There are many differences here. Buddha never claimed to be a supernatual being with supernatural teachings. His teachings are pragmatic and self-focused.
There are of course differences, just as there are differences between four types of yogas in Hinduism; Bhakti yoga, or the path of devotion and love; Karma yoga, or the path of selfless service; Jnana yoga or the path self-knowledge; and Raja yoga, or the path of meditation clearing obstacles of the mind. At the same time, they are taking you to the same destination through different paths.
But there are also direct comparisons to teachings as I pointed out. For one thing, they do both teach a path to personal transformation to realize Enlightenment, and the things of those paths are very similar.
Jesus: "Do to others as you would have them do to you". "Love your neighbor as yourself"
Buddha: "Consider others as yourself"
Jesus: "If anyone strike you on the cheek, turn to him the other also"
Buddha: "If anyone should give you a blow with his hand... you should abandon all desires and utter no evil words".
Jesus: "Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. Bless those who curse you. Pray for those who abuse you. For anyone who takes away you coat, do not withhold even your shirt."
Buddha: "Hatreds do not ever cease in this world by hating, but by love. This is an eternal truth. Overcome anger by love. Overcome evil by being good. Overcome the miser by giving. Overcome the liar by truth."
There are other direct comparisons to the types of teaching and the similarities of the path to Awakening, or Enlightenment, or Salvation (all the same thing in how I see it), that are referenced here:
New book looks at parallel sayings of Jesus, Buddha.
Now regarding my views of how these exist in such striking similarities is expressed in that article. I do not see it as cultural borrowing, but rather the same Realization from the same Source:
A more likely explanation, Borg said, is that the similarity in their sayings mirrors the similarities in their experiences. The Buddha, after a six-year religious quest, had an enlightenment experience under the Bo tree; Jesus' quest led him to the wilderness and his spiritual mentor, John the Baptist. Both began renewal movements within their respective, inherited religious traditions - Hinduism and Judaism. And both were given an exalted, even divine status by the communities which grew up around them.
"The similarities of their wisdom teaching may flow out of the similarity of their religious experience," Borg said.
There are of course differences too, as you point out. And that to me underscores the legitimacy of each teacher. You would expect differences as they were in different times, different cultures, and different people. But the fact the Way taught, the Dharma is very similar speaks of the inherent, eternal or timeless Truth. These also parallel in Taoism and Hinduism as well, along with their own unique differences due to their historical and cultural contexts.
Christinsity doesn't always focus on what jesus taught and focus more on the benefits that involve the church, namely giving them money, and the believer is assured of salvation.
Indeed this is true. But Christianity is not Jesus, nor does it do well in actually understanding or following what he taught. Take Republican Jesus for instance, who hates the poor, shuns the immigrant, etc. Is that the Jesus of the gospels either? Christianity is not the Christ, by any stretch.
Will the Christian learn how to introspect and be aware of right action as a virtue?
That depends on their individual paths. Someone recently asked me what it was that makes some people interested in growing spirituality or opening to that in their lives, versus those who really don't think much about it (and I'll include there the throngs who actually go to church every Sunday and call themselves Christians). My answer to her was simple: trauma.
Meaning, something has to shake people loose to realize that all these other cultural and social substitutes, which includes religion itself, are not giving them that deeper spiritual connection to themselves, the world, and others. Otherwise, it's easier and safer to just be 'comfortable' with what just keeps them from avoiding the terror of deep self-introspection.
So will the Christian ever learn how to do that? It all depends. But that also holds just as true for the Buddhist, or the Hindu, or the Jew, or anyone else in any religion who doesn't actually enter into those the deeper places where we all have to meet and confront the Devil and pass through to Liberation.
We are all aware of how Christians fall way short of basic human decency, yet they claim being saved from hell.
Yes, I agree. Claiming religion can be what Buddhists call the "near enemy" as opposed to the far enemy. The far enemy is the obvious exact opposite of the thing desired, such as compassion vs. indifference or callousness. But the near enemy masquerades itself as the desired quality and allows you to deceive yourself that you're doing well, when you are actually not at all.
Being religious can be used to tell yourself you're a good person, while on the inside, your still full of rot and having done anything at all to clean house. "Whitewashed tombs full of dead men's bones" is how Jesus put it, and is a perfect example of religiosity being the near enemy of Enlightenment or Salvation.
There are many things I agree with what Jesus taught, and am more Christ-like than many fervent Christians. What is their response? I'm damned for not believing in an absurd story.
Welcome to the club, brother.
Some of the Dharmic paths do seem to promote a more positive attitude, or attitude adjustments. I think that can come to those who reflect on their own thoughts and actions. I've not really found much use for them. I'm probably more cynical than I should be but I am managing.
Yes, I sense in you some possible hangover from your Christian days? BTW, I said of myself recently to someone to describe my views as a "Dharmically informed Chrsitian", just playing with that language. But again, I still don't care to identify with any religion, Buddhism or Christianity, but Christianity is where I had the bulk of my religious training. I see myself as more trans-religion at this point.
I went through my "dark night of the soul" many years ago, and now I see my life as enjoying less drama, more stability, and more clear understanding of how things are. The ego wants meaning, and dogma is attractive to it. To my mind many believers approach their spiritual experiences as taking on loads of beliefs and practices/rituals, and does this really bring out an awareness and clarity for them? Or does it burden the believer with layers of concepts that define an ego like a cloak that suffocates the soul?
I'm agreeing with all of this.
In my experience I see spiritual evolution more fulfilling if the mind strips away the layers of dogma, and lets the soul breathe and experience, and experience free of loads of assumptions that tries to drag the mind with it.
Indeed yes. My favorite quote comes from the 14th century Christian mystic Meister Eckhart. "I pray God make me free of God so that I may know God in God's unconditioned being". This is known as the apophatic approach where we let go of all our conceptions of what God or Truth or reality is, and just let it simply arise of its own unfiltered by our minds trying to fit everything into the containers of our mental constructs. That opens us to see Reality as it is.
I think many belkievers see the struggle and burden of maintaining belief for the sake of ego as the spiritual path, but it's really just hard labor that offers little to the life as a content person.
You and I do tend to see much the same in a lot of ways.