In fairness

I have to disagree that Christianity is the same as all of the other old religions. Sure, there are many similarities but to conclude same-ness from the similarities themselves, alone ........ is over-simplification.

I think it's helpful to look at religion today for comparison, and assume that it would probably have been very similar 2000 years ago ....

Is Christian Science basically the same as Pentecostalism?

Are Mormon and Catholic the same?

No, these religions have entirely different philosophies and focus ....... and yet, they hold to the same essential core of belief that there is a God ..... that Jesus Christ existed ....... that there is a heaven or heavens ..... that God is good and cares about people ........ that prayers are heard and answered ....... that God expects certain things from people .....and so on.

Refusing to note the distinct differences between different versions of God belief is kind of like spreading a mix of peanut butter, jelly, butter, salmon, tuna -and anything else spreadable- with a knife, onto some pieces of bread and then clamping them together and declaring that ALL sandwiches are pretty much the same because they involve two clamped pieces of bread with something spread between them with a table knife!~ It renders the definition of "sandwich" into something that virtually means nothing.

That's how I view your explanation of Eastern Himalayan philosophy too .... Striver. While you are right, your emphasis or "point" seems to go nowhere in particular.

Obviously YOU see something of significance in what you "preach" but I don't think you're getting your particular vision or understanding across effectively to anyone else. It's like, 'okay, fine, I agree with the gist of your claims but .... ahem ..... so what? Which PART is it that you're talking about which needs attention from MY end?

Jesus quoted a passage from the Psalms which indicates that people are gods. Did he really believe that himself? Yes, I reckon he did. Ironically, so did the Roman masters of his day! Can we conclude from that then, that Christianity was simply a different version of Roman philosophy, religion and superstition? Well, if it WAS ...... then what was the point of starting Christianity?

To me, it seems important to deal with people on the basis of where they are in their own belief and philosophical disposition and use what THEY believe ...... to further a greater and more tolerant attitude toward others.

Attitude is the underlying foundation which determines behavior: not belief .... but attitude.

I think that IF we can somehow persuade Christians to examine their own attitude, based on what is written in their OWN scriptures, they might come to see that a good attitude is really what's important.

Does Himalayan Philosophy focus on BELIEF ........ or does it focus on attitude? Does Christianity focus on BELIEF ....... or does it focus on attitude? Which is most important in either one? From that point on, it might be possible to see the similarities between the two.

-Vince