Wait a minute.
1. The concept under discussion is whether Buddhist practice can legitimately be a part of Christian practice. If I tell a Buddhist I feel closer to Jesus if I indulge my desire for a dozen jelly donuts while I pray, and he says that would not be compatible with his religious practice, would he be "relegating Christianity to obscurity for the rest of the world" or would he be honestly expressing his view of his faith's precepts?
2. I'll phrase my question another way and you might see my point better: If a Christian believes that Christ is all, the Alpha and the Omega, what place does Buddhism have to offer in that Christian's religious practice? I guess what I'm saying is that Robert Kennedy is about as deep as a wading pool.
and these are what interest me, and why I get miffed when people say Buddhism and Christianity are not at all compatible.
Well, how can a reincarnationist religion be compatible with one that says man dies once and is then judged? How about putting on the mind of Christ versus getting rid of the ego entirely? God giving one the desires of his heart versus the need to extinguish all desires? The biggest difference is the Resurrection.
BTW, why do you think that the trials of Jesus and Buddha ended so differently? Because Buddha didn't have to die for anyone's sins and rise from the grave.
But there are striking differences--many of which, understandably, came from theologians as well as "Christian" ideas posited after the death of Jesus when the Church was being shaped.
No offense, but the idea that Christianity is largely different from the actual teachings of Christ is most often advanced by "scholars" who want to put their words in the mouth of Christ, so that He can endorse their views and/or scold their enemies. Tell me, what is there in the Apostles Creed or the Nicene Creed that conflicts with the New Testament Scriptures? The NT was written by men He personally chose.
Well, I'm not a scholar looking to put my words into Jesus mouth. Nor am I saying that Buddhist practices can be a part of Christian ones. I'm simply looking at the root of
Jesus and Buddha's struggle with the ills of humanity.
Obviously, we have two different figures and religions here. Vastly different. But the men who spawned them share some similarities that I think should not be simply thrown away. I'm not saying that their rituals and practices and traditions are similiar.
As far as the trials of Christ and Buddha, I never meant that they should have ended the same. Each has a dynamically different mission. They, by the religious traditions and history that precede them, cannot end the same.
Finally, that the Gospels were written by men he personally chose, and that followed him is of no doubt. But much of the NT is written by Paul, and by others who never met Christ. Now, of course, Paul says God was revealed to him through a ray of light, and looking at the amount of passion he exuded forming the early church, I'm inclined to believe him. But this hints at what I meant by the religion being formed after Jesus death.
By the way, what in the world does the Bobby Kennedy quip mean?