Apr 11, 2012 -- 2:20PM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:

Bob,

I've said they are opposites, and shown how on multiple occassions.  I have argued that they are similar only in the way that all religion is similar:  It attempts to answer the question of happiness.

One says this world, the other says the next world.

One says rely on the self, the other says rely on something outside the self:  a magical guy named "jesus".

One says karma, the other says "god".

One says happiness is in the mind, the other says it's in a place elsewhere, in some land, called "heaven".

One offers answers on life, the other says "don't ask, your puny human mind cannot fathom...".

And so on.  In all these cases and so many more, the two teachings are not just opposites, but mutually exclusive.  

I find many faiths and systems of belief to be mutually exclusive with Christianity. For all the reasons you stated.

Apr 11, 2012 -- 5:01PM, Bob0 wrote:

Bob:

First of all, I love you Buddy. You make me smile, but his dualism claim was directed at me. He seems to be trying to fabricate an argument where none exits. A dog is a dog. It isn't somewhat cat and somewhat dog. Virgin birth isn't a Buddhist teaching and it is a Christian teaching. Neither beliefs fall into the sliding scale of dualism. That she was or wasn't a virgin at the time of The Buddha's birth isn't a dualistic position. There is no argument as to the degree of her virginity. That equivocal argument was reserved for some of the girls I used to date when I was younger. The virgin birth assertion is fabricated in the minds of a few non-Buddhists who have done shoddy research, most likely with an argumentative agenda. To state that both Buddhism and Christianity are alike in their teaching of virgin birth isn't a dualistic position. It is fabricated misinformation.

I would offer that an assertion that they are opposites is stepping into the trap of dualism. But you recover nicely when you state that the two teachings are mutually exclusive. Very clearly stated. I prefer that Christianity and Buddhism are "different" because as you have pointed out, they are similar in the most general of comparisons. They both are practiced religions on earth. But to argue such silly generalized similarities is a waste of time and important only to the non-Buddhists.

But it is obvious that dualism has become the latest misunderstood argumentative buzz word in an attempt to win a losing argument.

Bob

All well argued and understood.  And I wasn't trying to "butt in" perse, but simply stand up to admit I have indeed made that claim, being the brutally honest scoundrel I am.

But upon listening to you, perhaps the word "opposite" is indeed the wrong word to use.  As mutual exclusion does not require "opposite" but rather contradictory parts that simply will not fit together.  And the latter is the heart of the argument-as there is no question in my mind that they are simply not compatible for a variety of obvious reasons-but likely even the simplest arguments, no matter how obvious they may be, are beyond the comprehension of those with agendas that sacrifice truth.

And I'm pleased that I make you smile from time to time :)

Apr 11, 2012 -- 6:40PM, mainecaptain wrote:

You make us all smile Mr. Lunatic

You're sweet.  No question the 3 of us have at least 2 things in common:  Reason and Cats.

6. "'Ânanda, when the Bodhisat is descending into his mother's womb, she is pure from sexuality,

sounds like the story of Jesus.

except for

14. "'Ânanda, when the Bodhisat leaves his mother's womb, he does not touch the ground: four sons of the devas stand before his mother and receive him. "Be thou a blessed goddess," they say: "unto thee is born an eminent son."

I don't think Jesus flew with devas.