As my religion professor used to say (and he went to seminary) the only difference between a Cult and an Ecclesia is time.  Christianity was absolutely a cult for the first hundred years.

Meanwhile, over at the audience awards, we are IN THE LEAD.  Remember, you can vote once a day.

http://theaudienceawards.com/contests/6 … Picks.html

Man...I was seriously punchy for this ep.

Flex Funding, yo.

Pretty much just get in line.

I'll do my best to share what I know.  Wikipedia will probably fill you in with the historical side of things better than I can, but I can sorta talk about my experiences in it.

To start, I'll clarify the type of Buddhist I am.  There are two main categories that school of Buddhism fall into, Theravada and Mahayana.  There are are a ton of differences, but Theravada tends to be more strict, a bit more singular in thinking, and Mahayana tends to think more in communal terms and tends to be a bit less strict on where teachings come from.  THere's a bunch of schools underneath each branch, but under Mahayana is where Zen comes from, and that's what I identify as.  Under Zen, there are two main schools, Rinzai and Soto.  I am partial to the Soto sect.  Rinzai is where you get koans or Zen riddle poems that are meant to be contemplated, (what's the sound of one hand clapping, is the famous one).  Soto was started by this dude Dogen in the 13th century, and he wrote this thing called the SHobogenzo which is a fairly famous Zen text that Soto basses it's ideas around (in addition to the Gautama Buddha, of course). 

So, why don't I think it's a religion?  There is no creation myth, no afterlife, no avatar of the divine, no "trickster," or antagonist character, and no rituals meant to influence luck or chance.  We don't really believe in "good and evil," as much as we believe in "right and wrong."  We DO NOT believe in the soul.  And while SOME threads of Theravada Buddhism more closely resemble religions, Zen Buddhism specifically is logic based.  Zen does not believe in literal reincarnation. 

We view all life as sort of a singular entity and we are all just sort of moving parts.  To hurt your neighbor is to hurt yourself, that sort of thing.  The analogy I make is, is a skin cell on my arm aware of a speck of bone marrow in my leg?  Is one of my hairs aware of a sweat gland in my foot?  No.  They are completely different with totally different functions and they will never interact.  But they are all still me, and I am only what I am made of.  That's not an official buddhist analogy or anything, just stuff I've kind of thought of over meditation.

We do believe in Karma, but not as a mystical scoreboard; it's much more practical.  For instance, if I steal from you there isn't a mystical force called, "Karma," that's going to dole out justice.  The "Karma," of my bad action is apparent immediately, in the form of cops, an angry person after me, and just the imbalance that my action causes. 

And that's kind of where Buddhism focusses it's attention.  Actions.  Buddhism is often called a philosophy that you DO as opposed to believing in.  Meditation, or Zazen to us Zen folks, IS Buddhism.  It's boring as shit and it can piss you off just sitting.  And yet.....and yet.  Things really do become clearer when you just sit with them.  It's not fun, but it feels right in the same way any thing you do for your own health feels right, like brushing your teeth and stretching. 

Now what Jim posted is sort of the ten commandments of Buddhism, specifically they are called The Four Noble Truths.   Life is suffering, suffering is caused by desire, to end suffering you must end desire, to end desire you must follow the 8 Fold Path.  Also, it should be noted the actual word for Sufferring is this concept called Dukkha.  It pretty much means suffering, but literally means "That which is difficult to bear."  So, it's pretty much saying that life by it's nature is hard.  But by acknowledging that life is pretty hard, it's kinda liberating.  Anyway, to get the hell out of Dukkha, you follow the 8 Fold Path:

Samma-Ditthi:  Proper view, or understanding.  I take this to mean knowing enough about something before reacting to it.

Sama-Sankappa:  Right attitude.  Not a universal attitude for every scenario, but the perfect attitude for the scenario you're currently in.  Basically, don't be butt hurt, and be more compassionate.

Samma-Vaca:  Right speech.  Basically, don't be Max Landis.  DOn't be intentionally or casually caustic of others feelings.  I'm not perfect at this either, but that's kinda the point.

Samma-Kammanta: Right action.  It sounds like a platitude, but there's a lot more to this.  Specifically, it's non-exploitative action.  It can be as big as not torching a rainforest or as small as not stealing a piece of candy.

Samma-Ajiva:  Right livelihood.  This is where the social contract starts kicking in.  It's making sure that the way you live your life doesn't impune or impede the rights of others.

Samma-Vayama:  Right effort.  Basically, figure out what the fuck you want to do with your life and FUCKING DO IT.  Don't half ass anything because you're actually harming society by checking Facebook instead of working at your job.  This applies equally for garbage men as it does CEO's.  It also applies to doing the thing that you're not only suited for, but the thing that you enjoy.  You are of no use to the universe if yo us ell insurance for the 401k and paid vacation time if you're god damned miserable at it.  Busk on the street for nickels if that's what you feel like you do best.  Another common phrase for this is "Skillful means." 

Samma-Sati:  Right mindfullness.  Awareness of yourself, awareness of others, awareness of how everything interacts.  Stay focussed but not self absorbed, compassionate but don't lose yourself.  Finding balance and discipline in where your mind goes.

Samma-Samadhi:   Meditation.  This is the thing you do to develop the other 7. 

So that's kind of an unfocussed mess of explaining it.  The tl;dr version is we aim for compassion.  We aim for understanding.  We do not let ourselves off the hook.  We don't preach, we just do as best we can.  If others agree with us, great.  If not, that's ok too, but that doesn't mean we're wrong either.  We're chill, but we work hard and labor is essential to the discipline (that's why motherfuckers be making rock gardens and shit).  Ultimately, we care less about what people say and more with what they do.

I was on the Few Good Men commentary, so some of that may have come from me.  I had no real bad experiences with the Church.  I have nothing but affection for religion, from an academic perspective (I majored in film and minored in Religion).  I always talked about being a reluctant atheist and I'll explain why.

I felt, and still feel, a great passion for the message of Christ.  I don't think there's one thing attributed to Jesus that would make anyone go, "That's evil!"  Most people's issue with biblical authority generally comes from the Old Testament, with the exception of the acid trip that is Revelations.  So Jesus' message as depicted in the canonical gospels felt very real to me.  As a child I accepted the supernatural elements as true, because I was so impassioned with the living example he set, that the stuff about virgin births MUST be true then.  Also, the faith makes it very clear that the mythology and the message are a package deal.  Jesus is significant to Christians because of the fully God/fully man, virgin birth, died for your sins and resurrected 3 days later thing.

As I hit adolescence, something wasn't sitting right.  Inconsistencies became too common to ignore, and at 13 I had nothing short of an epic existential crisis.   I would wake up in the middle of the night pondering my place in the universe.  It became clear to me that much of the Bible is written from the limited perspective of it's era.  And once I found out that the Bible was written piecemeal and essentially collated and edited, oh man...that threw me.  I also got heavy into Martial Arts and eastern thought.  Reading the Tao Te Ching at 14 was revelatory.  There's such a purity in it's humble approach.  It was the first religious text I read that assured me it was ok not to have an answer for everything, as long as we keep searching for truth.  In many ways it reminded me of the words attributed to Christ, just without the baggage of the rest of the Bible. 

I still identified as Christian.  But there came a day when I had to be honest with my self.  Christ's message rang true to me.  I accepted the teachings as self evident a fact as the sun rising and waves crashing.  Did I believe in the virgin birth?  No.  Not for a second.  Did I believe that Christ was the literal son of God?  Nope.  Not even the nephew.  Did I believe in the resurrection?  Not a chance.  When it became clear to me those things were necessary to call yourself a Christian, I stopped myself that.  Once I did, it was INCREDIBLY liberating.

By this time I was living in Hawaii and training in Muay Thai with Kru Kham.  He was Buddhist and pretty much made Meditation mandatory.  Sitting Zazen was another lightning bolt moment because it was the intellectual inverse of Christianity.  Whereas I had nothing but fond memories of my times in Church and youth Bible camp, I couldn't help but notice a pattern:  I sat somewhere, and listened to someone talk.  Then I would kneel, close my eyes, and have (let's face it) a one sided conversation with the divine.  Then I would hear someone else talk, and generally tell me how my church or Jesus or God wanted me to live my life.  The only time I talked?  To say good bye on my way out.

My Zen sessions usually go like this: There'd be a 5-10 minute talk, then 30 minutes of sitting Zazen.  Think it's easy to keep your eyes open and remain perfectly still and not think of anything?  Try it.  Roshi Brad Warner likens it to "taking a lid off a boiling pot.  Everything rushes to the surface."  You're essentially forced to deal with yourself without any pretense or bullshit.  And trust me, we ALL bullshit ourselves regularly.  Afterwards, you could ask questions, but largely the work was all on you.  You were forced to just sit there with all this inescapable self, and by the end you couldn't ignore it.  Praying in a Christian church....you're essentially asking for someone to either lighten your load or make you stronger.  You're dependent on God intervening in some way.  That's why, macman, I find the whole idea of miracles, divine intervention, or any way that people claim God acts in your or anyone else's life.....offensive.  Because the Christian idea of God is selective of who it helps.  In Buddhism (not a religion, btw) the work is up to us.  There's no hell, no heaven, we are largely ignorant of any of that stuff.  All that matters is this moment in front of you. 

All of those things rang as true to me as Christ's words of love and tolerance and acceptance.  The magical stuff in the rest of the bible, the plagues, the floods, the angels, was silly in comparison to all the other truth.  SO no, Pastormacman, the "church," never alienated me away from Jesus.  The Bible did.

First big announcement of the day, we are a Staff Pick over at the Audience Awards, and you can vote on us for a prize!

http://theaudienceawards.com/contests/6 … Picks.html

I'll be recording a special episode soon reviewing the Oscar Doc Shortlist with a special guest pretty soon, if I can catch him before Sundance.

Also, on a different point, as someone married to a Catholic and with a deep respect for people's faiths....there is no way historically you can look to the rise of Christianity and not see the influence of other monotheistic religions in terms of creation myths, moral code, afterlife structure, etc. 

This is going to sound harsher than it is meant to be, but Christianity is akin to a Judaism/Zoroastrinism mashup fan-fic.  Jesus historically existed, and the Pentateuch was in place, but many of the gaps of the old testament were filled in with elements of pre existing concepts.

When I used to self describe as Christian, part of the joy was relishing in the fact that I did NOT know for sure.  That there was doubt, and the distinct possibility I could be wrong.  To me, part of the legitimate beauty of faith is believing in the face of uncertainty.  It was partly for that reason that the schism between my idea of faith and other Christians widened.  Even now, as a semi-practicing Soto Buddhist, I take great comfort in the knowledge that I could be completely wrong.  I feel like many evangelizing Christians are afraid of doubt, and are quick to offer up as much anecdotal evidence as possibly to convince others (and themselves?) that their faith is in fact NOT faith, but the a truth that has yet be fully realized by others.  This saddens me.  I think a dialogue of mutual acknowledgement that no one definitively knows the answer of either our origin or purpose is necessary for a better world.