Thank you, Al. That article basically sums up the misgivings I had in declaring the two religions similar. And, I do indeed believe that they miss the point. Especially when it comes to suffering and sin (you say "poh-tay-toe"; I say "poh-tah-toe"). In fact, they say that the ideas of suffering and sin are dissimilar and then they say that karma and sin are the same. Which is it? Karma is the cause-and-effect type principle whereby people suffer. "Sin" is what? Bad things God tells you not to do? Would you say you "suffer" if you sin?

Here's the point. Buddhism and Chrisitianity can be found similar if you are interested in a form of Chrisitianity that makes any sense at all. The reasons Chrisitianity, as defined by these authors and many Christians, is incompatible with Buddhism are exactly the things that I find problematic about Christianity. I would say it's possible that the uneducated disciples, writing some decades after Jesus had come and gone (take of that what you will) had misinterpreted the message Jesus came with. Or, in an attempt to appeal to a society that was very structured regarding religious practices, his message was tailored for a Jewish society that could not understand dogma in other terms.

As far as I understand, from the things Jesus may actually have said, his teachings are not far from the teachings of Buddha. In fact, they have extremely similar styles (story-telling, especially in parable form). Jesus came to a monotheistic society, intensely bound to religious zeal and the strict letter of the law. Jesus told them they were missing the point. He taught love and an end to dogmatic religious practices in favor of a more open, forgiving practice of loving your neighbor and praying for those who persecute you. His kingdom was not of this world. Buddha came to a similarly-structured world that was missing the point. Except there were multiple groups he found it necessary to tailor his message for. The first abused themselves for the sake of knowing truth. The second indulged in all worldly-pleasures in an attempt to find fulfillment. The third abused others in an attempt to be happy. Buddha taught that there was a way to know truth, be happy and find fulfillment without causing suffering. Think Jesus telling the Jews trying to stone Mary Magdalene that they were as guilty as she.

So, it comes down to how you interepret the Bible. Taking every word as the literal word of God means that it's not only possible for you to believe that Christianity and Buddhism can be similar (they can't if everything in the Bible is true), but that you believe in a doctrine that is internally inconsistent (loving God commands genocide; loving God commands the death of your son; loving God kills every first-born in an entire city; loving God makes a tree that gives the power to know Good from Evil at a time when there is no Evil even though he KNOWS that man will choose to eat from it, thus condemning himself).

In related news to this last topic, I am reading a book currently that basically supports Christi's claim that God is a masochist. He knows that man will disappoint him, but he creates man anyway and gives him "choice". The author never actually calls God a "masochist", but he does say that God takes "risks". The problem with seeing an all-knowing God as a risk-taker is that it's impossible to take a risk if you know the outcome. [I'm going to jump out of this airplane, but I know that my parachute won't open and I'll be plastered to the ground in a matter of seconds. Oh, what the hell...] -would you call that "risk" or "masochism" or, just plain "stupidity"?

If god is all-knowing and stupid, what does that say for the rest of us lowly part-knowing creatures?
- Matt @ 7:06 PM