What Does It Mean to be a Buddhist?

I have the good fortune of knowing someone who is Buddhist - not something I ever anticipated when I was still a fundie. Anyway. Ryan was kind enough to answer some questions for me and told me I could quote him here, so I shall. He's done extensive research on Buddhism, so I appreciate his willingness to share his knowledge. My questions will be in italics.

Interview:

There are three main branches of Buddhism. The first, Theravada, is the oldest branch that adheres to the historical Buddha's teachings. The second, Mahayana, includes most other forms of Buddhism: Zen, Pure Land, Nichiren, etc. They adhere to many of the Buddha's teachings but added some deities and new beliefs. The third, Vajrayana, is a form of Mahayana but is often considered a third branch because it's fairly different. It's highly ritualized with lots of deities. The Dalai Lama follows Vajrayana. I'm most interested in Theravada. 

Learning Along the Way

This blog chronicles a journey of spiritual discovery and personal awakening. I spend most of my words writing about Christianity and the Bible's fallacies, so perhaps to the outsider this blog seems negative in spirit. I see this blog as a very positive thing, though, because it is proof that we came, we learned, and we changed. Too many people are afraid of learning something new, because then they might need to change - horror of horrors! 

Since I made the decision to abandon my previous faith, I have seen and learned many new things that have opened up a broader world to me. As I read about people across the world, and the many faiths and worldviews that exist, I find that many things I was once told by Christian leaders are/were far from the truth. People outside of Christianity are in fact full of happiness and, gasp, joy (I still find it silly that Christians claim that only they can experience this "unique" emotion of joy).

Spiritual but not Religious

"Spiritual but not religious" is a term I stumbled across a few months ago (when I was searching for an appropriate term to describe my religious views). It's a rather vague term, and it probably leaves most people scratching their heads and wondering "Well... what on earth does that mean?" When I first saw the term, and then read it's definition, I knew it was the correct description of my beliefs. Before I write any more, please read this definition found in Wikipedia's online encyclopedia:

"Spiritual But Not Religious (SBNR) is a popular phrase and acronym[1] used to self-identify a life stance of spirituality that rejects traditional organized religion as the sole or most valuable means of furthering spiritual growth.[2] The term is used world-wide, but seems most prominent in the United States where one study reports that as many as 33% of people identify as spiritual but not religious.[3] Other surveys report lower percentages ranging from 24%[4]-10%[5]
Those that identify as SBNR vary in their individual spiritual philosophies and practices and theological references. While most SBNR people reference some higher power or transcendentnature of reality, it is common for SBNR people to differ in their ideas of the existence of God as defined by the Abrahamic religions.
SBNR is commonly used[6][7] to describe the demographic also known as unchurched, none of the above, spiritual atheists, more spiritual than religious, spiritually eclectic, unaffiliated,freethinkers, or spiritual seekers. Younger people are more likely to identify as SBNR than older people. In April 2010, the front page of USA Today claimed that 72% percent ofGeneration Y agree they are "more spiritual than religious".[6]
The term has been called cliché by popular religious writers such as Robert Wright,[8] but is gaining in popularity. It has even spawned a Facebook page[9] where members discuss the attributes of the SBNR lifestyle.

Does Belief Matter?

What makes a religion, or any other belief, good or valid?
People of all faiths can talk about their experiences, the good feeling or peace that their beliefs bring them. So, the question that always bugged me is: Are all of the experiences, emotions, whatever that people have valid, or is only set's real? Christians claim to be the only truth in the world, and other religions make similar claims. If only one set of beliefs is the truth, then the experiences of everyone else must be invalid. To a Bible-believing Christian, the happiness of the Buddhist or Muslim is somehow fake, because the only "true" happiness is found in Christ. The followers of Christ should, by default, be the happiest people in the world. All of their problems are simply explained as happening in order to bring glory to God, right? Then Christians should welcome their every trial and tribulation as just another opportunity to bring God glory. People with chronic illnesses and debilitating conditions should just accept them with joy, since they have such a great opportunity to bring glory to their God. Their beliefs sustain them, and are the source of their happiness. Everyone else in the world has beliefs, and their beliefs also bring them happiness and fulfillment. But, only one set's happiness and fulfillment is real... or is that just an exclusionary lie? Is the rest of the world simply faking their happiness and fulfillment? Or, horror-of-horrors, could be it be true that all beliefs are valid, in the sense of bringing the believer happiness and personal fulfillment (along with all the emotions and experiences associated with "discovering the truth")? Is all truth set in stone, or can it be relative? History is full of people who found joy and contentment in believing what we now know to be lies. Was their joy lesser than anyone else's?
It seems to come down to the act of believing in something, rather than what that something is or isn't, is what brings fulfillment and joy in one's life.