Buddhism is straightforward, remaining on a single path.
(i) Gautama seeks the way to the end of suffering.
(ii) He realizes his enlightenment, thus becoming the Buddha.
(iii) The Buddha teaches the Way and founds the Sangha.
(iv) He dies in old age.
I have no fundamental problems with either the teaching or the practice. I accept:
anatta (no soul);
karma (action);
good or bad consequences of either right or wrong actions;
dukkha (suffering);
mental grasping as the psychological cause of suffering;
right actions and meditation as the way to the end of suffering;
compassion.
I do not accept rebirth which looks like a hangover from Jain/Hindu reincarnation.
Christianity is more complicated, changing direction three times.
(i) Jesus preaches the imminence of the kingdom.
(ii) Jesus thinks that his vicarious suffering will initiate the kingdom.
(iii) He dies realizing that this approach has failed.
(iv) Peter proclaims that Jesus is risen.
(v) Paul proclaims that Jesus's death was the ultimate blood sacrifice (!)
(vi) Paul and other Apostles found churches.
The three changes of direction:
from Jesus preaching the kingdom to Jesus as the Suffering Servant;
from the trauma of the crucifixion to the proclamation of the resurrection;
the transition to a universal Gentile religion expecting not an imminent kingdom but a remote Second Coming.
Of (i)-(vi) above in Christianity, I sympathize only with (i) and that only in the sense that a new society and a new consciousness are potentially imminent.
