What is the difference between following the Dharma in Buddhism, and following Jesus?

The Dharma, or the law in Buddhism outlines a beautiful way of life, a moral system and a spiritual system.


Buddhism is of course Agnostic, where they do not say whether there is a Personal God or not.





Other than the belief in the Personal God, what in your mind is the major difference between what Jesus taught, and what Buddhism teaches?


Is there a difference?|||We become what we want to be by consistently being what we want to become. Righteous character is a precious manifestation of what you are becoming.





Righteous character is more valuable than any material object you own, any knowledge you have gained through study, or any goals you have attained no matter how well lauded by mankind.





In the next life your righteous character will be evaluated to assess how well you used the privilege of mortality.|||Dharma is the law that unites us with Truth. God and Truth are One. Dharma is the law that brings us to the Light of understanding. God is that Light. God is both, personal and impersonal, intimate and indifferent, in form and formless, personality and principle. In Truth, God Is All things and able to express Itself in billions of ways.





The differences are in the eye of the beholder. The goal, the Same, Clear perception of What Is.





Namaste'|||.


Jesus is the only way, truth and life !





ALL other religions are false, and will lead to the lake of fire.











.|||buddhism is far more accepting of its people and more loving|||I believe Jesus was a follower of Buddhism. To make Christianity exclusive in their claim of how one can "go to heaven", the Council of Nicene had to make Buddhism out to be of the devil.





"One by one the tide of time engulfed the sects of the early centuries, until of the whole number only one survived in its primitive integrity. That one still exists, still teaches the doctrine of its founder, still exemplifies its faith in works of power. The quicksands which swallowed up every other outgrowth of the religious agitation of the times of Jesus, with its records, relics, and traditions, proved firm ground for this. Driven from their native land, its members found refuge in Persia, and to-day the anxious traveller may converse with the direct descendants of the "Disciples of John," who listened, on the Jordan's shore, to the "man sent from God," and were baptized and believed. This curious people, numbering 30,000 or more, are miscalled "Christians of St. John," but in fact should be known by their old name of Nazareans, or their new one of Mendaeans.





To term them Christians, is wholly unwarranted. They neither believe in Jesus as Christ, nor accept his atonement, nor adhere to his Church, nor revere its "Holy Scriptures." Neither do they worship the Jehovah-God of the Jews and Christians, a circumstance which of course proves that their founder, John the Baptist, did not worship him either. And if not, what right has he to a place in the Bible, or in the portrait-gallery of Christian saints? Still further, if Ferho was his God, and he was "a man sent by God," he must have been sent by Lord Ferho, and in his name baptized and preached? Now, if Jesus was baptized by John, the inference is that he was baptized according to his own faith; therefore, Jesus too, was a believer in Ferho, or Faho, as they call him; a conclusion that seems the more warranted by his silence as to the name of his "Father." And why should the hypothesis that Faho is but one of the many corruptions of Fho or Fo, as the Thibetans and Chinese call Buddha, appear ridiculous? In the North of Nepaul, Buddha is more often called Fo than Buddha."|||The belief in a personal God is the key - and a powerful - difference. Jesus was God appearing in human flesh. No one knew that at the time, but in retrospect we can see it. When you follow Jesus you, therefore, you are following God, and knowing God - which is the opposite of agnosticism.