish his or her individual character, fails, his or her feelings of inadequacy is reinforced.

This morality is much older than Christianity and has an inherent structure, and a fundamental disposition called ressentiment, or what John Milton calls an "injured merit," towards the noble class, and revenge is accomplished by passing judgment. The strong and active traits of the noble are vilified by the herd class, who in turn grant virtue to their own passivity and weakness.

In Christianity, the herd morality blooms magnificently: bad conscience, where the soul attacks itself, is a disease, although it actually has been the prime motive behind some of the greatest achievements of man. The apparent selflessness is the subjugation of one part of the soul by another, where the selfless man, the self-denier and self-sacrificer feels delight in cruelty.

The combination of both bad conscience and the delight in cruelty (very old morality) is the source of monotheism. Bad conscience motivates a sense of guilt and indebtedness. In early civilization, the feeling of indebtedness was restricted to one's own ancestors, and the "powers" of the ancestors increased once the power of the tribe also increased. This escalated to the climax of the supreme and all powerful god. Thus, the notion of the all powerful god also hikes the feeling of guilt to ludicrous heights, so extreme that only God himself could redeem humanity from it.

That's not exclusive to Buddhists.

I doubt I said that it was.

What is the difference between controlling desires and repressing desires?

Since no desire is "evil" in itself, the Buddhist does not suppress desires - for that would actually strengthen them - he already realizes they are all temporary, and for every satisfaction, a new desire emerges. With meditation training, he can avoid becoming attached to them. That is one key that reduces suffering.

Do you mean the Buddhist doesn't experiece physical or emotional pain? What about his or her relationships with other people and society? What does the Buddhist do to reduce the suffering of other people? You state that the Buddhist expresses compassion in his lifestyle; can you give a concrete example, please?

No, the buddhist is a human being who experiences physical and emotional pains just like anyone else, but he or she is probably more capable of dealing with them than most.

Here is what the Buddha said to his son, Rahula:
Practice compassion to overcome cruelty. Compassion has the capacity to remove the suffering of others without expecting anything in return.

From this link, Sharon Salzberg wrote: "Sometimes we think that to develop an open heart, to be truly loving and compassionate, means that we need to be passive, to allow others to abuse us, to smile and let anyone do what they want with us. Yet this is not what is meant by compassion. Quite the contrary. Compassion is not at all weak. It is the strength that arises out of seeing the true nature of suffering in the world. Compassion allows us to bear witness to that suffering, whether it is in ourselves or others, without fear; it allows us to name injustice without hesitation, and to act strongly, with all the skill at our disposal. To develop this mind state of compassion...is to learn to live, as the Buddha put it, with sympathy for all living beings, without exception."

 

[The Heretic]

Your allowed to have your belif but I don't think its for you to decide weather one religion is superior to another.

If you meant that neither the buddhist nor the christian can decide their religion is superior to the other, then i agree. However, i am not speaking as a buddhist, but as a thinker, a philosopher. One of the requirements in philosophy is to judge concepts objectively.

I don't think all religions are equal, which means there is an objective standard to judge their merits, based on their philosophical committments and the evidence of psychology and social history.

 

[Reba]

I don't know that much about Buddhism, so I'm pretty much taking your statements about Buddhist beliefs and practices at face value.

However, I do know about Chrisianity, so I would like to make some comments about that.

...Christianity has its origins in resentment...

Christians are people who trust Jesus Christ as their Savior, and strive to become more Christlike in their daily lives on earth. Christlike behavior doesn't include "resentment", and it is not one of Christ's teachings. Jesus did not teach anyone to resent other people or their station in life. Christian doctrine does not include "resent your neighbor".

...hide behind the dishonest grammar of Christianity.

What does that mean? What "dishonest grammar"?

...spurious marketing in the Christian doctrine.

What would that be?

There are no myths of original sin that were invented in order to reinforce certain conditioned feelings of sinfulness. Both "good" and "evil" lack essence or substance, for they are the products of impermanent events and conditions.

That sounds like moral relativism. Are you saying that Christianity is inferior because it recognizes that good and evil both exist?

One philosopher noted that Buddhism was beyond good and evil, but this does not mean a Buddhist cannot determine if an action is right or wrong. He or she is more sensitive to dualist thought, because both good and evil are interrelated, inseparable, and with the awareness that they are also relative concepts, the ethical way to live depends on dharma: enlightenment and ignorance. If one is not enlightened, one does not truly know one's own motivations. What is commendable is that there is no one path to enlightenment, and that Buddhism actually encourages thought and contemplation.

That reminds me of "every man did that which was right in his own eyes." On what do they base the "rightness" or "wrongness" of an action?

Christianity encourages thought, contemplation, and self examination. Christians are all for wiping out ignorance.

The Christian concepts of moral experience (sin, afterlife) are entirely imaginary as well as psychologically pernicious.

That's your opinion, not facts.

Thus, those moral concepts motivate Christians to adopt a paranoid and hostile attitude towards their behavior and that of others.

What is your source for your opinions on Christianity? Your evaluation of Christian beliefs seems very foreign to me. Christians are motivated by the love of God and concern for their fellow man. How is that "paranoid and hostile"?

Since they are convinced of their sinfulness, that they are deserving of eternal damnation, Christians are compelled to seek spiritual reassurance that comes a large cost of their own mental health and their relationships of others.

Christians acquire a peace of mind and spirit that isn't effected by outside circumstances. They don't need to constantly seek reassurance; once they are saved from the penalty and effects of sin, they are permanently, eternally safe. Christian life is a positive influence on mental health and relationships with others.

...Because they believe they're sinners and are beholden to an unfulfillable law of perfect love, the Christian is convicted he is a failure.

Not at all. The grace of God doesn't require the fulfillment of any "law". Law is the antithesis of grace. Since the Christian doesn't "do" anything to earn grace (it is freely given by God), then there is no way he can "fail".

In order to ameliorate this sense of guilt, they look to others in the hopes of finding worse sinners.

That is sooo bizarre! I've never heard of that being a Christian doctrine. Most Christians are grieved for other people's sins, and pray for their victory over sin. No one wants to "find" worse sinners. In fact, Christianity doesn't even have a concept of "worse" sinners.

The moral worldview of Christianity has convicted the advocate that their position is perilous, which drives them to judge others to be sinners in order to gain some "upper hand" over them.

"Perilous" in what sense? Not spiritually. Do you mean politically, or financially, or physically? I really don't know what you mean by gaining some "upper hand" over people. How could anyone have spiritual control over another person? Besides, Christians know that every one is equally a sinner so no one has a spiritual "upper hand".

Therefore, the moral worldview of Christianity inspires uncharitable judgments of other people, despite paying lip-service to neighborly love.

I'm beginning to think you're just making things up to fit your viewpoint.

Such misrepresentation of reality results in dishonesty from the adherents, especially when they judge themselves and others.

Again, you're just tossing out accusations without anything to support them. What "dishonesty"?

Moreover, the worldview also encourages a disgust with earthly life for the sake of another reality.

Absolutely not. Christians honor God's creation. We love the people that God has put here. We love the beauty of nature. Where did you get that warped perception?

Worst of all, the insistence on an absolute conformity to a single standard of human behavior causes further psychological damage to the believer.

So there should be millions of "psychologically damaged" Christians on this planet.

Of course not. Obedience to God doesn't cause psychological damage. Living with the guilt, confusion, secrecy, and repurcussions of sin cause psychological damage. Accepting God's control gives peace and a healthy mind.

However, there is no "one-size-fits-all" morality. When the Christian, in the attempt to abolish his or her individual character, fails, his or her feelings of inadequacy is reinforced.

There is one morality but that doesn't mean Christians lose their individual characteristics. You aren't confusing individualism with personal sins, are you?

...In Christianity, the herd morality blooms magnificently: bad conscience, where the soul attacks itself, is a disease, although it actually has been the prime motive behind some of the greatest achievements of man. The apparent selflessness is the subjugation of one part of the soul by another, where the selfless man, the self-denier and self-sacrificer feels delight in cruelty.

Where do you get these weird ideas? That doesn't describe Christianity at all. Christians don't "delight in cruelty."

Since no desire is "evil" in itself...

Is that your opinion or Buddhist opinion, or both?

...the Buddhist does not suppress desires - for that would actually strengthen them - he already realizes they are all temporary, and for every satisfaction, a new desire emerges. With meditation training, he can avoid becoming attached to them. That is one key that reduces suffering.

So, does that mean that Buddhists don't act upon their desires?

Here is what the Buddha said to his son, Rahula:
Practice compassion to overcome cruelty. Compassion has the capacity to remove the suffering of others without expecting anything in return.

Very similar to the Christian philosophy of doing for others without expectation of reward.

..."Sometimes we think that to develop an open heart, to be truly loving and compassionate, means that we need to be passive, to allow others to abuse us, to smile and let anyone do what they want with us. Yet this is not what is meant by compassion. Quite the contrary. Compassion is not at all weak. It is the strength that arises out of seeing the true nature of suffering in the world. Compassion allows us to bear witness to that suffering, whether it is in ourselves or others, without fear; it allows us to name injustice without hesitation, and to act strongly, with all the skill at our disposal. To develop this mind state of compassion...is to learn to live, as the Buddha put it, with sympathy for all living beings, without exception."

Not much different from Christians, except for the Buddha part. :P

 

[ismi]

Buddhism and Christianity are different ... but not in the ways Heretic is saying. For one thing, the various schools of Buddhism do indeed have moral precepts. Regardless, any comparison of two religions to say that one is better than another is suspect, particularly when one of the two is a religion with which one has little or no contact.

Heretic: I think I've said it before, but I'll say it again: you are demonstrating the usual Western fetishization of Eastern thought, driven solely by an unfamiliarity with, and idealization of, that thought.

 

[christlovedeaf]

Does buddha approved sex outside of marriage? Christians doesn't. Does buddah approve to hate your enemies? Christians doesn't. Does buddha approved kill innoncence? Christians doesn't. Think about it,, the way I see what your view os christians are completely incorrect.