That's right you do.

And you're lame analogies in your post aren't even worthy of response.

You lie about your religion and your God, and that's a FACT.

Decent honest preachers, clergy, and theologians will confess that their belief in their God is entirely faith-based because they choose to remain honest.

How can you expect people to have any respect for you when you're so quick to lie?

~~~~~

Lying to Children is what makes them lose respect for their elders and for authority. You're far better off telling them the TRUTH. And if the TRUTH is that you don't know something, then that's what you must tell them.

Here's a thread with a statement of one child who had been lied to about God and religion and it make him become highly distrusting and suspicious of authority figures ever since. And I don't blame him one iota. It's always harmful when an adult lies to a child.

http://mingle2.com/topic/show/301982

Telling something, preaching something, explaining something in a way that says they have FAITH in it, is stating as it were FACT. It is said as a FACT because one has FAITH it is FACT. If one didn't believe it to be FACT, why would they have FAITH in it? You're really funny Abra, truly you are.

Again, when someone either states something in a manner of it being FACT, they have FAITH that it is FACT. When someone expresses it as FAITH, they have FAITH that it is FACT or else they would not be sharing it with another. So, what exactly is your point?

Adults who lie to children are committing Child Abuse as far as I'm concerned. And they should be chastised for it.

Religion doesn't give people the right to LIE in the name of a "god".

Yes parents shouldn't lie to their kids. That's why I spend so much time spreading the word of God, trying to fix the lies their parents have told them.

What lies are you talking about?

That we don't KNOW whether there is a spiritual essence to reality or not?

Sorry to break the news to you Cowboy but that's the TRUTH!

How is that the truth? We have much knowledge of heaven. Weather one gives it credit or not is another subject all together. We nevertheless have it. You see it not as truth because you choose not to see it that way.

I guess it's really too much to expect religious extremists to be honest. If they were honest with themselves, they wouldn't be religious extremists in the first place.

I guess it's really too much to expect secular extremists to be honest. If they were honest with themselves, they wouldn't be secular extremists in the first place.

I'm sure that's true as well. Extremists of any kind are not good.

Well I wouldn't say we don't know, there is very much a spiritual force present in the world, one that we can all tap into if we choose to do so. We may not know how powerful it is, or really understand it, but it is there.

Cowboy....what laws are you talking about? ...please don't say The Ten Commandments because that would make Jesus a copy-right violator and may get him crucified

so what laws did Jesus give that Christians follow and are not the same ones that Buddha did not give before him

Buddhism believes in reincarnation, nirvana, and karma.

Christianity believes we have one life, but Buddhist believe on a cycle of life, which is reincarnation.

Christianity has hell and the heaven. Buddhism has a sin and a benefaction.

Christianity is based on a holy book-Bible. Buddhism is based on teaching.

Christianity is a monotheistic religion. Buddhism is a polytheistic one.

Buddhism doesn't have a holy book.

The highest ideal in Christianity is to live a good moral life, based on service to God. The highest ideal in Buddhism is the elimination of unhappiness in all sentient beings, through a program of first, renouncing all worldly desires, then replacing them with compassion for the plight of your fellow man.

Again, sounds like there is quite a difference.

Cowboy I'm not even going to touch that Buddhism is not the same as Christianity post you just presented..I'm going to save it for "Abracadabra" ...the guy is sort of a genius when it comes to making comparisions between those two religions to show that they are the same

so calling Dr. Abracadabra can someone find Dr. Abracadabra

but anyway your post didn't address the question

what "laws" do you claim that Jesus gave that Buddha or Moses didn't?

Can't give that in exacts since Buddha gave no "laws".

Buddhism: There is no religious rules. The Dhamma, however, describes nature or reality. For example, if there is an effect, there is a cause.

Christianity: The 10 commandments are the base but following the entire bible is advocated.

The “Law of Moses was not meant to save men, but to show them their need to be saved, and thus to lead them to Christ (Galatians 3:24). The Jews of Jesus’ day twisted the law, so much so that they considered themselves to be righteous, and yet they condemned Jesus as a law-breaker (especially in regard to the Sabbath—see John 5:16, 19:7). This may help to explain why Jesus called the law “your law” in John 8:17, even as they called it their law (John 7:51; 19:7).

so in other words...Jesus gave no laws that Moses or Buddha did not give before him ....so try and cut out all that Jesus is the law crap ...that guy didn't pass or full filled anything that Buddha didn't full fill long before he showed up

I wouldn't waste my time commenting on anything that Cowboy thinks he knows about Buddhism. His ideas are extremely biased, limited, and basically incorrect.

There are many different forms of Buddhism. Just like there are many different forms of Christianity. What Cowboy just posted is the same type of crap the the Abrahamic religions have been doing to each other for centuries.

The Jews, Muslims, and Christians are all in extreme disagreement over what their religion stands for.

The Christians themselves point fingers at each other and call each other names. The Catholics and Protestants are in such grave disagreement with each other that they both proclaim that the other is not even "Christianity". The protestants themselves have broken up into a myriad of various disagreeing sects and denomination that range in the extreme, from the Amish who even view technology as being evil, to the Mormons who believe in and support polygamy.

In truth there are many different forms of Buddhism as well. I personally don't actually support any single form of Buddhism. I'm more interested in the underlying mystical philosophy.

I will address one thing that Cowboy said that is clearly false, and that is the Buddhism is polytheistic. That is a Christian misconception. The reason being that if any spiritual entities or deities are recognized in any form of Buddhism they are views as facets of the single cosmic mind which his God.

So that's just Christian ignorance in how they view these concepts. They take their personified separatist view of an egotistical "God" character and shove that onto Eastern religious ideas, but that's actually wrong concept in the first place. They don't understand the "oneness" concept of Buddhism. So that misconception is due to their own ignorance of Eastern views.

The specific Buddhism that I believe would have been associated with Jesus was "Mahayana" Buddhism. Mahayana Buddhism was indeed quite spiritual and monotheistic to the hilt. In fact, this was the very essence behind it. Mahayana mean "The Great Vehicle", and the philosophy behind it was indeed that all views of "God" are actually just different view of the very SAME THING. So Mahayana Buddhism was about as monotheistic as a religion could possibly become.

They also have varying views on the concept of "nirvana". That very concept itself it highly abstract in Buddhism. It is recognized also to be unknowable. I will concede that in the days of Siddhartha Gautama "nirvana" was indeed viewed as a way of getting out of the cycle of reincarnation. And "nirvana" itself means to "snuff out" as in blowing out a candle.

However the western world takes these ideas far differently from the way that the Eastern Mystics viewed them. These are abstract concepts, and not meant to be taken literally like the western world often perceives them to be.

To achieve "nirvana" simply meant to cease the cycle of reincarnation. However, that doesn't mean that the "soul" itself would be snuffed out. In fact, later in Mahayana Buddhism it was indeed believed that to escape the cycle of karma did indeed mean to move on to a higher level of spiritual existence freed from the restraints of physicality (not all that much different from an idea of a Christian heaven actually).

So these philosophies are extremely compatible in many ways.

~~~~

Moreover, I will be the first to conceded that NONE OF THEM hold any absolute knowledge. I personally do not preach Buddhism nor to I even recommend it. I certainly don't support it in ever detail. It's contains its own contradictions and GUESSES.

Let there be no doubt about that.

The three things that I support are as follows:

1. Mahayana Buddhism and their concept of a Bodhisattva is extremely compatible with many of the teaching that have been attributed to Jesus. Clearly not everything. But that's totally irrelevant, because once it has been recognized that Jesus was indeed a Mahayana Buddhist then it simultaneously becomes crystal clear that there is no reason at all to take anything in the New Testament seriously. There's no longer any reason to continue to view it as some sort of inspired word of God when at that point it is recognized to be nothing more than superstition and exaggerated rumors.

2. Even by the gospels themselves it is already crystal clear that Jesus did not support the moral behaviors and directives of the Torah. He taught against those directives and moral instructions and instead taught moral ideals that were far more consistent with the morals taught by the Mahayana Buddhists.

3. My ultimate stance on all of this is simply that the Eastern Mystical philosophies in general make far more sense than the biblical story of the Zeus-like God of Abraham who is appeased by blood sacrifices and supports male-chauvinism.

~~~~~~

Ultimately I confess to being agnostic and I personally believe that everyone is ultimately agnostic when it comes to a spiritual essence of life. I don't support any specific religion in detail.

Agnostic (i.e. without knowledge)

Any human who claims to have supreme knowledge of the true essence of reality is either an extremist liar, or they do indeed have some supreme knowledge that most humans do not have, and that would make them exceedingly special for sure. Either that or totally psychotic.

A secular atheist could easily offer secular explanations for many so-called "spiritual concepts".

In fact, they haven't acknowledged it just yet, but I'm sure they will be considering the following in future generation:

Secular atheists claim that human consciousness and human awareness are "emergent properties" that simply emerge from the complexity of the brain and it's electrochemical activities.

So you're saying that that there is a "spiritual force" present in the world.

In the long haul, when the secular atheists finally realize that they must indeed acknowledge this effect they will simply say:

"Oh of course! That's an emergent property of all the various complex other emergent properties just interacting with each other."

"Why didn't we see this originally!"

So that's their answer to your concept of a "spiritual force".

Jesus gave law before these people were even in existence. In the beginning was God, and the word was with God. The word was made flesh, eg., Jesus. So technically Jesus was giving laws before anyone was in existence.

And buddha fulfilled nothing. Laws aren't fulfilled, the prophecies are fulfilled. And the prophecy Moses kinda fulfilled was building the ark with the prophecy he received of the flood.

Finally a true confession!

You've been holding out the notion that Jesus had "fulfilled" the laws of the Old Testament for months now. Finally you confess that laws cannot be "fulfilled".

Jesus did NOT fulfill the prophesy of the messiah. The prophesy of the messiah was that he was to be given the THRONE of King David and become the King of the Jews.

No such prophesy was ever fulfilled by Jesus. So Jesus did not fulfill any prophesy anymore than Buddha did.

Finally a true confession? :/ you don't make sense my friend, or you don't understand half the stuff that you are discussing with.

The laws of the old testament, were in one covenant between man and God. The covenant(s) given to us by God only hold power till all prophecies are fulfilled. All the prophecies of the old testament were fulfilled, thus the covenant was completed, thus the laws of that covenant hold no more power, thus we were given a new covenant the "the testament".

And yes, Jesus fulfilled all prophecies pertaining to him, which then completed that covenant. Jesus did fulfill the prophecies of the messiah.