he probably believed it because it was true. that’s why i believe it.
i think he probably would. buddhism was originally intended as a philosophy, not a religion. if you look at the middle path (eightfold path), there is nothing conflicting with christianity.
well, to be honest, im not exactly sure what i believe about Jesus.
but Gautame did not believe in God, in fact (im sorry if i offend you) he was more spiritually enlightened then Jesus was. because he understood that humanity was flawed (altough Jesus understood this too, Guatama understood it differently)
he believed that the only way that we could break out of the 'human condition
was to follow the ‘noble eightfold path’
and i think that if any of you really think about it then you’ll understand that the ‘pragmatic approach’ rather then the ‘idealistic approach’ to life makes more sense.
because whether you believe in morals or not, you should try to be wise in all of your decisions, and being wise tends to be very simliar to holding ‘buddhist morals’.
im wasted right now 
Karma, reincarnation, can’t kill & eat animals, name of God, ways and systems of God, laws or desires of God, Idols within temples, sabbath-day, passover.
^^^
All opposing or different fundamentals, and at the same time each of these spiritual leaders believed that they were correct in an absolute sense about their spiritual/religious beliefs.
But if you want to imagine that Buddha and Jesus are the same manifestations & would have agreed, then feel free to bullshit yourselves forever.
when have i ever claimed they were the same manifestations? i said that buddha was human, and jesus was divine. that’s not even close.
Hmmm, I didnt know people actually still believed in alchemy. I do like Full Metal Alchemist, great show though. As to the OP, yeah, both were wise, peaceful men. I dont think one is particularly better than the other.
Id have to say I agree utterly and completely with Mr. Mastriani who wrote:
Makes more sense than any other post in this thread, and noone even paid attention to it, not even the author. That is sad.
well perhaps i dont entirely agree with it
There is a difference between the other clowns and the christ. Anyone can be the christ. Many denominations of christianity consider everyone little christs.
It is said that the Christ could appear on earth as anybody, even disguised as a begger or insignificant person hidden somewhere. It is also thought that the person would not even know that he is the Christ until it is revealed to him.
That may be why I feel I am the christ. Are you sure you are not the christ ? You yourself may be a hidden christ, that still doesn’t know it.
no they don’t. this is just a misunderstanding. the word “christian” actually does mean “little christ”, but that doesn’t mean we think we are the Son of God, and we certainly don’t believe we’re divine (most of us anyway. there’s always exceptions to the rule.)
what “little christ” means is that we try to be like christ, act like him, and do the things he would do. but in the same way that i couldn’t look at this forum and say “well donnie darko fan believes in the timecube, so they all do,” you can’t look at any one person that calls themselves christian and make judgements of other christians based on that person. case in point: PoR. i don’t want to be associated with him based on religion.
creation imperfect wrote:
Why shouldnt all Christians believe?
Psalm 82: 5-7 says, “They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.”
and Romans 8:13-14 says, “For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.”
Sounds like a good enough reason to think all Christians, considering they are serious, should believe they are the sons of God.
I that while the messages these two men taught were very similar, it would be a mistake to liken them too much to one another.
I mean, check out what their ideas on the self have become. For Jesus, through him you can attain the eternal self, while Buddha offers the ablation of self.
Jesus: Existence is suffering, believe in me and I shall ease your pain. You suffer because of the Fall. I, alone, offer the solution to the Fall. I will pay for the Fall through my own suffering. Through my suffering you will be cleansed.
Buddha: Existence is suffering – let’s get the hell out of here! We suffer because of our attachments, let’s abandon them. Here are some quick pointers on accomplishing that task.
Oversimplification? Of course. But I would argue that the tone of both descriptions are accurate.
Xunzian wrote:
Eternal self and ablation of self can be understood as the same thing. Eternal self has to come about through the abandonment of self… Those who lose themselves, will save themselves. Its the same thing, just a different way of saying it.
The fall can be likened to attachment. The attachment to knowledge of good and evil per se. Attachment occurs because we feel incomplete, so we hold on to something in order to be that something. When you attach yourself to something, ie. say its yours, then it has become a part of you. You are now something. This is the same thing as knowledge. When you know something, you attach to it. It becomes a part of you, your truth, your knowledge, it delineates you.
Jesus is the object of salvation. The Father offers salvation through the Son. If both of these individuals realize themselves as the Son(of course Jesus only linguistically expressed this, they both reached the same level of realization), then both are a way to the Father. Judaism talks of God, so Jesus talked of God. Im not completely familiar with Hinduism, but Im sure Buddha explained His realization through His upbringing, culture, religion, etc.
As far as Christ having to sacrifice Himself, I think its just the course of how things had to occur. When I say this, I am coming from the premise that God, or the Ultimate existence from whence these souls come, sends these helpers to humanity for the sole purpose of bringing us closer to Him. They come in these physical bodies, and at some point realize themselves, and fulfill their task. Jesus’ task was to be sacrificed. I think it helps with getting followers. And its a symbolic representation of the rebirth that has to occur. The cruxifiction of the persona, or the self( hence ablation), and the rebirth and rise of the eternal self (hence no self)
That is, except for the parts where he says “if you follow me, the world will mock you” and “if anyone wants to follow me, he must deny himself and take up his cross.” i don’t think allusions to voluntary crucifixion would count for “easing pain.”
Buddha was a great thinker who lived about 500 years B.C. and made great attempts to discover The Truth but was only a human acting on his own initiative and therefore couldn’t go the extra mile.
Then Jesus arrived and said “I am the truth” and “I say nothing of my own accord, i only say what my father tells me to say…” (John 12:49)
So there in a nutshell we see the enormous difference between the two men, Buddha spoke his own words but Jesus spoke Gods.
I often wonder if Jesus had arrived earlier and met Buddha, how would they have got on?
We know that when Jesus did arrive, Buddhas followers rejected him as they still do, and I wonder what Buddha would say to that?
Jesus lived in India during the missing period and learned Buddhism. How does that make him better than the Buddha, if he learned what Buddha taught?
Sez who?
And even if he did, he can’t have thought much of Buddhism because when he jetted back to Israel he preached Christianity instead, I don’t hear him saying “follow Buddha” 
Cause he is f’n dead. Cause he was just a man…a black man to boot.
I believe in Buddha far more than I do Christianity for several reasons. Caring, as dan once said why would a God waste his time obtaining revery from mortals? If there is a God he would not send his son to deal with us and why would he even have a son? Aristotle I believe thought of “the Unmoved Mover.” A being like that would be far more involved in better things than trifle humans. But ya…J.C. preached some good things but in the end died like everyone else.
Buddha admitted his faults and denied the egoism of being God’s son. I don’t know if he was in the end…but for me it doesn’t really matter.
Siddhartha would also kick J.C.'s ass. That is all.
God is a spirit and therefore has no solid form, so the only way he could chat to humans was through the prophets and Jesus
[quote]
God is a spirit and therefore has no solid form, so the only way he could chat to humans was through the prophets and Jesus /quote]
Why would he just be a spirit? Who is scared of something that cannot manifest itself physically? If he is all powerful he could do whatever he wanted…including become corprol (sp)
And how do you know he is just a spirit? Can you see him?
God set up the earth as a Proving Ground, gave us the rules to play by, and is letting us get on with it to see how we do, he doesn’t want to interfere…
I’ve never seen him, only Jesus has, so I’ll take his word that God is ultra-fab