Coffeecat: How do you know? Maybe all gods do exist.
“All religions are just different interpretations of the same thing…” Similarly, all philosophies are just different approaches to the same thing. Ditto for political parties and ideologies.
Sorry, but I don’t buy into this happy talk. It seems to me, for example, that Buddhism and Christianity differ in some rather fundamental ways. For example, much of Christianity appears to frame humanity’s essential problem as one of sin. (The solution, of course, is putting one’s faith in the Son.)
The Buddha, OTOH, focussed on human suffering - to him, that was the central problem. From there, he posited what some of the psychological underpinnings of suffering might be, and then attempted to develop the appropriate treatment.
Different problems, different approaches.
They are easily reconciled if sin is defined as the obstruction of goodness. Suffering is thus caused by the desire to sin.
With “goodness” once again serving as an undefined variable.
Give it a rest, Lib. Or at least stay out of religious discussions.
This thread makes me envision Siddhartha and Jesus sitting in a bar over a couple drinks, both peering in deep bemusement at a television screen upon which the thread is playing out.
But then again, lots of threads do that for me. I’m pretty sure that bemuses 'em, too. 
Ah, but we know that the Enlightened One wouldn’t care one way or another.
Not possible. Some "Gods (I know there’s only one!) are mutually eclusive principles, and ergo could not exist simultaneously, if they existed, which only one does, therefore there is no conflict.
Why can’t gods contradict each other? They can contradict themselves. Verily, they are higher powers that we wot not the true meanings of.
Or delusions. And how do you know only one god exists? Perhaps three do, and two of them are lying.
Actually, I’ll discuss whatever I please within the rules of the board.
As you’ve been told before, it is illogical to define all the terms in an axiomatic system. That’s why, for example, Peanno left “successor” undefined for his Induction Axiom, the very foundation of every mathematical operation.
That you didn’t know this was surprising, since it is common knowledge and is universal among the philosophical disciplines. But now you do know it, so you aren’t ignorant any more — you are merely stupid, contrary, and incorrigible.
From Minnesotta State University
(Caps theirs)
Did you know that True and False are undefined when used in axiomatic systems?
Did you know that Point, Line, and Plane are undefined terms in Euclidean Geometry?
Did you know that the underlying object of KIF is undefined?
In fact, undefined terms are the foundation for the Deductive Method itself:
I have discussed what I mean by “goodness” with you over and over, and consistently I have told you that it is the aesthetic most valued by God. I believe that that is an acceptable description of goodness that any reasonably intelligent person can understand.
Oh, that clears everything up. So, how do we determine what is valued by God again?
Vorlon
I detect a note of sarcasm indicating that, in fact, the references to the universities, textbooks, and physicists did not clear anything up for you. That leaves you in one of these two states:
[1] You are not capable of understanding what is common knowledge
[2] You do understand it, but are pretending not to
Personally, I think it is number [2].
What He values is goodness. That’s an axiom. Now, you can pretend you don’t know what axioms are. 
What a maroon. I wonder if he actually believes the garbage he posts, or just enjoys taking up server space.
In regards to the OP: there most certainly are multiple versions of Buddhism, but there are obviously some similarities. No matter what sect you discuss, though, Enlightenment is always the same; in that sense, all Buddhists are monolithic and Borg-like.
Excuse me, I wanted an argument, not abuse!
Oh, and before I forget: Lib’s statement is a definition, not an axiom. Why am I not surprised he can’t tell the difference?
There’s also the point that if some principles are actually true (or at least related to certain assumptions), as opposed to merely being enshrined in religious traditions, people will keep stumbling onto them.
Thus, people who hold beliefs that are in some way similar to the principles of Buddhism and who reached them through logic and analysis will tend to be somewhat similar.
Uh oh. Vorlon, you’re bounding off the walls again.
Tell ya what. I invite you to this thread in General Questions, where you can enlighten us about deductive systems that have no undefined terms. But you’d better leave your bullshit behind — it isn’t tolerated there.
Not at all. There are VERY wide varieties of what s the Enlightened state is being like.
And not all buddhists believe in Enlightenment. Nirvana does not actually mean that.
Yes. Nirvana is the state of utter non-attachment and non-being. Enlightenment is quite different.
What’s your point?
There are lots of different kinds of scientists, and many scientists believe quite different things. Nevertheless, those who practice science have some fundamental similarities – in my mind, they’re a lot more similar and “Borg-like” than Buddhists.
I’ve never claimed to know anything about Buddhism, so maybe you can help me out here. There must be a basic set of beliefs, attitudes, principles, or something that makes a Buddhist a Buddhist or why bother giving it a name. So what does make a Buddhist a Buddhist?
Lib sez, “They are easily reconciled if sin is defined as the obstruction of goodness. Suffering is thus caused by the desire to sin.”
Um. 1) I didn’t say they couldn’t be reconciled; I said they weren’t identical (or at least I tried to say that).
- But I find your attempt at reconciliation problematic. (Oh, well). A Christian might say that all suffering is caused by the desire to sin. Maybe.
But such a view would conflict with Buddhist doctrine.
The Buddha set out a detailed taxonomy of suffering. Since he was focusing on what is at bottom a subjective experience it is perhaps not surprising that he would end up emphasizing internal causes of suffering rather than external ones. At any rate, the Buddha ended up concluding that all forms of suffering have in common at least some element of (psychological) attachment. Eliminate attachment, and suffering is goes away.
Of course, now I have to define “attachment”. Then I would have to go over the Buddha’s proposed methods of releasing oneself from such attachments. But as I am not an expert in these matters, I won’t go there. [sup]1[/sup]
I only wish to say that a Buddhist approach differs from a Christian approach.
(OBTW, I recognize there are some obvious objections that can be raised to the preceding simplistic treatment.)
I hope it goes without saying though that the 2 religions share with everyone else a common set of moral conclusions. (Don’t murder, steal, lie, etc.)
Perhaps this helps, bnorton.
[sup]1[/sup][sub]DISCLAIMER: Those wishing to attain enlightenment are encouraged to ignore this post. AFAIK, IIRC, YMMV.[/sub]