That said, Malthus has a point. I’ve been to Pure Land meetings, and they’re f-ing weird. I felt the way I feel about the some Christian sects: “You may call yourself a christian, but I’m not sure that I would”.
To my mind, “Buddhism” consists of what Buddhists actually believe. And the majority of Buddhists actually believe in one of the sects of Mahayana Buddhism that, in point of fact, is as religious as any other religion - in terms of having god-worship, and heavens and hells - I cannot think that the “Pure Land” can be characterized as anything other than a version of Heaven.
The fact that certain Buddhist writings portray the (“historical”) Buddha as disliking issues of cosmology did not prevent other Buddhists from creating very elaborate cosmologies indeed. Presumably those Buddhists have a different view.
Heh, if we measured who was a “true Christian” by reference to the sayings of the “historical Jesus” as portrayed in the Gospels, I doubt many present-day varieties of Christian - including the major ones like Catholicism and the various Protestant variants - would come off particularly well. 
Yup.
They’re not alone. A lot of present-day Buddhists, Muslims etc would also not pass muster with their basic tenets.
that’s just humans. you’d think that Atheists would pass muster, since they basically have only one tenet. however, under certain conditions you’ll find that many would cry, “omg, oh my god, OH MY GOD!”
That’s cultural conditioning.
that was a joke. hmm, how about the many that would pray when death is nigh?
I was actually agreeing with you. But again, that example there is just cultural conditioning too. Sort of an adjunct to the “fight or flight” response.
Simply put Buddhists are not trying introduce creationism etc into schools as science. Fundamental Christians etc are trying to change the way we live our lives and that is why they are under attack by us atheists. Buddhists and a whole bunch of other religious people are just saying “like just be cool” etc and well most of us are OK with that but the second they start trying to change our laws etc they are going to get attacked.
Heh true enough.
I’d say, though, that when the majority of a particular religion’s present-day believers and clerics state that the religion ‘means’ a particular belief - such as the literal existence of a “pure land” - that’s what the religion actually stands for, even if its historical founder some 2,500 or so years ago said something completely different.