Actually your reply simply proves me right. Much of this is Western, modern nonsense parading as Buddhism. It is simply not true that you can make it up as you go along or you can do what you want or any of this trendy, liberal hippie interpretations that Westerners give to it. I'm far from an expert, but I certainly know that this sort of stuff is a great misunderstanding, and indeed a great disrespect of the Buddhist faith.
Clearly you're no expert. Neither am I. I've only been studying and meditating for 12 years.
There is as much if not a greater diversity of schools and denominations of Buddhism as there are of Christianity. There are schools who incorporate beliefs in deities into their Buddhism. There are others who don't necessarily believe in reincarnation. In order for anyone to take your statements on the philosophy seriously you'd need to be specific about what approaches you believe are 'trendy, liberal hippie' interpretations.
You'll notice in this thread that I haven't made any attempt to argue Catholic theology with you. I'm not a Catholic and haven't studied Catholic theology, so I don't pontificate.
Buddhism is very hard for the Western mind to understand, but it looks deceptively simple sometimes, it looks like it is 'all good man'. But it certainly is not that simple. Spiritual development is a hard path. It always is and as far as I can see the Buddhist masters knew this.
It is not that difficult for anyone to understand the basic precepts of Buddhism. That tends to be quite a standard response from western non-Buddhist religious types. Of course the deepest questions of practice and understanding of existence are complicated and require study, meditation and education. All committed Buddhists, and of course all Masters past and present, recognise this. I have never encountered anyone who practices Buddhism arguing that it's "all good, man". Never. Perhaps you could quote some of these laissez-faire 'Buddhists'.
Yes, some of the more externalised and rigid elements of modern, Western Christianity are missing from it, but that does not mean it is simply anti-religious in any new age sense. At its most mystical it is still no less 'religious' than Hesychasm or Sufi Islam.
Who has claimed it is 'anti-religious'? It's just that the word 'religious' doesn't really have any meaning in Buddhist terms. There are certainly many traditions in various schools of Buddhism who explore mystical ideas, however you want to define that word. There are no sins in the Buddhist tradition, merely actions, ideas and attitudes that help or hinder the search for truth and meaning.
I recommend Marco Pallis' work for a Westerner who aims at faithfulness to the authentic Buddhist, particularly Mahayana, tradition.
An excellent recommendation, but there are so, so many teachers and writers to choose from. I would particularly recommend
Stephen Batchelor's Buddhism Without Belief,
The Art of Just Sitting by
John Daido Loori and
Everyday Zen by Charlotte
Joko Beck. I also recommend this site....
Buddhanet's Buddhist Studies.
I think that because there is no concept of Buddhist orthodoxy, there is no conflict amongst Buddhist teachers, scholars, writers and practitioners about the 'right' and 'wrong' forms of Buddhist practice. There are as many forms as there are practitioners. In denigrating what you call 'trendy, liberal hippy' Buddhist practitioners, you show that you can't really come to terms with a philosophy without dogma, without theology, without orthodoxy. I suspect that is because you follow a religion for which these things are central.
So be it.