All of them seem to be right, all of them contain transcendental truths about the world. But they all contradict each other. How do you solve this problem? If Christianity is wrong then that means Christ was either a madman or a charlatan, but from the Gospels it's clear that he can't be either of those, therefore he must have been a holy man. But that mean that the Buddha was either a madman or a charlatan and that's also not possible if we read his teaching, through his teaching he found a way to overcome the suffering of the world, even if you ignore the religious elements, the life he lead was still the life of a great man, therefore he can only be holy like Christ. And we could make the same cases for Daoism and Hinduism. None of them seem to be wrong, but they all contradict each other in extreme ways. I just can't understand this, if God let Himself and His Way be known through all of them then why are they so different? There must be something we're all missing here
>>23818508Take prescient information from each. Christianity treats upon divinity and interpersonal relations. Buddhism teaches you how to stop reincarnating and fight the desires of the flesh. Hinduism is a massive collection of local traditions, and Daoism is a philosophy that uses an assumption of natural, unchanging flow to help students more efficiently engage challenges in all parts of life.
>>23818508>>23818528And what of Zoroastrianism?
>>23818576Listen, you can't just go ascribing significance to every religious tradition you happen to know the name of. That's no different than crystal-and-stars pop spiritualism. Either engage on their individual terms for analysis and work therefrom, or leave it.
>>23818579>>23818579I was just curious to what you'd say. Zoroastrianism would be similar to Christianity, using the good mind to affect the world in a better way, so that each person becomes a shepherd of the bovine of mankind.
>>23818508>but from the Gospels it's clear that he can't be eitherkek this is christcuck logic
>>23818596It is retardit. Aquinas said you shouldn't even make arguments like that.
how can they all 'seem to be right' when they all teach opposing doctrines >But they all contradict each other. How do you solve this problemonly 1 is correct. problem solved
>>23818591>using the good mind to affect the world in a better way, so that each person becomes a shepherd of the bovine of mankind.What the hell are you talking about? Christianity doesn't suppose anything like that to begin with. It suggests the world is doomed and full of ineffective, animal-minded men whose only hope for salvation is in divine intervention, necessitating the God who judges them to make a way out since He wants at least some part of creation not to be condemned to Hell. The fact that Christian behavior and ethics betters the world isn't due to intention or affection for the world bestowed by God, but rather, because of God-honoring intention directed towards the world as a form of religious obligation.
/lit/ is finished... This thread is just sad...
>>23818621>And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.Mankind is supposed to awaken the Christ entombed within oneself, when such a resurrection occurs, you are to use the Word to enrich the world of others around you.
they dont contradict each other retard
>>23818650>Mankind is supposed to awaken the Christ entombed within oneselfNo, an individual follower of Christ is told to "be transformed" (note the use of the passive tense here, as man is not the actor here) that he may act in his newfound role as a de facto ambassador for God, sowing the seeds of Christendom. The world is not the ultimate object here. Man's heart is.
>>23818508> I just can't understand this, if God let Himself and His Way be known through all of them then why are they so different? There must be something we're all missing herePossibly because humans fucked some of it up and some of the scriptures/canons, as selected, excised, translated, etc. over the centuries and millennia became like an almost planetary-wide version of “the telephone game”.If you take something like a qualified universalist view that sees divine or heavenly inspiration in numerous authentic religious and spiritual teachings, for me, that make sense and helps to bridge the gaps. Christ as a genuine Avatar of God, for instance. (Avātara is lit. “Descent” in Sanskrit, so the Descent of God into human form, or the Incarnation of God in human form). The issue possibly arose from the attempt to make, say, Christian teaching (to use it as an example) exclusively local, parochial, dogmatic, limited to inspiration from very specific times, places, and sources, even a sort of prejudiced extreme Christocentrism. Interestingly, in the apocryphal text of the Gospel of Thomas, Christ Himself is allegedly recorded as saying, “I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring which I have measured out” (from saying 13). If Universal God-Consciousness is a potentially omnipresent, omniscient, all-pervading fact which is, however, typically veiled or occluded from the mind and sight of the average person, but this Universal God-Consciousness occasionally inspires messengers to show others the way to Itself, or even sometimes directly incarnates Itself as a human to show others the way to Itself, this could explain and reconcile some of the greatest wisdom people can find in various of these traditions — Buddhism, Yoga Vedanta, even Sufism, Daoism, Christian teaching, and the like. But over-civilized humanity seems to have an engrained tendency to grab bits of these truths and then often make them exclusive dogmatic centralized cults which also give authority to the new expositors, ruling hierarchy, clergy and leaders of this new cult-version they’ve created.Also, I think the Buddhists are also caught up in a subtle dogmatism themselves, too, despite the bits of excellent wisdom in their traditions. The original teaching of the Buddha may’ve resembled something like an apophatic, negatory Vedanta (focused strongly on deconstruction, critique, negation instead of on positive affirmations), to paradoxically reach and show others how to reach a same endstate, except by deconstructing typical socially-engrained notions of things like “God” and “Self”, as even the socially-engrained concepts of these could have been becoming a block in people’s consciousnesses, as well as the Vedic tradition inspiring the creation of a strongly prejudiced caste society, which the Buddha also opposed.
>>23818650Don't reply, you fucking moron.
>>23818508>all of them contain transcendental truths about the world. But they all contradict each other. How do you solve this problem?Izutsu thought he could develop Ibn Arabi's concept of Wahdat al-Wujud to create a common ontological framework for Eastern religions and philosophy. This doesn't resolve some key underlining differences but indicates a common harmony between these traditions. Buddhism and Islam have opposing views on desire for example, but Izutsu and even Suzuki see them as agreeing on some ontological concepts. So you can think of it like physics or astronomy. They are all more or less looking at the same thing, understanding it in a simmilar way, but differ on how to interpret it, what it means for ritual, ethical principals, legal rules, rites etc. Hence the Chinese saying that the sages of the east and the sages of the west are one but differ on the specifics. Personally, I think this approach falls short when you realize not every Asian tradition can be fitted into a common ontological mould and guys like Izutsu seemd to think all forms of Hinduism are nondualistic which isn't true.
>>23818679>>23818695It's okay that you do not understand.
>>23818650fuckin based
>>23818706What book is that?
>>23818690Great post, wow. Can you recommend some books on the subject or on religion in general?
>>23818508>But they all contradict each other. How do you solve this problem?Look religion is based, but this "problem" of contradiction isn't a problem to solve. It's all just make-believe, memes, fanfic made by people across the world at various points in existence. This isn't a puzzle that can be solved. Hell, there aren't even puzzles pieces. Just stories made by autists that we take too seriously.
>>23818508Universalists are pests.
>>23818709I don't know if it's from a book, I got it from /x/. Pretty sure someone just typed it out on a single page
I think it's interesting how every other faith tries claiming Jesus as their own. Buddhists will say he was a buddha, Hindus will say he was an avatar of Shiva or Vishnu or something.
>>23818777No one is saying that here...
>>23818777Some even say Jesus was a jew
>>23818777Who the fuck claims Jesus was a Buddha? It's mainly hindus who appropriate other gods because they are schizo freaks who believe that half the people they meet on the street are incarnations of God. The Hindus actually believe Buddha was an incarnation of vishnu (although he incarnated for the purpose of leading people astray for some convoluted reason in that case).The only other religion that appropriates Jesus besides some schizo shit like cao dai or mormonism is Islam, which only does so as part of their garbage apologetics technique. Their religion actually diminishes Jesus by making him a mere prophet, but they try to use the fact that there's some guy called "Isa" in the quran to trick Christians into adopting their religion (of course this never works)
>>23818508I do not find them to contradict each other very much at all. I think a few things said in some of the Gospels might contradict a few Daoist, Buddhist, or Hindu viewpoints, but textual analysis of the Bible reveals it was never even intended to be seen as inerrant. Let's take a simpler example. The difference between Hinduism and Buddhism is basically that Hinduism posits Atman and Buddhism posits Anatman. Atman is posited as Brahman, or fundamentally an ineffable, unity which only reveals itself to the consciousness which has transcended all dualities. The unity of Atman and Brahman is described in the Upanishads such an absolutely transcendent unity that it even transcends the distinction of unity and distinction itself. On the other hand, Buddhism does not attempt to describe the confessedly ineffable experience of liberation in words, but instead deconstructs our everyday natural consciousness. What in experience appears to us as a "thing," including ourselves, is revealed to be a dependent arising conditioned by everything else, such that nothing has an enduring self or essence to be; all things are empty. This is simple a description of phenomenon, because only phenomenon are properly the objects of language. The difference is only this; Hinduism speaks metaphorically and demands faith in the guru, in return offering a vague inkling of what liberation is actually like. Buddhism remains silent, describing only what liberation is not, because it uses language more literally and relies on only the inferences of the listener.Similar lines of thinking apply to the fundamental differences between all 4 of these great traditions.Read "The World as Will and Representation for More," but remember:-Schopenhauer contradicts his own principles when he asserts that the will can be negated, rather than merely sublimated by a high expression of will-Schopenhauer's pessimism relies on the idea that pleasure is a purely negative state, which I can observe directly to be false in my own experience. Basically the whole rest is true.
>>23818508start here https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html + sort of related https://www.vatican.va/content/catechism/en/part_one/section_one/chapter_one/iii_the_knowledge_of_god_according_to_the_church.html
>>23818751Universalism implies Jews and Muslims are included. They are not.
>>23818508This is why mysticism is superior to religion.
>>23818508>Christ was either a madman or a charlatan, but from the Gospels it's clear that he can't be either of thoseRemember that Christ didn't actually write anything (or at least, nothing that survived). All we've got are second- and third-hand accounts from people with unclear motives (of which self-aggrandisement is most likely.)>he must have been a holy manOr at the very least, a wise teacher. But Christians rarely listen to what he actually taught, rather what priests and demagogues interpret as his teachings. So forget what Christians say; concentrate rather on what Christ said. It's not too far removed from the other philosophies you mention.
>>23818777Divine trips checked. Not necessarily ALL of the adherents or teachers of each of these sects, but some of them, definitely, yes. But first they have to be in the proper historical time(s) and place(s) to even be able to learn of Christian teaching, whether it’s from Jesuit and other Christian missionaries worldwide, or whether it’s from moving directly to the Christianized West; and, on the other hand, they also have to be open-minded and respectful enough of Christ’s teachings to want to make that judgment at all.Some followers of any sect/tribe you can imagine, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, or shamanic alike, can be just as dogmatic and bigoted as the dogmatic bigoted followers of any other sect you can imagine. Speaking of that (of some Hindus affirming Christ’s divinity and even reconciling His teachings with their own), my response to >>23818732 is, thanks, and I really liked Swami Sri Yukteswar Giri’s book “The Holy Science.” It’s explicitly a reconciliation of Christian teachings with those of the Vedas and Upanishads. The author affirms that he believes in both of these sources being divinely inspired and reconcilable with each other, as well as Christ indeed being the Son of God, or God incarnate in human form, or an Avatar of the Supreme Deity, in quasi-Indian terms. Sri Yukteswar Giri was also the guru and master of Paramahansa Yogananda, who was one of the big figures in bringing Indian spiritual teachings to the West in the 20th century. Paramahansa Yogananda of course agreed with this judgment (that Indian spiritual teachings and Christ’s were reconcilable), and so Paramahansa’s famous book “Autobiography of a Yogi” also delves into this. He also especially has a two-volume work, “The Second Coming of Christ” with his own commentaries on the Gospels, much like Sri Yukteswar Giri’s “The Holy Science” reconciling them with Vedantism and the teaching and practice of Yoga. They are very interesting, thought-provoking, and beautiful works of comparative religion.There’s also a somewhat less discussed (on here and in the West generally) but compelling 20th-century Indian guru or spiritual teacher named Haidhakan Babaji, who also affirms something like this universalism. [Some lore in fact ties him to being the Mahavatar Babaji described in Paramahansa’s works, but that part may or may not be true.] He didn’t write anything himself that he published, but others recorded his teachings and sayings.https://swami-center.org/en/text/teaching_of_babaji.htmlEven Wikipedia gives a surprisingly very good account of his teachings and life: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haidakhan_Babaji
>>23818508>>23819056>holy man>wise teacherHe claimed to be Son of God and the Messiah, it's impossible to consider Him just wise and holy. Either you reject Him completely (wise and holy person wouldn't lie) or you recognize Him as a God incarnate. Obviously, the latter choice is the right one
>>23819185>we are all God's children>Christ was brave enough to state the knowledge which all sages attain while fulfilling the requirements of the prophesies of the Messiah
>>23818732>>23819165Also, if anyone is interested, found the full PDF of “Teachings of Babaji”, as opposed to the other link I gave in that comment, which is an abridgment of it (though still fine and even great as an introduction to him):http://www.kriyayoga.si/wp-content/uploads/Teachings-of-Babaji.pdfJust 98 pages and very easily readable.
>>23818650Based Gnostic Schizo
>>23818508They all say become a holy man, abandon life of sensual desires and approach life with grace. Only then can you find truth in life.
>>23819193Not even a Christian but this is extremely dishonest.We are all God's children =/= we’re all God’s coeternal begotten Son.Did you miss the part where he is repeatedly called God’s ONLY begotten son?
>>23819840>trusting the Church
>>23819900show us those sources from outside the Church
I was raised non religious but was always interested in religion and thought materialism was nonsense, I spent years reading texts from all of these major religions, putting them into practice and constantly seeking. I had a big Buddhist phase which lasted several years, and in the end, I realized Christianity is the truth. I was guided to it, and anyone can be as well if they humble themselves.
>>23818508>All of them seem to be right, all of them contain transcendental truths about the world. But they all contradict each other. How do you solve this problem?Yeah that's form the POV of the average atheist who loves ie perrennalism.Buddhism works and the others do not lol. Hinduism is a lot like judaism, lots of dogmas created by a caste of privileged people who keep saying that the dumb ignorant idiots in the population need this caste of privileged people to connect to some higher reality.Buddhism is the opposite, the only claim made by the buddha is that he managed to end suffering by doing ABC, and that anybody else who does ABC will also end suffering.
>>23820040You don’t know English.
>>23818508Why is this a religion board now, wtfalso, the modern gospels were largely fabricated/altered by the church authorities for their own benefit...daoist canon is an expansive mess, of eastern alchemy, local pantheon, and panentheistism...>The Ethiops say that their gods are flat-nosed and black,While the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair.Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw,And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their godsLike horses, and cattle like cattle; and each they would shapeBodies of gods in the likeness, each kind, of their own
>>23820281lmao? what issue do you have with my post?
>>23820285You’re just stupid, sorry you had to find out this way.
>>23818508Isn't it obvious? That which they all agree upon is right, and that which they differ on is questionable.>le CS Lewis lunatic liar lord memeVery stupid argument. False trichotomy. People can be right about some things and wrong about others, and this includes the greatest geniuses of history.
They're all wrong. It's beyond retarded that the truth somehow is constrained to the handful most popular religious movements, as if something completely else couldn't be true.
>>23819185This is only true if you think the Bible is inerrant. In principle it's possible that he was just a prophet and his followers misunderstood him and called him God.
>>23818508>Intro to Buddhism (suffering/stress [dukkha] and the cessation/release [nibbana])https://youtu.be/TK-MbNj83NMhttps://youtu.be/HUngLgGRJpohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy-RI3FrdGAhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puetcrGQKvshttps://youtu.be/9qP7zWzDtuY&list=PLgu0hJSLkqCWfPCyIAeJWMxZmNwbHNE43https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/BuddhasTeachings/Section0003.htmlhttps://www.dhammatalks.org/books/FourNobleTruths/Section0003.html>Meditation (to develop awareness, calm the mind, experience pleasure [jhana], and gain wisdom that leads to liberation)https://www.reddit.com/r/streamentry/wiki/beginners-guidehttps://www.dhammatalks.org/books/WithEachAndEveryBreath/Section0003.htmlhttps://www.dhammatalks.org/books/RightMindfulness/Section0005.htmlhttps://www.dhammatalks.org/mp3_collections_index.html>Kamma (Skillful/Wholesome Intentions lead to well-being -- Unskillful/Unwholesome Intentions lead to ill-being)https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/KarmaQ&A/Section0004.htmlhttps://www.dhammatalks.org/books/TruthOfRebirth/Section0003.html>Dependent Origination (Why we suffer [ ignorance -> craving -> suffering ])https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/ShapeOfSuffering/Section0004.html>The Noble Eightfold Path (How to end suffering)https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/OnThePath/Section0005.htmlhttps://www.dhammatalks.org/books/IntoTheStream/Section0004.html>Nibbana (The end of suffering)https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/MindLikeFire/Section0007.html
>>23819966>show the sources!the source of the phrase is the Gospel of John, a clearly symbolic work. it opens by naming the Word of God as synonymous with Christ, who is incarnated as Jesus. taking this as a strong statement of Jesus as the only meaningful child of God, especially when, just a few verses earlier, it describes Christ as the messenger which bestows upon humanity the pathway by which to themselves become God's children.the centuries of theology following were fairly restricted by the widespread illiteracy outside the Church, which is constrained by the illegitimate doctrine of the Nicene Creed. between the immediate Roman persecution of Christians and the later development of a similar persecution of those defying said-doctrine, by the Church, expecting relevant sources to persist is unreasonable.
>>23821558You should make a Buddhism general.
>>23821681sorry, forgot a clause. first paragraph should end:>themselves become God's children[, is to grossly oversimplify a more coherent meaning].
>>23818508Christians are a mixed bag. They have a strong metaphysics, but only very niche portions of Christianity contain anything by way of yoga, contemplation, renunciation, and spiritual growth. Most protestants don't even have basic spiritual practice. On the other hand, you have orders like the Carmelites whose inner ordained circles are basically advanced jhana practitioners. John of the Cross was most likely an Arahant.>>23820005>be honest seeker>find Aryan wisdom, masculine renunciation>get older>become tired, soft, worn down by samsara>lapse into petty semitic devotionalismMany such cases.>>23821128"Wrong" isn't the right word. The mainstream of all of them are just very reduced, shallow, unserious versions of course.
>>23821704This is a literature board. Make one on /x/.
>>23818508>How do you solve this problem?By not being stupid and thinking:>All of them seem to be rightBuddhism, Hinduism, and Daoism are stupid.>therefore he must have been a holy man.>a holy manThat's all? You must be reading one of these perverted alexandrian or catholic or modern "bibles" translated from counterfeit books.The Holy Bible makes it clear that Jesus whose goings forth are from everlasting is God and he is the only begotten Son of the Father and that he's the only way to the Father, and that any who would try to enter any other way are robbers and thieves, including those who boast and glory in their works who believe a false gospel with works rather than believing the gospel of the grace and gift of God that Jesus paid it all and he bore our sins and not our own rituals bearing our sins or like the idolatrous catholic's sacraments or the latter day satans and their works gospel for their false god from the starbase kolob. >Buddha was either a madman or a charlatan and that's also not possible if we read his teaching, through his teaching he found a way to overcome the suffering of the world, even if you ignore the religious elements, the life he lead was still the life of a great man, therefore he can only be holy like Christ>holy like ChristBuddha was a sinner and he's burning in hell. The life he led was one of a fool.>None of them seem to be wrongOne of them literally worships a "celestial serpent".>if God let Himself and His Way be known through all of themHe didn't. There's no communion between Christ and Belial, or the temple of God and idols.>>23818596OP's obviously not a Christian, reprobate.
>>23818690>>23819056It's always so obvious when you guys have never read the Bible or when you know nothing of the preservation and history of the Bible. >>23818706Jesus never said that.>>23818777False religion and cults abound. Look into the realm of Christianity and you'll see many more false prophets coming in the name of Christ but can't bear any fruit since they're not even saved, they don't know the gospel.
>>23819185The people who like to talk about liking Christ's teachings but they deny all his doctrine (teachings) are always ignorant to what Christ taught. All they know are the positive-only verses that get put on cards or or perversions of Scripture as have already been posted or the "judge not" out of the verse, ignoring the context, and that it's about hypocrites, like judging others for judging while claiming it's wrong to judge. Or all the ecumenical verses that the ecumenical churches won't preach on.>>23819193>>23819840>>we are all God's childrenWrong.See John 1:12, you become a child of God by faith in Christ Jesus, meaning you weren't a child of God until you believed.
>>23820279>the modern gospelsThe King James Bible is the Holy Bible divinely preserved and faithfully translated into English. It's the inerrant, inspired words of the living God in English. Don't use "modern" versions.>>23821128>"They're wrong">has no truth to share>>23821182The modern bibles they promote attack those doctrines, the manuscripts they promote were perverted by people who made the same attacks. They won't even publish a "bible" based solely on some of their manuscripts because they're so weird and are missing so much. Like a frog in hot water, you can't turn up the heat too much, but they get weirder and more heretical every year and with every new edition.
>>23818508>we wuz transcendental perennial truths n sheeeetFuck off.
>>23822562>follow da rulez n keep ur head down n u go 2 heavenFuck off.
>>23818508>Theism>Deism>Deism>Deism
I'm a theist but not a Christian nor Jew because I don't believe in the Old Testament I like Taoism but I only enjoy reading ZhuangziAnyway I personally see all doctrines which don't affirm an absolute beginning of the universe and a creator or creators as incorrect doctrinesMy family are Buddhist but I think Buddhism is incorrect because although the Buddha tried to dismiss questions about creators, it clearly follows that the system of samsara is the only eternal system there is and thus no true ultimate creator, only deluded creators who pop into the world and then die
>>23822638I can’t tell you what’s right, but you’re confusing samsara with being.
>>23822700>Saṃsāra (Sanskrit: संसार, Pali: saṃsāra; also samsara) in Buddhism and Hinduism is the beginningless cycle of repeated birth, mundane existence and dying againI don't think I confused it?
>>23822706It cannot be thought of as a created thing with an ultimate creator. There is no being in samsara.
>>23822755I never said it's a created thing with an ultimate creator, I said that it's eternal
>>23822797>I personally see all doctrines which don't affirm an absolute beginning of the universe and a creator or creators as incorrect doctrinesI’m saying the concept of samsara isn’t necessarily in contradiction with this, although a true Buddhist would consider this line of questioning moot
>>23822583t. Guenon sissy
>>23822832Well I agree that samsara doesn't contradict it What contradicts it is the fact that in the suttas the Buddha doesn't affirm that the universe has a beginning which was caused by a timeless omniscient omnipotent and omnibenevolent creator GodFor example one of the Buddha's famous unanswered questions was about whether the universe had a beginning or not
>>23822919It wouldn’t make sense to do that when he preached against faith so yeah
>>23821937>>petty semitic devotionalismAs I said, you are blinded by pride and have not earnestly sought the truth.Samsara doesn't exist. Inquire with an open heart, I know exactly how you feel because I used to react like this to the Truth as well.
>>23822041Buddhism is the peak of what can be achieved by humanity without God revealing himself through the Son. In essence, it's the ultimate Satanic doctrine in the literal sense (godless salvation), but Siddhartha was just mistaken and led astray by believing he could arrive at Truth through rational inquiry. If Christ went to preach in hell, surely Siddhartha was reasonable enough to realize he was wrong.
>>23823132>but Siddhartha was just mistaken and led astray by believing he could arrive at Truth through rational inquiryhuh? there's no rationality used in buddhism, simply because rationality is a tool by and for rationalists, who never achieved anything, especially their own goal of ''finding truth and secure knowledge'', and it's impotent to end suffering anyway
>>23823113Well, you capitalised the T so you must be on to something.
>>23823135Buddhism is a purely rational framework where logical conclusions are drawn from observing the reality around us. You attain refined states of consciousness (Jhanas) then apply this inquisitive method of observation to them to progressively realize the "truths" cited by Siddhartha. Of course it also relies on unprovable axioms like every other religion, but it (especially in the west) prides itself as a religion whose core tenets can be rederived from observing the natural world, which isn't entirely false.>>23823137The Way, the Truth and the Life, yes.
>>23823150Buddhism isn't empirical or observational. It just assumes enlightenment is internally driven. The stuff about sense and aggregates in suttas is just via negativa.>but it (especially in the west) prides itself as a religion whose core tenets can be rederived from observing the natural worldIt does no such thing outside the West though. Western Buddhists are almost always misled and I don't mean to sound pompous in saying this. They tend to be under the impression that Buddhism is philosophical. They also just attribute far too much rationalism to the thing when it's actually about rejection of views and logic in the first place. Buddhism is even closer to the martial arts than it is to philosophy.>8. He who imagines the existence of “equal,” “superior,” or “inferior”>Would contend with regard to that.>To one not vacillating among three distinctions>There occurs no “equal” or “superior.”>9. What would that holy man argue saying, “It is true”;>Or with regard to what would he contend saying, “It is false”?>For whom there is neither equal or unequal,>With whom would he engage in argument?
>>23823166I agree that western Buddhists tend to be misled and significantly underplay the cultural aspect and ritualism involved in eastern Buddhism, regardless of the branch. Neither Theravadins nor Mahayanin/Vajrayanin would in Thailand or Tibet or wherever would ever call their religion a "scientific" or "provable" one.Yes, I understand Buddhist nominalism, the two truths doctrine and so on, that's actually what initially drew me to it in the first place. I don't even believe Buddhism is false per se, the teachings of Siddhartha are valid insofar as they will indeed diminish suffering. I simply have come to believe that this is not the goal, and that Christianity provides a fuller, perfect teaching that will lead one to Truth.Anyway, I disagree about this>Buddhism isn't [...] observationalIn Theravada at least, investigating the contents of the Jhanas as a phenomenological experience is the cornerstone of spiritual achievement. Sotapanna is realized when the Jhana is stabilized, then analyzed which leads to the realization of anatta, dukkha, anicca. Theravada Buddhism is more directly observational than philosophical.
>>23823190>I simply have come to believe that this is not the goal, and that Christianity provides a fuller, perfect teaching that will lead one to Truth.You seem like an extremely reasonable person by /lit/ standards so I'll ask: why did you come to believe this?
>>23823215It was progressive, in the sense that there was no single defining event which immediately made me believe, it was more like a series of strange and meaningful things happening in my personal life which at some point I wasn't able to disregard anymore.I had massive negative preconceptions about Christianity and a surface-level understanding of it, which was dispelled as I started to seek knowledge with an open heart. I came to the conclusion that someone named Jesus died and was resurrected, that this was true, and so were the other things He said.If this all seems vague or irrational, it's because it is; I'm sorry that I can't provide something more grounded, but I personally wasn't ever swayed by the historical arguments such as "the Apostles were tortured to death and never renounced what they said, thus what they said must've been true" and so on. They're compelling testimonies for sure, but I don't think the way to approach the Truth is through the expectation of empirical proof. What led me to become certain that Christ is the keystone of existence, and that there exists within Christianity a mystery that nothing else approaches, weren't historical accounts or relics, but the path I was set upon, while being open to receiving truth while ridding myself of pride or pretense.
>>23818629Sometimes I like to think 4chan is just children playing with keyboards.
>>23823262Hmm, I see, thanks. I believe that if your karma is pushing you in a certain direction then your long term interests lie in following its pull anyway, even if it seems unconventional from a rational view. It’s a form of mysticism I have where often I see more rightness in wrong view than in traditional notions of right view if the wrong view is right for the person in question - which aligns with more esoteric mahayana teachings I think. Volition only really arises by virtue of the karmic milieu we’ve drawn ourselves into and this yarn is unravelled by equally muddy and jerryrigged means from my point of view. So godspeed. Apologies if this doesn’t make sense. I’m only half awake.
>>23823303I'm less familiar with esoteric Mahayana than I am with Theravada, so I can't say. Either way, all the best to you.
you have to be insane to believe the jewish story that jews are special people and a gateway to higher reality
>>23823316>jews are special people and a gateway to higher realityThey aren't. Everything in the Old Testament paves the way for the coming of Christ.
>>23823326That is only if you think the New Testament is infallibe.
>>23824378That's faith.
>>23824402No, you can believe in god and toss out NT crap. Catholics do it all the time, last time they revised the bible was in the 70s with vatican ii
>>23825830Surely you can show us exactly where and how Catholics changed the bible during VII... right, anon?
>>23825838ya when they changed their doctrine of salvation again, like they changed before with indulgences, and again when they invented the new covenant
>>23825853>exactly where and how
>>23825859Uh, you do realize that vatican ii enshrined the legitimatecy of the protestant bible(s)? quite a large change to the text, replacing it with a foreign text lol
>>23825867
>>23825870i know, what a kooky sect of an already kooky sect of judaism
>>23825874>cites zero sources>not a single line from the actual V2 documents>"yeah bro they totally changed teh bible bro"
>>23825879>The separated churches and communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. The Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation>Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful. Since access to sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful, the Church by her authority and with maternal care sees to it that suitable and correct translations are made into different languagest. ecumenical council 1964, Unitatis Redintegratio
>>23825885And where is the bible revision in this?
>>23825889where they are commanded to translate and spread all all the protty and ortho books? kek and they do it too like good slaves that they are
>>23825899nigga what
I tried to tell some Jewish Israeli posters on /pol/ about Christianity earlier and they were very hostile and abusive towards me.I also have gotten very similar responses from Muslim posters in the past.
>>23825924Tell them what?
>>23826107about Jesus Christ and how He is the God of the Old TestamentThey got really mad and they started saying really mean nasty things to me.
>yoooo like... all religions... are like kinda spiritual and shieeet... it's all about you know... loving the world and being at peace with the flow and shieeet you know
>>23818508Buddhists and Hindus spent 2500 years hotly debating and ridiculing each other only for westoids to look at them, not understand anything beyond some superficial "reality is an illusion" and then claim that they are both the same.
>>23827750Well, they're both wrong, so the differences don't really matter.
Buddhism and Hinduism literally posit an impersonal absolute that makes any and all knowledge totally impossible, and that includes the knowledge of said impersonal absolute. Christianity is literally the only religion in existence where adherents can not only claim to know things but give an account for how they know what they want and have it actually make sense. The rest appeal to monism, dualism, intuitionism, or they just refuse to answer and imply what would necessarily equate to nothing more than aping the Christian trinity. If you’re not a Platonist, you should never be a Buddhist.
>>23827750It’s not remotely superficial. Do Buddhists affirm non-dualism? If so, what specifically do they affirm then? If it’s monism, knowledge is impossible. If it’s dualism, they’re lying. If it’s anything else, it’s just aping the Christian account by default. The “reality is illusory” meme is unironically devastating for Buddhism or Hinduism. Only Indians could debate something so stupid for 2500 years. It renders all epistemology impossible. There’s nothing to debate.
>>23823316The Jews aren’t special people, retard. They WERE special people until Christ came to let them and the Pharisees that they are not with God, have never been with God, that the new special people are Christians. The sort of “special” that the Jews are in Christianity is nothing more than the historical bearers of a prophecy and more specifically those who had prophecy but deliberately transgressed it. They are special in being more like the bad guy than the good guy. You don’t even know that because you have no clue what the Christian story is.
>>23824378It’s inspired by God. Of course it’s infallible. >>23825853That’s not changing the Bible retard. That’s changing your interpretation of the Bible. You’re equating the scripture being infallible with the people reading it being infallible.
>>23818777He was THE guy, my guy. He was literally the Son of God and literally lived in space and time and literally died for your sins and literally conquered death itself.
>>23827835>The “reality is illusory” meme is unironically devastating for Buddhism or Hinduism. Only Indians could debate something so stupid for 2500 yearsNeoplatonism and Gnosticism were hugely popular in the Eastern Mediterreanean and made occasional inroads in medieval Western Europe, actually.>It renders all epistemology impossible. There’s nothing to debate.How and why?
>>23827858And? There have always been heretics in Christiandom. What is your point? How are you actually asking how it renders epistemology impossible? If everything is in reality illusory so too is your realizing that everything is illusory. You literally cannot draw logical inferences or make distinctions. It becomes totally impossible to know anything with any degree of certainty at all. Buddhists try to get out of this by going “Oh well I don’t doubt that I doubt” but this statement is completely retarded because it assumes a whole slew of claims beyond the mere statement of phenomena. It’s literally Descartes’ I think therefore I am, but the retard version, and Descartes’ was already pretty retarded and basically anyone who engages with epistemology at all acknowledges this by the way. It’s begging the question at best. How do you know you doubt? LOL. It’s kind of a funny, really.
>>23823132Why does your god need a "son" to up in some middle eastern desert shanty town to reveal his "truth"? Why couldn't he reveal his truth simultaneously to everyone in the civilized world at the time if it's that important? Why, is not omnipotent enough to do it? Christianity and every Semitic religion sounds like a cult started by a conman, no different from Scientology.
>>23824402Faith is blind belief without evidence. Stop using the word faith as if it's some kind of virtue. If you're going to claim your religion is the only way and everyone who doesn't believe it deserves to burn in hell for eternity if not forced to convert at the blade tip, then you better have some solid evidence to back it up.
>>23827870>There have always been heretics in Christiandom. So you understand that it wasn't only jeets discussing this?The rest of your post seems quite schizophrenic desu.Regardless, Indian religions understand that material reality is an illusion and a mere reflection of an absolute reality that is non-material in nature. They believe that the illusion of physical reality prevents you from understanding the nature of your true self.What exactly is that true self is the point at which Buddhists and Hindus come to categorically different answers.>If everything is in reality illusory so too is your realizing that everything is illusoryWhy would that necessarily be the case? At that point you aren't just discussing with Buddhism and Hinduism, you are also arguing against Plato.
>>23827750Hinduism is literally just buddhism + pagan tribal customs
>>23827845The fallible catholics then made plenty of errors when they pick and chose what bible books were infallible and what weren't
>>23818508Choose one and shut up, thats how you solve it.You are not going to convince anyone of anything, faith comes from within.I became a Christian of my own volition in my middle age even though my parents loathe all religions.
>>23827842>they were special people>but they were never with God
>>23827835>If it’s monism, knowledge is impossibleTrue knowledge IS impossible to the Buddhist. Hell, even Kant said we will never have a single shred of knowledge of the thing-in-itself no matter how much science advances.
>>23827893>blindWrongYou dont see faith in spiderman, there are enough hints that it might be indeed the truth, for some people its never enough "proof" so they never believe. But it is not blind, it has reasoning.
>>23827893>everyone who doesn't believe it deserves to burn in hell for eternityI never met any religious person that believes this. At most they are sad that you cannot see what they see or believe they can see. But Im not american maybe you have very crazy zealots over there.>solid evidenceThis is impossible, even if God appeared in front of you youd still dismiss it as aliens from venus messing with your mind, thats why proof is not possible, thats why faith is always needed
>>23828020>even if God appeared in front of you youd still dismiss it as aliens from venusHow do you know this? As it stands now I have received absolutely zero communication from God, any little bit would be a start.I did get some warm feelings in church as a Christian but I had the same feelings when I git into Buddhism later. 2 incompatible religions give me fuzzy feels, this most likely means both are just psychological effects.
>>23827904Of course. Platonism, Islam, etc. have the same problems. I think if you think what I did is schizophrenic you just haven’t engaged with philosophy enough. It’s a simple argument. If you posit an impersonal absolute, you necessarily have no means to know anything at all with certainty about that absolute and thus about the things which it would provide epistemological foundation for. You’re trying to get to certitude about an absolute reality via a necessarily illusory reality. It’s impossible and makes no sense. That you even have a true Self is rendered to be question begging. How do you even know? You can’t answer that question. That’s why all Buddhism is just intuitionism at bottom, a vague notion that this is what it is. But it’s entirely possible that your feeling is just delusion since you can’t give an account for its truthfulness. And Hinduism is just…well, demon worship to be frank.You’re correct at least that I am also arguing with Plato. Christianity denies all monistic doctrines, all doctrines that posit an impersonal absolute, all doctrines that don’t reveal specifically the sort of God that can make knowledge possible, which is the Christian God.
>>23827835>Do Buddhists affirm non-dualism?No, they affirm the fabrication of the aggregatesbuddhists don't care about dualism, nondualism, monism or whatever idiocy rationalists came up with to pass the time while deluding themselves they know how reality works
>>23827995Now you’re just conflating different Catholics, which is another fallacy. Not only were they different people, but any one person can be right in one instance and wrong in another. >>23828005Special in a particular sense, obviously. Do you not know English?
>>23828041Well you’re half right. Not all Buddhists affirm non-dualism. Some do. But you seem to have a misunderstanding here. It is not possible to not be a monist, not be a dualist, not be something. You either believe in one thing, two things, three things, etc. or you believe in no thing, nothing. If you believe in nothing, you’re not really a Buddhist. You’re nothing. So why are we even talking?You see? This is the rhetorical sophistry Buddhists will pull. “I don’t believe in these categories” when they actually do. It’s nonsense to say you don’t.
>>23828041>>23828049By the way, believing in absolute nothingness is the worst possible thing you could believe because this most obviously renders any and all particular beliefs fundamentally unjustified. Nothing is really. Nothing can be known. Ergo, you can’t have any positions at all and call them true and mean it.
>>23828052Absolute nothingness can't be "believed" in; that's paradoxical. Buddha rejected belief altogether. It's something you train yourself to sit with long enough, in mind and body, until it shines through. Those who are adamant on being philosophy wordcels should simply dismiss it and stay away rather than get caught up in "refuting" it.>>23827829>adherents can not only claim to know things but give an account for how they know what they want and have it actually make senseThat's how you destroy the world btw. The infallible valuations of phenomena you believe in are couched in talmudic word magic.
>>23828035>How do you know this?Luke 16: 27-31
