So, do you think that Buddha and Lao Tzu, or perhaps more correctly the followers of Buddha and Lao Tzu, have not "divided" themselves from "others?"
On the contrary, every belief system creates a certain fanaticism in those who do not know but still try to convince themselves. This is the very nature of fanaticism, you are going overboard as if to convince yourself as much as the current target. That said, in the East, it is actually rare that someone is only part of a single faith. They sort of mix and match the various teachers despite utterly different systems... I think they need to incorporate more, but I think the Abrahamic followers can already learn much from them.
I would suggest, as would history, that indeed they have divided themselves from others...even to the point of violence at times. In that regard they are no different from Christians or any other of the major world faiths, perhaps only in matter of degree.
You will be surprised, it is those faiths that worship a particular God who are violent, without a God the tradition tends to be far more peaceful. Perhaps people who believe in a God are attempting to please him by killing other men?
While I read in this thread of all the lovey-dovey kumbayah stuff, the underlying theme of *all* religion throughout history has been the distinction of "us" *from* "them." And always, whether actively or passively, the goal is the conversion of "them" to "us," through so-called "love." The only possible exception I can think of is Judaism, and I suspect that is in large part on account of their cultural masochism from being "out of (political) power" for so long they have lost track of what it is like to hold the reigns.
It is an interesting phenomenon, no? It is because we wish to show our love for our preferred deity, but hate takes much less energy. We defend our choice over everyone elses, and think badly of all that do not think like ourselves because it allows us to think we are showing our love for our particular community.
In truth, all is one, thus "conversion" is a stupid word. Certainly, spread your love for a particular awakened one, share the strengths this one has, but accept that all the awakened ones are pointing at the same thing. It is ego which tells them to convince everyone their choice is correct, but they have not arrived at anything meaningful in their choice at all.
Jesus was the product of his time and place, and the victim (carefully chosen word) of the Roman propaganda machine post-humously. Jesus was the "son of G-d" just as we all are sons and daughters of G-d, but more importantly during his lifetime, just as the Roman Emperor was the Son of G-d which is (in part) what got him executed.
I am starting to feel you believe me a Christian? Identifying with any belief system merely caters to your ego, this all must be dropped.
We are not Son's of God at all, this is a false duality, the most important things Jesus has said is "I and my father are one" and "... now you are part of the body of Christ" - in this merging of man with divinity, each of us are one. This is what all faiths teach, and it is the only true religion - howsoever you arrive at the gates is irrelevant, to walk through is salvation.
How much of the Gospel story is "truth" in the sense of "reality," is impossible now to know. How many of the miraculous deeds attributed to him are genuine, or how many may be layered "pagan" Roman attributes? We really have no way of knowing with what is "allowed" a typical lay person.
I do not see how the miracles are even relevant at all today, they are something which instill a love in us for the man, they justify that love through the awe we are supposed to feel for the deeds, but in and of themselves they are irrelevant.
There are two ways to divinity, either give yourself utterly to the other, or go inwardly and see you are nothingness. Jesus teaches the former, Buddha teaches the latter - but if you look, they are really exactly the same: you are emptiness, only existence is. In this realization, there is a metamorphosis, this is the true rebirth and resurrection.
So we have a quandary...how human Jesus really was, and how that impacts on his teachings.
Some would say that if Jesus were not Divine in the sense of G-d as man, that Christianity would crumble. I say no, not so.
If Jesus were no more than a man, he was a great man in his own right, of a calibur equalling or surpassing a Gandhi or MLKing, jr., John Calvin or John Huss.
Why do you feel this is even relevant? Look at what Jesus points to, do not get hung up with the finger that is pointing.
Of course, that still leaves the question of the miraculous. But then, humanity has been chasing the miraculous for tens of thousands of years, if the cave paintings of Chauvet, Cosquer and Lasceaux (and many others) are to be considered. And we still can't put our finger on it all.
All of existence is a miracle, that it even is, that is the real mystery. Enjoy and celebrate that you have been given this opportunity, it needn't have been so. This is to live religiously, simply remain prayerful, grateful. God is the personification or objectification of that awesomeness, but to try to conceive of it is irrelevant, live it.
