@joedirt, we're not going to convince one another. I can say for certain that archaeological finds beginning in 2007 have changed very many academic understandings of the integrity of the Pali Canon.

Also, it doesn't make any sense to compare the contemplative tradition of one religion with the popular expression of another. I am certain that the percentage of Buddhists with a "real spiritual practice" is at a comparable level to that of Christianity.

Just one more point, without the doctrine of rebirth, the Buddha's path doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If one simply falls off the Wheel of Suffering at death, there's no reason to practice.

Ragabr that is the beauty of Buddhism. It has no problem questioning itself and coming to a better understanding. If Christianity would be more open to the facts or lack there of surrounding it then many of us would lighten up.

I have no need to convince you btw. You have to walk your path and even if it might not seem like it in this thread
I fully and 100% support you on the path you walk. I tried my best to find truth in Christianity. For most of my life I
felt as though my soul literally depended upon it. What can I say. I found my current path of truth. I have eye's wide
open and I don't place humans like Buddha or Jesus on the pedestal of God. Buddha was a great teacher. Jesus was a great
teacher. The teachings of Buddha are largely still around. The teachings of Jesus are little more than a handful of quotes and
parables. Hardly the same thing.



The popular expression of Buddhism IS largely contemplative. The popular expression of Christianity is Dogmatic. Also no I don't believe there are very many Christians at all practicing any thing spiritual beyond a quick bedtime prayer. I have spent most of my life around Christians and I see no evidence to back up this claim...though I don't deny that there are certainly Christians with a spiritual faith..it is however a rather small percentage of those that actually go to church. This would appear to be the exact opposite with regards to Buddhism from my eye's...and yes those eye's are not grounded in a Buddhist country...so I admit I could be blind here.

I grew up Christian. I spent every sunday in Bible study as a child. When I grew up I explored every single aspect of Christina thought I could get my hands on. For me it's a no go. I need more than dogma to base my personal growth on. Again I'm not putting Buddhism on any sort of pedestal. It is what it is. There is a lot of information to dig and sift through. For some it is worth it, for others it's not.

Once again my attacks are not at Jesus. My attacks are on the religious thought surrounding Christianity...namely that it's devoid of any actual critical analysis. That's it.



yet many Zen schools have dropped this doctrine...and plenty of people put an end to much of their suffering.

Perhaps you want to protect your aunt from stuff like this:

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/beliefs.html

or these:

http://www.chick.com/rea.../tracts/0001/0001_01.asp
http://www.chick.com/rea.../tracts/0003/0003_01.asp
http://www.chick.com/rea.../tracts/0014/0014_01.asp
http://www.chick.com/rea.../tracts/0016/0016_01.asp
http://www.chick.com/rea.../tracts/0021/0021_01.asp
http://www.chick.com/rea.../tracts/0045/0045_01.asp
http://www.chick.com/rea.../tracts/0046/0046_01.asp
http://www.chick.com/rea.../tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

In that case, well, do as you see fit.

..i think it's funny how the 'ex-christian' or 'no-christian' thread is a right all out punch-up, while the Islamic thread is like a calm fountained garden..

i also note that the majority of crack-pot fundamentalist christian stuff (like cellux's post) originates in the USA..land of extremes and division..i don't label all muslims as nutter terrorists because of a very vocal, pushy few..similarly i don't brand all americans imperialist crusaders just because this is how some of their governments have behaved (in the name of the USA)

i also note that scientists of quite sound and rational mind can be christian, such as physicist Paul Davies..even Eienstein seems to have believed in god..

so, basic spiritual belief cannot be refuted on rational grounds..
..churches, on the other hand, and priests are (by all agreed definitions) neither god nor jesus, and it is their work which should be questioned, not the basic belief systems..

the old testament (being a lot more barbaric than the new) is a pillar of Jewish religion also, so i want to point out some of the attacks on christianity would have to also apply to the Hebrew religion..

definitely not all christians or jews take words written 2000 or more years ago literally..i can argue against self evident hypocracies within organized religions or
texts, but if somebody tells me they see of feel jesus who helps them, how can i argue against that..?
.

cellux, that Landover Baptist Church website is hilarious. I laughed my ass off at how over the top it was. I think it must have been created by the guys at the Onion. But it does point out some of the over the top nature of the various Christian churches and belief systems. It is sad that many organized religions restrict the spiritual and societal development of many many people.

I consider myself a (wanna-be) Christian, but I also find the website of the Landover Baptist Church hilarious. (Which is a fake btw. - or at least that's what their Wikipedia entry claims.)

I also like the Onion, and in general, every attempt which tries to show the fallacies of an ideology by bringing it to its logical consequences. As the man said: "By their fruits ye shall know them" (which could be extended with "do to others whatever you would like them to do to you" for a quite reliable moral compass).