Christians, have you ever tried Buddhism? What did you think of it?
959683
I'm a Christian, and my boyfriend is Buddhist.  I'm very interested in how the two intersect, and they can and do very easily.  The teachings of Christ and Buddha are similar in many areas.  The book "Living Buddha, Living Christ" by Thich Nhat Hanh is a great examination of that.  There have also been many Buddhist Christians, with the adherents following Christian doctrine and Buddhist philosophy.  I think they work well together.
920919
I love your question!  Your experiences really hit home with me.  I was raised without religious beliefs when I was very young, but I was raised with spiritual beliefs and was taught about reincarnation, the afterlife, how to read Tarot cards, etc.\n\nWhen I was a teenager I converted to Christianity, and followed that for about five years.  When I was 19 I converted to a pseudo-Christian religion that had its roots in gnosticism and Sabellianism.  I was really into that, and I swore I would never, never leave it, and that I would rather die than denounce it.  I was truly a religious fanatic!\n\nAs I got older, though, I changed.  I stopped seeing the world in black and white, I lost interest in being judgmental, and I decided that where people go when they die is none of my business.  I almost gave up my faith in Jesus because I was so disgusted with religion, but when I thought about my life I realized that a lot of good things have come my way because of God's goodness to me, so I asked God to help me keep my faith.\n\nAfter a couple of years of trying different churches of different denominations, all the while being very skeptical, I have finally found a church where I feel like I belong.  I still have faith in Jesus, but what I don't have is a judging, critical attitude.  I have gained a better understanding of how much God loves all of us, and I like myself a lot better now because I'm not judgmental anymore and because I am more accepting of people, religions of all kind, and life in general.\n\nSo now, at age 40,  I have learned to never say never, to not judge another person, to mind my own business, and to appreciate the beauty and uniqueness that is in every individual.  I also know from my past experiences that my faith will continue to change and hopefully grow.\n\nI could have left church and Christianity altogether, and like I said, I considered it, but I'm glad I didn't.  God helped me become a better person through all of this, and I didn't want to leave God because I know I wouldn't have all the blessings in life I have now and have had in the past if it weren't for Him.\n\nGood luck on your journey, wherever it may take you!
840163
You "tried" Christianity for 20 yrs. What happened? It didn't fit your lifestyle. Now that's funny.....or not.
1129580
i was a christian but i recently converted to Buddhism. I think its because we respect that everyone is entiltled to their own opinion. You have to understand that Islam is being criticized a great deal over recent years and its the minority who are making their religion look bad.
598707
this question has brought out the degree of dogmatic pig headedness that if have come to expect here!!!!\n\nto answer your question, i once new a catholic priest who left the church to marry a buddhist lady. although he remained catholic, they respected each other and were secure enough in their beliefs to accept the differences. I don't thinkk that many who answeed this question are mature enough to manage this.
1063551
Buddhism is the only world religion where there is no concept of sin - there is only spiritual enlightenment and regression, but no actual 'punishment'. Which is healthy - a good thing.\n\nJesus is not in the psyche of Asians or Indians. Jesus was a prophet. He believed in his own divinity.If Jesus appeared in Israel today, he'd be put in a psychiatric institution.\n\n Expecting every person on Earth to worship Jesus is f.ucking stupid. It's like me expecting a white man to be fluent in Turkish. How dare you not know how to speak Turkish! Why can't you cook authentic Lebanese cuisine? You're not Lebanese. Duh!
473026
A discussion is a great idea.  We can learn from each other about the good and fruitful parts and ignore what is harmful. I have a Buddhist background but I respect others'\nbeliefs.  One day maybe we can open the "Church of all Faiths" where the services are alternatively Christian, Buddhist, Muslim,Jewish, Hindu, Atheist, Agnostic. I think we will find that we are human first and foremost. Why not?
273326
I met a group of Buddhist monks a few years back.  One of the monks I talked with gave off this remarkable energy of complete peace and serenity and it was so palpable I literally felt that I was in the presence of someone who did not belong with the rest of us.  It was awe inspiring.
1038708
Same question again ??\n\nI hv replied to it...ok let me write about Buddha now.  Buddha was a prince of a state...was married and had a son.  He had no problems and was enjoying his life.\n\nOne day he saw an ill person, an old man and a dead body.  He asked his chauffeur...will I also be ill, old and dead one day ?\n\nYes.\n\nHe immediately left his family his kingdom and went out in search of a way to overcome our pains sufferings and death.\n\nHe did deep meditation for long ...and finally one day he got the Light and he saw the Truth.  He then went out to spread his msg of Nirvana all over India.\n\nnow repeat abt buddhism\nBuddhism is an off-shoot of hinduism....but is entierly different from its mother-religion.\n\nBuddhism has two branches Hinayana and Mahayana.\n\nBuddhism does not believe in the concept of God\n\nBuddhism believes it is the Karma (good/bad deeds) which are continually working and we identify ourselves with this flow of karma\n\nBuddism believe that we should try to remove the cause of grief and pain...instead of discussing over the reasons or philosophies of pain or religion or god\n\nBuddhism believes that highest attainment for us is Nirvana....which is big VOID without time, space, god,soul or hell & heaven.\n\nBuddhism believe in Non-violence...hence they are against hatered, wars or spread of religions.\n\nTibetan branch of buddhism is more inclined towards getting psychic powers through mysterious yoga exercise.  There are said to be many tibetan buddhists who can perform miracles...  Their main Goddess is Tara, besides Buddha\n\nsufficient ??  :)
939137
a)  Nope.  100% Neo-pagan, which makes sense since I'm Wiccan.  The next closest matches were New Age and Buddhism.\nb)  I've explored all three.  I was raised Protestant.\nc)  I'm extremely happy with where I am in my life.  I would advise anyone else to look at what they truly believe - not what they have been told to believe, but what they actually think "explains things" when they look at life and how it works.  I was very unhappy until I finally let go of the fear that I would be punished if I said, thanks Jesus, but I'm going over here.  Thus far, things have been much better since I realized I was on the wrong path.  Above all, I think maintaining a balance in life helps breed happiness.
282494
Definitely NOT Christianity.  But since you think it has the most empirical evidence, I am very interested in knowing from you what that is.  I am conducting a study on the evidence both for and against Christianity, and I will do my best to survey it scientifically without bias, so please show me this evidence you speak of.\n\nJudaism offers the most "empirical evidence" of any religion I have seen to date.  However, the evidence is flawed.  It at first seems impressive, but upon scrutiny, one realizes it is not good evidence.\n\nBuddhism would have to get my vote just because it does not require you to believe in anything which you cannot discover with your own mind.  It invites you to lay its teachings on the line and if you find that the Buddha was wrong, then you just don't follow his teachings.  It does not require belief in God.\n\nHowever, I am not a Buddhist.  I embrace lots and lots of Buddhist teachings.  In fact, I probably embrace more of it than I reject.  I am a Hindu because I believe in that religion, and so obviously Hinduism is the most believable in MY eyes.  I cannot prove to another that God is, but I believe in God, and therefore I choose a theistic religion.  But more than this, the Hindu Scriptures teach things, like Buddhism, that can be arrived at independently.  Some of the mythology (which I do not call "mythology" in a condescending way at all) may be difficult to arrive at again, however, the ideas and teachings BEHIND that mythology could.\n\nIt is said that if all the Vedas were lost, all the years of teachings of the Hindu religion were somehow forgotten, that given time, people could rediscover them.  These are timeless truths, inherent in the universe.  That is why we call it the sanatana dharma (eternal dharma).  It is the truth that people of all cultures have found in the so-called "pagan" religions.  Every culture developed similar beliefs to the Sanatana Dharma.  Something happened, involving politics usually, that changed that pristine vision.  And then religions like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, supposedly enlightened above those "pagan religions" try to stamp them out.  But they cannot succeed, because the truth is there in the universe before us, and when we open our eyes and hearts to it, we will find it again.
949565
They both sound really good; HOWEVER, my obsessive-compulsive disorder is making me have to punctuate them for you and make a few minor changes!\n\n"At first glance, one could not possibly understand the similarities between Buddhism and Christianity.  Although both religions differ in their views on man's ultimate destiny, they are both driven by the proclamation that the ultimate responsibility to one's destiny lies solely upon himself.  Unlike Hinduism, both Buddhism and Christianity are known as "world religions" that attribute followers, not merely in one country, but all over the world."\n\nOkay, I started to fix the second paragraph, but then I noticed that in one breath you're saying that both religions "differ from their views on man's ultimate destiny" and in the next breath, you're saying that "they are both driven by the proclaim that the ultimate responsibility to one's destiny lies upon themselves"  which is completely contradictory!  So I couldn't go any further.  You should use the first paragraph...it sounds great!
441203
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=8724\nMust Buddhists be vegetarian?\n\nNo.\n\nWhy the fuss then?\n\nThough the Buddha never made it a compulsory rule that all His followers have to be vegetarians, He strongly encouraged us to be. In the Bodhisattva practice of minimising harm to all beings and benefiting them as much as possible, the practice of vegetarianism as far as possible plays an essential role. We can see this in many of the Buddha's recorded teachings.\n\n\n\n“The eating of meat extinguishes the seed of great Compassion.”\n\n\n-Mahaparinirvana Sutra (The Buddha)\n\n"...Ananda, I permit the bhiksus (monks) to eat only the five kinds of pure flesh* which are the product of my transcendental power of transformation and not of animal slaughter. You, Brahman, live in a country where vegetables do not grow because it is too damp and hot and because of all the gravel and rock. I use my spiritual power of compassion to provide you with illusory meat to satisfy your appetite. How then, after my nirvana, can you eat the flesh of living beings and so pretend to be my disciple?..."\n\n\n"...All monks who live purely and all Bodhisattvas always refrain even from walking on grass; how can they agree to uproot it? How then can those who practise great Compassion feed on the flesh and blood of living beings?..."\n\n”...How can a monk, who hopes to become a deliverer of others, himself be living on the flesh of sentient beings?...”\n\n\n”...If a man can (control) his body and mind and thereby refrains from eating animal products, I say he will really be liberated. This teaching of mine is that of the Buddha whereas any others that of evil demons..."\n\n\n-Surangama Sutra (The Buddha)\n http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/Shurangama/Shurangama.htm\n\n”The Bodhisattva, whose nature is Compassion, is not to eat any meat… For fear of causing terror to living beings…let the Bodhisattva who is disciplining himself to attain Compassion, refrain from eating flesh.”\n\n\n-Lankavatara Sutra (The Buddha)\n\n"If a bhikkhu sees, hears or suspects that it has been killed for him, he may not eat it."\n\n-Mahavagga of Vinaya Pitaka (The Buddha)\n\n"Let him not destroy, or cause to be destroyed, any life at all, nor sanction the acts of those who do so. Let him refrain from even hurting any creature, both those that are strong and those that tremble in the world." \n\n-Sutta-Nipata (The Buddha)\n\n"I have enforced the law against killing certain animals and many others, but the greatest progress of righteousness among men comes from the exhortation in favor of non-injury to life and abstention from killing living beings." \n\n\n-King Asoka's Edicts \n\n\nAll true practitioners of the Bodhisattva path eventually relinquish meat-eating. In His previous lives, the Buddha as a Bodhisattva would rather cut His own flesh to feed an eagle than let it eat a smaller bird. All advanced practising Bodhisattvas are thus necessarily vegetarians, since they cannot bear the pain of sentient beings.\n\nWhile nothing we eat makes us impure, our choice of diet is an action with implications. If our choice of diet arises from greed, sustaining the greed obviously makes us impure
1162075
Not frequently, but we do.  I have only meditated once or twice in something of a group, and that was only in high school, so I don't know how much it counts for.  What we did was sit down in some area of the classroom, wherever we were able to keep to ourselves and think alone.  Then our teacher led us in a meditation by describing a setting (along the Nile River, I seem to recall) back when Jesus was still walking the Earth.  It was kind of a prompt, what the teacher said next.  She turned on some relaxing music, and gave us one scenario before letting us think to ourselves.  It was something along the lines of: "You see Jesus in the distance, sitting in the shade under a tree.  As you approach him, you decide to have a conversation.  What are you going to say to him?  Will you ask him something?"  And then the rest was left up to our minds.  The more a person thought about it, the more they put into the spiritual experience.  Some people just fell asleep.  =/
962303
well I was a catholic ,then a Christain ,then an atheist and now I do agree with a lot of buddhist beliefs.Buddhism alwyas will put experience over scripture.Buddha was an enlightened person.nothing more.\n Buddhism accepts that science and spirtuality can coexist.......are in fact facets of the same "godhead"
516692
First of all, the Buddha is a human being; he never claimed that he is a god. Although some Mahayana Buddhists pray to the Buddha, that does not necessarily mean that they believe him to be a god. On the other hand, Theravada Buddhists clearly claim that the Buddha is a wonderful "human being," not a god in any sense. The Buddha was a man who strove to find a cure for the pervasive and fundamental unsatisfactoriness of this worldly life. \n\n  Basically, Buddhism is an idea, not a religion in the strictest sense of the word. This is mainly because in Buddhism, you are kindly advised to try and see if it is good for your happiness or not. The Buddha repeatedly pointed out that "you should find out for yourself." If you find Buddhism to be a reliable and useful way to live a happy life, then follow it. If not, just drop it. There is no penalty (at all) for not believing in Buddhism. But Buddhists firmly believe that if anyone behaves badly, they will ultimately pay the price for their bad hehavior.\n\n  Next, the Buddha is also a state of mind. The Buddha taught that "there is a Buddha in each and every one of us." It is a state of mind in which we can restore our "essential oneness with nature" and realize that we and the world are one large family.  \n\n  As for "the Buddha's body in the temple," I believe that this refers to "the Buddha's bones" that some Mahayana Buddhists give special emphasis to. They believe that the almost-transparent bones reflect the long period of self-purification. Whether it is true or not, the bones are not related to the essential teachings of the Buddha. \n\n  The essence of the Buddha's teaching is as follows (according to the "Path of Truth"): \n\n "To refuse to do anything harmful,\n  To do everything helpful,\n  And to calm one's mind,\n  This is the teaching of the Buddhas." \n (my own translation)   \n\n  It may sound strange, but I have found many similarities between the Buddha's teachings and Wiccan beliefs. Basically, the two ideas share the belief that you should not do anything harmful to anyone. Unfortunately, some Buddhists have a rigid state of mind and do not tolerate other belief systems, but this is a shame. I don't think such an attitude is in accordance with the Buddha's teaching that emphasizes peace, compassion, and wisdom.\n\n  (I need to mention the case of a Buddhist nun who reproached Diane Stein for her interest in healing arts. The nun claimed that Diane's interest in healing was misplaced and that Diane should pay more attention to guiding other people to nibbana. I disagree with the nun. \n\n  In fact, I would like to ask the nun whether or not the Buddha would appreciate someone's efforts to end the physical and psycological suffering of someone else. I firmly believe that the Buddha would embrace the idea and extol it. This belief is based on the fact that the Buddha is a compassionate human being. It is highly unlikely that the Buddha enjoys seeing somebody suffer physically or psychologically. The first of the five precepts of Buddhism is "do not kill anybody (or any being)." The true meaning of this precept is, in my opinion, to respect life.\n\n  I think that the nun's attitude is based on the thinking that nibbana (or nirvana in Sanskrit) is the ultimate goal of Buddhism and that everything else is far less important than this goal. I disagree. The true meaning of nibbana is, in my humble opinion, to touch the "core of our soul," not to leave this suffering world. When we touch the core of our soul, we can truly see that everything in this world is beautiful by its very nature.)  \n\n  If you are interested in Buddhists' belief, then I recommend this wonderful book:\n\n  "The Dhammapada" Translated by Ananda Maitreya\n                   Foreword by Thich Nhat Hanh\n                   Published by Parallax Pre
798002
I can never again be a Christian. I could pray the prayers and go to church, but in my soul I would always be a Buddhist. Nothing can change that, I have dedicated myself to the Dhamma...\n\n“There is no need for temples, no need for complicated philosophies. My brain and my heart are my temples; my philosophy is kindness”\n- The Dalai Lama -\n\n- Atmadeepo Bhava -