Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, other than that Buddhists generally don't believe in god. And to say what you're saying is tantamount to cultural appropriation.
Difficult to do since Jews didn't know of the Buddha. At least I've never read a single instance of knowledge by them of someone who proceeded Jesus by roughly five centuries in a world without instant communication.
And Buddha was fascinated by ENDING suffering which he believed the multiple gods of India/Nepal ignored. I think the monotheistic God placed it in his mind, because Jesus sought to end suffering (which popularized Him with the crowds). Jesus, like the Buddha, was a very "works" oriented preacher.
Quote:
Their circumstances are circumstantially similar:
Conceived in a miraculous manner
Similar names of mother (Maya for Buddha, Mary for Jesus)
Was a bit of a child prodigy
Underwent a long period of fasting while traveling alone
Tempted by, but overcame, the devil
Began an itinerant ministry around the age of 30
Had disciples who traveled with him.
Performed miracles, such as curing blindness and walking on water
Renounced worldly riches and required his disciples to do so also
Rebelled against the religious elite (Brahmans for Buddha and Pharisees for Jesus)
Dispatched disciples, shortly before his death, to spread his message
Moreover for one to believe in God and the other not--they still had remarkably important similar teachings:
Buddha: "Consider others as yourself." (Dhammapada 10:1)
Jesus: "Do to others as you would have them do to you." (Luke 6:31)
Buddha: Overcome anger by love, overcome evil by good. Overcome the miser by giving, overcome the liar by truth. (Dhammapada 1.5 &17.3)
Jesus: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. (Luke 6.27-30)
Buddha: "If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a knife, you should abandon any desires and utter no evil words." (Majjhima Nikaya 21:6)
Jesus: "If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also." (Luke 6:29)
(same source)
And lots of folks believe the existence of Buddha is a myth. So here is another "grand" fictional scheme of inventing a religious leader.
Quote:
"The Buddhists of different parts of the East differ widely in their chronology. The Northern Division of the faith place the birth of Buddha in 1030 B.C., the Southern fix his death in 543 B.C., a discrepancy of five centuries. Other accounts reveal disagreements of still further magnitude. Upon this absence of even an approach to chronological accuracy, Professor Wilson has broached the idea that probably the existence of Buddha is a myth. 'There are various considerations which throw suspicion upon the narrative and render it very problematical whether any such person as Sakiya Sinha, or Sakiya Muni, or Sramana Gautama ever actually existed.'"
So you may well call it circumstantial. I see purpose.
P.S. The chaplain at my son's alcohol rehabilitation center was both a Methodist minister AND a Buddhist. Not sure if most people can reconcile the two, but nevertheless------
Last edited by Wardendresden; 08-18-2019 at 05:06 PM..
I'm in two minds about that myself. While the picture of Nepalese Kings electing one of their own to rule rather than having wars about it sounds fairly persuasive (just as a religious leader who was a Galilean and crucified rather than a Judean who was stoned persuades me that a Jesus might be historically real), just as i am convinced that Christianity arose out of the existing Judaism by being adapted to suit Gentile preferences, it works pretty well for me if the Kshatrya class found a way to get out from being subordinated to the religious authority of the Brahmins by in effect - removing the gods from Hinduism, so that Karma became a natural law that one could influence direct without having to go through the gods, which meant not having to go through the Brahmins.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-18-2019 at 05:44 PM..
He differentiated the gods of other religions to the "nature" god of Buddhism.
Of course, and so they should be. A Christian god is different to the gods of Aztecs, and a theistic god is different to that of a pantheist or deist. And in that hierarchy of gods, a Buddhist God is a top of a pyramid.
Buddhadasa also said, in the same chapter:
"[…] a religion is a system of practice which allows mankind to reach the ultimate, a system of practice which allows mankind to enter into relations with the highest. If it’s put in that way, then the Buddhist religion is a religion because it has a system of practice which, when properly developed, puts human beings into relation with the highest thing, with Nibbāna, and, as Nibbāna is the ultimate, beyond anything else, then it follows that the Buddhist religion is more of a religion than any other."
Needless to say, what happened after Jesus was crucified tends to be even harder to establish beyond a reasonable doubt...
Have you read the texts? The real texts, not the King Joke Vision which fabricates things, but even if you read the King Joke Vision, something should be painfully obvious.
Much is made of the so-called post-resurrection appearances of Jesus.
Does Jesus appear before anyone of consequence?
Nope.
Does Jesus appear before anyone who is not already an ardent Jesus supporter and part of the Circle of Trust?
Nope.
Does Jesus appear before anyone who can cause him physical harm?
Nope.
Why doesn't Jesus appear before Pilate?
"Hey, you moron, look at me now: I am the King of the Jews!"
If Jesus appeared before Pilate, then Pilate would order one of his guards to run Jesus through with a sword or spear, and the Jesus really would be dead.
Jesus doesn't appear before Pilate because Jesus is deathly afraid of dying.
Why doesn't Jesus appear before the Pharisees?
What was the whole point of the contentious debates between Jesus and the Pharisees?
Weren't the debates a platform for Jesus to expose to everyone the failings of the Pharisees? To expose to everyone how wrong they were in their adherence to the Mitzvah (the Law)? To expose to everyone how badly they misinterpreted the Law? To expose to everyone how hypocritical they were in their application of the Law? To expose to everyone their lack of understanding of god?
Then why wouldn't Jesus appear before the Pharisees?
Jesus wouldn't have to say anything to the Pharisees. His mere appearance would prove their failure was complete.
Except Jesus can't appear before the Pharisees, because Jesus is deathly afraid of dying and he knows the Pharisees will test his claim that he was resurrected by ordering their guards to run Jesus through with a spear or sword and then Jesus really would be dead.
Didn't you read Luke?
Doesn't Jesus don a disguise -- a traditional local headdress -- and roam furtively about town spying on people's conversations?
Yes, he does.
Jesus realizes his gambit is a spectacular failure but eventually stumbles across two men talking and realizing their confederates, he reveals himself to them, but not to any others.
That's because Jesus isn't really dead.
The myth that crucifixion is a death sentence is, well, a myth. All you have to do is read edicts by Roman governors around the region. You could be crucified from sunrise to midday, midday to sunset, sunrise to sunset and sunrise to sunrise and those are actual crucifixion orders on edicts. On top of that there are about a dozen people known to have been crucified more than once.
Death by crucifixion is actually death by asphyxiation, which is easily mimicked.
Remember, there are no coroners to pronounce death and nobody uses a stethoscope. If you look dead, you probably are.
Don't you read the texts? Doesn't it say Jesus was given bitter water? Isn't opium bitter? Yes, opium is an alkaloid. Opium grows naturally in the region and had been used medicinally for at least 10,000 years and there are 7,000 year old Sumerian texts detailing the use of opium and the synthesizing of opium derivatives for various uses.
Give Jesus some opium and he's not feeling any pain and his central nervous system is depressed so his respiration and heart rate slow to a crawl, just slow enough to appear dead.
Don't they make a big deal about not breaking his legs? Yeah, that's because he's not dead.
Doesn't Jesus tell Mary Magdalene, "Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended?"
Yes.
Oooops....
That would mean nobody gets resurrected and ascends to Heaven, because everybody gets touched after dying.
Jesus doesn't want her to touch him, because he's not actually dead and if she touches him, she'll know he's not dead.
Dead people who have been dead for some time are cold to the touch, even more so after spending the night in a dank cave.
His external body temperature should have been ~58°F if he was actually dead and anyone touching him would feel that he was cold if he was actually dead.
But he wasn't actually dead.
Doesn't Saul of Tarsus the Bounty-Hunter (who changes his name to Paul) find out about the scam and tracks Jesus down in Damascus as Jesus is fleeing to India?
Yes.
Well, there you go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
I easily accept the reasonable doubt Jesus was crucified.
As a juror in a murder trial, one witness says the murder happened one day and three other witnesses say it happened on another day and you're going to convict?
You should never be allowed to sit on a jury. Not ever.
That's how innocent people get wrongfully imprisoned.
Daniel Radcliffe was cast because of his resemblance to the artwork in the books. Jesus is often portrayed as something of a bearded lady. Because many people take comfort from imagining Jesus as beautiful and gentle. Like a woman.
The stories of Jesus may well have been based on an actual individual. The individual, if he existed, would have been known as Yeshua in Hebrew, Joshua in English, Jesus in Greek. While Yeshua MAY have been an actual historical person, Jesus the Christ is almost certainly mythological in nature. Why? Because the story of Jesus has many earmarks common to popular mythology. Like Horus and Hercules, as examples, Jesus is the product of the union of god and a human mother, and is therefore part god and part human. Like Osiris and Dionysus, as examples, Jesus dies to "save" humanity, but is resurrected. Both Zoroaster and Hercules were reputed to have ascended directly to heaven. Both Zoroaster and Hercules may well have been actual individuals. Individuals who were deified after their deaths by their followers.
But there are reasons to doubt that a corpse can actually come back to life and subsequently fly off up into the sky. Such claims are consistent with popular mythology.
Not so, my friend. Other than having the eyes described in the book. Radcliffe was chosen because he had "balls."
Quote:
“There were two [for the part of Harry]. Chris right away liked Daniel, but there were a couple of people who went, â€Hmm. That other kid’s interesting,’” Hirshenson said. “The other kid was terrific and very vulnerable and very Harry-looking, but besides that, Harry was going to become a very powerful kid, too. And Daniel had both sides. He was very vulnerable, but the other kid ― it was like, he [was] not going to have the balls that Daniel has, to put it that way.”
It would be so easy to put all the responsibility on a god, rather than accept responsibility for what we do as individuals.
Such a simple answer and yet such a depressing one for theists.
It would be so nice to have 'someone' / 'something' else to blame but, alas, we atheists have only ourselves.
Such a simple answer and yet such a depressing one for theists.
It would be so nice to have 'someone' / 'something' else to blame but, alas, we atheists have only ourselves.
At least Christians can put some of the blame on the ' god of this world of badness ' (2nd Corinthians 4:4) Satan.
Like atheists we all now lean / toward wrongdoing but mostly through No fault of our own.
Those wrong leanings one day will come to a final end.
A final end because that one day is Jesus' coming 'millennium-long day' of governing over Earth in righteousness.
Such a simple answer and yet such a depressing one for theists.
It would be so nice to have 'someone' / 'something' else to blame but, alas, we atheists have only ourselves.
Difficult to do since Jews didn't know of the Buddha. At least I've never read a single instance of knowledge by them of someone who proceeded Jesus by roughly five centuries in a world without instant communication.
And Buddha was fascinated by ENDING suffering which he believed the multiple gods of India/Nepal ignored. I think the monotheistic God placed it in his mind, because Jesus sought to end suffering (which popularized Him with the crowds). Jesus, like the Buddha, was a very "works" oriented preacher. https://owlcation.com/humanities/The...sus-and-Buddha
Moreover for one to believe in God and the other not--they still had remarkably important similar teachings:
Buddha: "Consider others as yourself." (Dhammapada 10:1)
Jesus: "Do to others as you would have them do to you." (Luke 6:31)
Buddha: Overcome anger by love, overcome evil by good. Overcome the miser by giving, overcome the liar by truth. (Dhammapada 1.5 &17.3)
Jesus: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. (Luke 6.27-30)
Buddha: "If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a knife, you should abandon any desires and utter no evil words." (Majjhima Nikaya 21:6)
Jesus: "If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also." (Luke 6:29)
(same source)
And lots of folks believe the existence of Buddha is a myth. So here is another "grand" fictional scheme of inventing a religious leader.
So you may well call it circumstantial. I see purpose.
P.S. The chaplain at my son's alcohol rehabilitation center was both a Methodist minister AND a Buddhist. Not sure if most people can reconcile the two, but nevertheless------
1. I didn't call it circumstantial. Stop telling me what I said.
2. Who brought Jews into this? Not I.
3. Yes, there are some similarities between a few of the teachings of Buddha and a few of the teachings of Jesus. And Thich Nhat Hanh did a much better job of comparing the two than you're doing.
4. I didn't comment about whether or not Buddha might be myth. But since you mention it...that's possible (something a christian seems to be not be able to admit). But we don't focus on Buddha the man, we focus on the teachings...wherever they came from. This is another thing that christians don't do. In this forum I have yet to see a christian discuss the validity of a christian teaching.
1. I didn't call it circumstantial. Stop telling me what I said.
2. Who brought Jews into this? Not I.
3. Yes, there are some similarities between a few of the teachings of Buddha and a few of the teachings of Jesus. And Thich Nhat Hanh did a much better job of comparing the two than you're doing.
4. I didn't comment about whether or not Buddha might be myth. But since you mention it...that's possible (something a christian seems to be not be able to admit). But we don't focus on Buddha the man, we focus on the teachings...wherever they came from. This is another thing that christians don't do. In this forum I have yet to see a christian discuss the validity of a christian teaching.
So I do agree with teachings of Buddha that parallel those of Jesus. Jesus' teachings ARE as valid as those of the Buddha.
As a Jesus follower, I bring Jews into the conversation constantly. Christianity arose out of Judaism. It also bastardized some of the better understandings of the Torah. I believe in the Satan of Job, not the Devil of the NT. Satan was God's servant, there to do God's bidding and be an accuser of those who did not DO as God commanded.
And I didn't state you called the parallels between Jesus and Buddha circumstantial. I said YOU MAY WELL call them circumstantial. Big difference. Do you believe they have a common source? If not, then your view can only be upheld by holding to circumstantial connections. And I've just pulled a lawyer's trick on you to back you into a corner. Shame on me.
You may be far better at science than I am, but I accept "evolution" as factual given our evidence.
I am far better than you at linguistics and study of historical documents (which I did, along with Bible, in my undergraduate studies. Yet apparently you deny the existence of Jesus? If not, what are we discussing?
As far as "proofs" are concerned, I go with what theologian Karl Barth wrote in his work Dogmatics
Quote:
"God has not the slightest need for our proofs.”
and as another German theologian and martyr wrote---
Quote:
“A God who let us prove his existence would be an idol”
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
