Today I was disappointed to learn that the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian organization, has quoted from my "Let's Forgive Brit Hume" post to "prove" the superior forgiveness/redemption power of Christianity over Buddhism. Peter Sprigg of the FRC writes,
Has Brit Hume slandered Buddhists by mischaracterizing their theology? Not really. Barbara O'Brien, author of "Barbara's Buddhism Blog," admits, "Mr. Hume is right, in a sense, that Buddhism doesn't offer redemption and forgiveness in the same way Christianity does. Buddhism has no concept of sin; therefore, redemption and forgiveness in the Christian sense are meaningless in Buddhism."
From here, Mr. Sprigg proceeds to slander Buddhism by mischaracterizing our "theology."
Citing what must be non-Buddhist sources, Sprigg paints Buddhism as a religion without faith or grace in which people are perpetually working off karmic debts:
The problem is, if Tiger Woods now gets out of this life what he's put into his moral life, he's in a heap of trouble. Buddhism is not tolerant of sexual libertinism--even Barbara the Buddhist Blogger agrees that it's "fairly plain that Mr. Woods's conduct has been falling short of the Third Precept." If Buddhism is true, not only is there no redemption for him in this life, but because of reincarnation, Woods will be paying a price in the next life as well. According to Eerdmann's Handbook to the World's Religions, in Buddhism, "[G]ood works automatically bring about a good rebirth, bad works a bad one."
I don't know who Eerdmann is, but he doesn't know Buddhism from eggplant. The Buddha specifically rejected the belief that the karma of one life determines our fate in another life. For that matter, "our" fate in "another life" isn't putting it correctly, either -- there is no "reincarnation" in Buddhism as the word is commonly understood -- but that's another lecture.
Part of the problem with comparing the relative merits of one religion over another is that, in the case of Buddhism versus Christianity, you're dealing with two very different conceptual frameworks regarding just about everything. For example, Christians persist in speaking of redemption as a major feature of their religion that Buddhism lacks. But it might be said of Buddhism that it is a means to perceive, deeply and intimately, why we don't need to be redeemed.
So, Mr. Sprigg, I wish you well with the redemption thing, but I don't need it; thanks much.
Then, of course, there's the whole problem of people making judgments about things they don't understand. I have the advantage over Mr. Sprigg in having been a devout Christian earlier in my life, and I retain a reasonably good understanding of Christian theology. And I still genuinely respect Christianity, in spite of the best efforts of the Brit Humes and Peter Spriggs of the world to make me its enemy.
But Christians carry around in their heads a conceptual framework of what religion is supposed to be that simply doesn't apply to Buddhism. (This is one of the reasons so many people argue that Buddhism is not a religion; I say it is, and the framework is flawed.) So to say that Christianity is superior to Buddhism because it offers redemption is a bit like saying birds are superior to horses because they have feathers. It's nonsensical.
I get emails all the time from young people whose teachers have given them lists of questions about Buddhism. But the questions often are unanswerable as asked, because they are actually questions about Christianity-- questions about sins, repentance, redemption and heaven. All I can do is send them a link to the "intro to Buddhism" article and hope they read it with an open mind.
As for grace and faith -- faith is enormously important in Buddhism, but in Buddhism faith is defined more as "trust" or "confidence" than as "belief." Grace is generally defined as the favor of God bestowed freely on humans, and that definition leaves out Buddhism. Yet I have experienced a different sort of grace in Buddhism, a grace at least as powerful, even though we might differ with the Christians about how grace comes to us.
I say with all kindness to Christians that you don't help yourselves by claiming an exclusive right to promote your religion over others. In my experience, such proselytizing alienates at least as many people as it persuades. This is especially true if you have to tell lies about other religions to prove that yours is superior.
And, if I may say so, bearing false witness against other religions seems un-Christian.
How do you experience Grace? Is there a similar concept in Buddhism?
thank you in advance!
How do you experience grace — I’m thinking of awakening experiences, what we crudely call “kensho,” and also of samadhi. Mindfulness can be a kind of grace in itself, also.
There is a great deal of grace in coming to understand that we need not be measured against impossible standards.
In addition, there is grace in realizing that we have within us the good sense to make sound decisions based on an understanding of the complex issues that present themselves in any given situation — that we do not need to depend on the rules that define “sin” — nor anyone else’s rules. At base we are moral beings; guidance from teachers helps us see this; support from peers helps us practice it; the methods the Buddha taught give us the skills to see for ourselves that we have the wisdom to make good choices. That understanding, alone, feels like grace to me.
If one honestly believes, as fundamentalist Christians supposedly do, that their way is the only way and that everybody else is hell bound, then I suppose I can understand why they want to “witness” to their belief so that they can “save” us from eternal damnation. But in that case they should just state that point and leave it at that–the ball is in then in our court, so to speak, and they are no longer responsible (having duly witnessed). But then for them to turn around and “explain” Buddhism and other non-Christian belief systems–even ignoring the fact that such explanations tend to be full of inaccuracies–just seems to me to be a grand waste of their own time. Buddhism can be the most beautiful faith on earth, but if God does not approve of it then the discussion is over. ‘Barbara the Buddhist Blogger’ does have a nice alliterative ring to it, though, I must admit, almost as nice as ‘Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer’. Note to Barbara: these people are going to misquote and mischaracterize your words no matter what you do or how rational you are. Sad but true.
The title of that article was “Persecution for the Brit Hume Witness.” yet I read of no lion ripping anyone to shreds, nor did I read of any beheadings, flayings, amputations, vandalism or buildings being burnt.
As far as the “effectiveness” of religions, I’ve alluded to that on my blog in the past couple of days: would Hume accept a “mindfulness” based therapy to help him deal with the grief over his son’s suicide, if it were known to him to be “Buddhist” – like?
Because Jesus said “I Am the Way, the Truth and the Life and no one comes to the father but by me” it is then the fundamental Christian belief that Jesus is the only way for a person to enter in to Heaven. This conicides with their belief that: Because God so loved the world (everyone on the planet) He have His only Son (Jesus) so that whoever (anyone anywhere) believes in Him (Jesus) can have eternal life (as opposed to separation from God eternally). All of this is, of course, dependent on believing in God (Jehovah or Yahweh) as Creator of Earth and all that we know. But here is the rub, it each person’s choice. And if they don’t believe in God, why would they want to spend eternity with Him. So the job for the Christian is to communicate the truth of Jesus and offer people the choice of eternal life as they know it to be. I truly believe that many Christians like Mr. Hume and the Religious Right get it very wrong when they pit Jesus against anything or anyone. Jesus did not do that…He just showed them Himself and many believed. Those who would not did not. And He did it with love and in love because He is love. I’m afraid that most Christians need to show people Jesus rather than religion…because Jesus didn’t come to give man religion, they already had that, He came to give them a relationship based on love. And really, following Jesus is a discipline and a lifestyle and most of all, a choice. All should be free to choose or not choose but I don’t think Mr. Hume is offering any choice but to run in the other direction. What Tiger Woods needs is understanding, compassion and forgiveness…and you can only receive forgiveness when you acknowledge that you need it.
In The Second Coming Of Christ, Yogananda proposes that we understand Jesus’ statement “no one comes to the father except through me” as scriptural allegory (which tends to be baffling to literal minds) — pointing to a need to achieve/unveil the same “Christ Consciousness” that Jesus manifested, as a way to achieve oneness with God.
On a related note, this passage, from the same book:
“The lack of individual prayer and communion with God has divorced modern Christians and Christian sects from Jesus’ teaching of the real perception of God, as is true also of all religious paths inaugurated by God-sent prophets whose followers drift into byways of dogma and ritual rather than actual God-communion. Those paths that have no esoteric soul-lifting training busy themselves with dogma and building walls to exclude people with different ideas. Divine persons who really perceive God include everybody within the path of their love, not in the concept of an eclectic congregation but in respectful divine friendship toward all true lovers of God and the saints of all religions.”
Yogananda proposes that we understand Jesus’ statement “no one comes to the father except through me” as scriptural allegory (which tends to be baffling to literal minds) — pointing to a need to achieve/unveil the same “Christ Consciousness” that Jesus manifested, as a way to achieve oneness with God.
Paula Fredriksen, Karen Armstrong, and other scholars argue that the historic Jesus was a devout Jew who would have been horrified at being identified as a person of a Godhead. And most biblical historians say you have to be cautious with the Gospel of John, as it’s probably the least authentic of the four.
My sense is that Yogananda uses the phrase “oneness with God” to point to the internal, mystical realization of Jesus. The utterance “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life” came forth not from an egoic “I” but rather from a level of consciousness that had transcended dualism — and hence was a portal into direct communion with our Divine Nature.
Buddhism is a psychology (of the human psyche) and a cosmology, but, no, not a religion.*
*See:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_defn.htm
No, Buddhism is a religion.*
*See: “Buddhism: Philosophy or Religion?“
Definition of “Religion” in Ambrose Bierce’s DICTIONARY (1911).
RELIGION, n.
A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the
nature of the Unknowable.
Norris: We are not afraid of religion here. In fact, I really resent people who march around and insist all religion is bad and Buddhism can’t be a religion, blah blah blah. You’ve made a concept of religion into a stupid mind fetter. Free yourself.
Norrie,
Buddhism is still a religion, even using the religioustolerance.org’s definition. There’s a “belief about diety”, code of ethics, philosophy of life, and worldview.
Oh come on, folks, Norrie’s just adding a little levity to the discussion through the tongue in cheek words of one of America’s great satirists and writers, Ambrose Bierce. It gave me a chuckle, and I appreciate it.
Oh come on, folks, Norrie’s just adding a little levity to the discussion through the tongue in cheek words of one of America’s great satirists and writers, Ambrose Bierce. It gave me a chuckle, and I appreciate it.
I’m glad it gave you a chuckle, but the “Buddhism is not a religion” line is old and tired. Very old, and very tired.
It dawned on me after I wrote it that the people who brought the woman to Jesus to be stoned but really just wanted to trap Him, wanted to trap Him because they rejected Him. They were looking for a Messiah that would save them from the Romans, not from themselves…not from the power of sin in their lives. Why? Because they thought they could earn righteousness by keeping the law…but they never could. But they had the days of atonement and the animal sacrifice every year to make up for that. They failed to recognize that the law was given to show them their sin and the annual animal sacrifices were to point to Jesus’ sacrifice. But they had a religious system that worked for them. They had rules to follow and a way to offset their bad by good.
Now I asked a legitimate and honest question about using Buddhist scripture and received not one direct answer to my question. Rather I received comments based on Scholars opions of what my Bible and My Savior said or didn’t say and insulted me by suggesting that I didn’t know Jesus was a Jew or fully understood the magnitude of what He was saying. If He didn’t say precisely I Am (ego eimi), why would the Jews want to kill him for healing people and forgiving sin? I am also offended that my truth based on my life experience and intellectual pursuit is questioned by people whose very religion is based on seeking ones own truth and forsaking any priestly teaching or scripture. I’m sorry to sound defensive, but I’ve heard all the arguments about Jesus not really saying what the Bible says He said according to John one of his closest disciples and friends. Yes, Jesus was a “good Jew” as was Paul the Apostle and most of the 1st century martyrs that died because they would not deny having witnessed the risen Christ.
It dawned on me after I wrote it that the people who brought the woman to Jesus to be stoned but really just wanted to trap Him, wanted to trap Him because they rejected Him….
That’s fascinating, I guess, but it’s utterly off topic. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the post or the topic at hand.
Now I asked a legitimate and honest question about using Buddhist scripture and received not one direct answer to my question.
You received two answers, in another comment thread.
I realize now I got confused by two different comments and posts and I see my question was answered about using Buddhist scripture. However, my comment on the judgment of the Bible and it’s validity is still relevant here.
However, my comment on the judgment of the Bible and it’s validity is still relevant here.
It isn’t relevant, and I don’t think you understand what I was saying or why I referred to the verse.
Folks, I need to remind you all that this is a Buddhism site, not a site for promoting Christianity. While I enjoy respectful dialogue, most of us are already well acquainted with Christian doctrine and don’t need it explained to us. From here forward I will be deleting comments that I think cross the line from discussion of the topic into pure proselytization. Thank you for your compliance and respect of the Buddha dharma.
Very good article, Barbara. Thank you..
I understand that your site is about buddhism, but you took the stance to correct me intellectually about Jesus. I was clarifying your use of a verse and its application as taught in the Christian faith. I am trying to understand more about buddhism and in your reaction defending it against The Family Research Council, you attacked my faith. I’m not promoting Christianity, I’m merely trying to set the record straight. I’ve read your articles on What Buddhism is and what they believe and you have compared it to other faiths as well. I guess what I’m looking for is common ground where we don’t defensively try to tear each other down but we try to understand each other’s points of view. I know there are plenty of examples of Christians that behave badly or speak apart from grace, and I know I don’t always speak in love when I get defensive, but of course this is human nature. It’s the goodness of God that draws men to Him, not loud mouthed, judgmental men. I apologize for Mr. Hume’s comments as well as any that I have made outside of Jesus’ call to love.
I understand that your site is about buddhism, but you took the stance to correct me intellectually about Jesus. I was clarifying your use of a verse and its application as taught in the Christian faith. I am trying to understand more about buddhism and in your reaction defending it against The Family Research Council, you attacked my faith.
I did not “attack your faith.” I’m certain large numbers of Christians, including theologians, would disagree with your interpretation of the stoning story in John, since you are adding details to the story that are not in the Gospel of John. Your interpretation ruins what was a good Christian parable on not being judgmental and turns it into something else that has no apparent point.
I have been deleting your comments because it’s pretty obvious you are not interested in discussion, just proselytization. If you want to know what a (mostly) respectful discussion between Buddhists and Christians look like, there are some examples in the forums, such as this discussion in the What is Zen? Thread.
These christians who so deeply castigate Buddhism should read the writings of Thomas Merton the Catholic Monk.
Sam Berry
Attachment!!!
All three of today’s (7 Jan 2010) mailing could be under the same comment tree…So, I hope this comment is in the correct place.
Hume is completely out of line in any journalistic sense for castigating Woods or anyone else for their religious beliefs. But, who says he or his network (Fox) cares about journalism and the rules of good reporting and commentary? They and their talking heads so frequently launch into anything-that-says-what-the-Christian-Right-Wing-wants that they have no credibility with facts, or with commentary. Fox News is not news at all, it is **infotainment**.
The approach of selling right wing infotainment is a business model that the owner Rupert Murdoch found could service an under-marketed niche of the viewing public and create huge amounts of wealth. It is not journalism. And by journalism, I mean what Morrow or Chronkite would have called “journalism”. That is the gold standard, a standard that all the networks have moved away from, but that Fox never even tried to execute.
Thus, no forgiveness is needed from Buddhists or anyone else for Mr. Hume’s outburst. Call it what is is – inflammatory corporate pabulum for the right-wing masses aimed at increasing market share. When viewed in this manner, Fox and it’s infotainment model becomes much less threatening. It’s just business, folks! A rotten business, to be sure, but we are talking P.T. Barnum here – showmanship over substance.
Consider it to have any other meaning, and you empower it. That power will force Fox and their talking head minions to come up with evermore outrageous and divisive rhetoric along with financial power though market share. Ignore them, then the “mainstream media” will ignore them, and they will wither on the vine.
Hi Sam,
I agree about Reading Thomas Merton. In my case reading Merton had the opposite effect. I was totally anti-Christian for years. Then I read a blurb on one of Thich Nhat Hahn’s books by Merton where he called Nhat Hahn his “brother” and I thought “who is this Christian”.
I then read his works and dropped my anti-Christian stance. I actually opened up to many of it’s teachings. I consider “The Seven Story Mountain” to be one of my favorite books, although it reflects Merton in an early stage of his spiritual development.
As far as Hume, Tiger,Buddhism, Christianity and Forgiveness I see Buddhism as a religion that teaches Humans to own their lives, their actions, and their actions outcomes. It is one of responsibility, and we are always able to “start where we are” to borrow from Pema Chodron. Or to start anew with a fresh determination/aspiration. We don’t need to be forgiven by some superior being that may or may not exist. We can certainly apologize to those whom we cause harm, that is fitting.
In the end Tiger may call himself a Buddhist, but he certainly didn’t practice the teachings. Just like many folks call themselves Christians but ignore the teaching “blessed are the peacemakers”, “turn the Other Cheek”, “those who live by the sword die by the sword”, “remove the log that is in your own eye, before trying to remove the spec of dust in your brothers” etc…
Buddhism is a religion, but Buddhism is more than belief, it is practice. This is what I enjoy most about Buddhism and think is one of it’s strongest characteristics. How do you become a Buddha? practice, practice, practice!
Anyway,
All the Best to you, Tiger, and Hume.
May all beings be well,
May all beings be free from suffering,
May all beings be happy!
Well articulated Stacy
- Dhammachick
Good article. I am also pleasantly surprised by the quality of a majority if the comments posted. I have been studying Buddhism to some degree for the past couple years and was interested in your comments:
The Buddha specifically rejected the belief that the karma of one life determines our fate in another life. For that matter, “our” fate in “another life” isn’t putting it correctly, either — there is no “reincarnation” in Buddhism as the word is commonly understood — but that’s another lecture.
I believe I understand the comment about the absence of reincarnation as it is usually understood, but the first part caught me by surprise. I’ve read quite a bit (I know reading alone is not enough, but at this point it’s what I’ve got) that seems to suggest Buddha taught that one’s actions and karma in one “life” have a direct impact on the “next life”. Could you please explain your view, or at least point me in the right direction? Thanks
Natai — In Buddhism, it’s extremely important to understand that karma is not fate. Because you have done X amount of “bad” stuff doesn’t mean you have a karmic debt of X that you have to “work off,” in this life or another one. Karma can be changed at any time by one’s own thoughts, words and deeds.
Barbara
That part I think I understand. Your actions in the present always play a part. I have a copy of the Dhammapada that includes stories and lessons supposedly taught by the Buddha. Many of the stories involve him explaining that a person took some action in a past life and discussing the consequences in this life.
The basic idea that our past action affect the present and future makes perfect sense to me, but the idea of karma carrying over to and having a significant effect on a next life is what I’m confused about.
The basic idea that our past action affect the present and future makes perfect sense to me, but the idea of karma carrying over to and having a significant effect on a next life is what I’m confused about.
Just remember there’s no fate. You are not fated to suffer X amount of bad fortune because of X number of bad things you did. Now, if you don’t make an effort to change your karma, and just drift along unmindfully, you might very well suffer X amount of bad fortune. But you are not fated to do so. You can change the trajectory of karma at any time, if you make the effort.
In the end Tiger may call himself a Buddhist, but he certainly didn’t practice the teachings.
Problem is, in Buddhism, you are where you are. He probably needs to work harder on his practice, but unless he asks me about it, it’s really his call and his karma.
As to Grace, I’ve always considered that to be a disgusting concept: No matter what you do you can’t be good enough. That makes redemption an arbitrary, cruel, and therefore meaningless concept. No thanks: I’ll create my own salvation.
Please to understand: There is no way I represent Buddhism on this site, let alone in general. This is just where I am at this moment, just as Tiger is where he is right now. If we didn’t have problems, we probably wouldn’t practice as hard and would really learn nothing!
As to Grace, I’ve always considered that to be a disgusting concept: No matter what you do you can’t be good enough.
Joe, that’s not what grace means. Kind of the opposite, actually.
Folks, please note that while I am deleting hateful speech aimed at Buddhism, I am also deleting hateful speech aimed at God and Christianity. If you don’t have anything constructive to say, please be good Buddhists and practice noble silence. Thank you.
Sorry, but I must respectfully disagree. “By grace alone are you saved.” What you do has tangental importance at best. You are FUNDAMENTALLY unworthy. I really can’t abide that concept. I know, maybe there’s a theological explanation that I could accept, but I haven’t seen it yet. “Go thou, and sin no more!” is a nice idea, but it’s said the next time you “sin” as well.
Sorry, but I must respectfully disagree. “By grace alone are you saved.”
You’re confusing somebody’s doctrine with the definition of the word. “Grace” in the religious sense is a blessing or favor freely given by God or other power, whether you deserve it or not. Look it up. We don’t have a god, but according to the definition of “grace,” the mystic power of the Lotus Sutra to bring sentient beings to enlightenment would also be an example of grace.
Oh, and please understand: I mean no disrespect to anyone; my concerns are real and substantial, and I’m always open to being corrected.
The Lotus gives you a sign-post, saying “If you do x, you’ll receive y.” Grace says “You can’t possibly live up to my standards, but I’ll accept you anyway.” Seems to be a slight difference, IMHO. If you practice the Lotus Sutra, you accept total responsibility for all of your actions and all of the effects. If you practice Grace, God lets you in regardless. I can’t become a serial killer and avoid my karma. Every consequence of every action I’ve ever taken is my responsibility. Can you say the same about Grace?
Joe — Realizing enlightenment is grace. A kensho or awakening experience feels like grace on steroids. Don’t think deserving, don’t think not-deserving.
I’m not really thinking about deserving. I guess I’m really thinking about earning. “Deserving” smacks of someone else’s evaluation. Grace sounds too much like “unearned” in my opinion. Oh, and two Buddhists discussing “Grace”? Too funny! I’d be interested in anyones opinion…
Barbara wrote:
“Karma can be changed at any time by one’s own thoughts, words and deeds.”
It is in this teaching and with this understanding that we find true freedom.
All the best!
I guess I’m really thinking about earning.
Shunyata. There is nothing to earn, and no one to earn it. And that’s grace.
Hey, another agree to disagree moment! I can only ask: Whose grace?
I can only ask: Whose grace?
Exactly.
Now you sound like a Zen student!
I have been reading about buddhism for the past six months and just finished Thich Nhat Hahn’s “Living Buddha, Living Christ”. I think that he addresses many of the issues that I have noticed in the postings. It definetely made me understand christianity in a different (and better) perspective than what I was taught growing up.
Hey, another agree to disagree moment! I can only ask: Whose grace?
Whose effort?
Grace says: you don’t have to prove yourself worthy of my Love & Blessings, because I see you and know you as all-ways and already perfect.
Effort is rightly applied to dissolving the obscurations that prevent us from seeing/knowing through the eye of Grace. But Enlightenment can never be the direct result of our cause-and-effect efforts, because “it” transcends space/time — is nondual in the way that Barbara points to when she writes:
There is nothing to earn, and no one to earn it.
Perfect!
I guess my main problem is the idea that my Buddha isn’t “good enough”. In reality, we reveal enlightenment; it isn’t handed to us regardless of our strand of Buddhism.
Joe — the grace comes when you get beyond all dualisms, all “my” and “our.” You already are Buddha nature. There is nothing to be handed to you, and no one to hand it.
Barbara;
Congratulations on being added to the millions of “The Maligned Beings”. Fox news has always maligned religions other than Fundamentalist Christianity, and the FRC has certainly been no respecter of what any non neo-con actually said. The FRC has also, it must be pointed out, used sources that can be charitably called lies; and studies that either don’t exist or are fabricated. in other words, add them to the list of how life is suffering. We can best defeat all the suffering by realizing that what we think of ourselves is also a construct and, therefore not quite on the mark — if there is one.
Attachment to ourselves is of no use in our practice; what Britt humes says is not correct; What the FRC states is an outright lie: They are not truth — why do we allow non-truths to stick to us and cause us pain? May this not be an example of the origin of suffering as the sure knowledge that by pursuing illusory “stuff” we may find happiness in a life of suffering? The Darma asks us to understand that trying to change the minds of the FRC is impossible; we can only change our perceptions and reactions to them. No defence; a simple understanding of how much angst it causes you or me to become angered by something that has no more reality that the word s “Me” or “You”.
May we all find happiness in our not-selves, and stop looking to this dew-drop for satisfaction.
Don Cook
This squabble between Buddhism and Chrisitianity is irrelevant, as ultimately Islam will dominate
Barbara-
When you said..”I say to Chrisitans, with all kindness, that you don’t help yourselves by claiming an exclusive right to promote your religion over others”..in my mind, you said it all!!
In Vajrayana Buddhism there are means for purification for previous misdeeds. The crucial aspect is to recognize emptiness. The mantras, visualisations, and heart of compassion are effective for this.
Well said : ) I couldn’t say it better.
Thanks for a good and informative article. It is appreciated.
As a follower of Jesus I wanted to make one clarification to your point about the difference between “faith” in Buddhism and “faith” in Christianity – “As for grace and faith — faith is enormously important in Buddhism, but in Buddhism faith is defined more as “trust” or “confidence” than as “belief.” The greek word the Bible uses which is often translated as “faith” actually means all of the above – believe, trust, faith even confidence. In English we have slightly different meanings for each of those words, but for the Bible it means all of those things. Thanks again.
There is, of course, always the danger when discussing another religion, that you will misread its theology.
That being said, it is important to point out that a relief is not superior to another because it makes you feel good, or because it it sounds reasonable, or because you can understand it fully, but because it is true. Christianity claims to be true because of its revelation ie because God came down to earth and suffered and died as one of us, and who demonstrated His divinity by performing miracles and rising from the dead. You may not believe this, but if you wish to reject Christianity, you have to refute that claim.
On the other hand, Buddhism’s claim, as far as I can tell, is that the Buddha sat down under a tree until he worked out the mystery of the universe to his satisfaction. That strikes me as being a lot less compelling. However, perhaps I am also misreading its theology.