Christianity and Buddhism

[Anonymous No.13585272]

I have been reading more religious texts lately and I know that this board is predominantly Christian.
Christianity seems to me much more state-related and emotionally burdening (all of us being sinners, having to repent; having to obey God; the dualism Me-God)
Buddhism, although a bit too passive it seems, seems more in-tune with all of the psychedelic ''revelations''.
I am just trying to understand both faiths. Help me out.

[Anonymous No.13585275]

>>13585272
>Buddhism, although a bit too passive it seems, seems more in-tune with all of the psychedelic ''revelations''.

???

[Anonymous No.13585283]

>>13585272
Not buddhism but close enough.
An interesting read.

[Anonymous No.13585293]

>>13585272
>Grug like buddhism so buddhism true, not Christianity

[Anonymous No.13585307]

>>13585293
>i choose my faith-based beliefs based on evidence which does not exist over what I prefer
Lying is a sin

[Anonymous No.13585314]

>>13585275
I meant the egodeath aspect of it.
Is there a similar concept in Christianity?
>>13585293
I haven't said I like it more. I am trying to understand them.

[Anonymous No.13585327]

>>13585283
This looks like something a protestant or Jordan Peterson fan would like.

[Anonymous No.13585354]

>>13585314
>Is there a similar concept in Christianity?
A few. Not being attached, being free of temptation, lack of self-worship. These, taken seriously, are ego death.
Then there is the mysterious wisdom;
>He who holds his life dear, is destroying it; and he who makes his life of no account in this world shall keep it to the Life of the Ages.

[Anonymous No.13585414]

>>13585327
Na, it's written by an Orthodox monk and respected by the clergy. It draws the parallels between Lao Tzu's teachings and Christ's; despite the former predating Christ by centuries and being on the other side of the world. The author draws to attention Lao Tzu's sincere search for Truth and accuracy relative to Jesus revealed Truth; the fundamental point of the book being that Jesus was the Tao incarnate that Lao Tzu was looking for but was born 600 years too early.
The final part of the book discusses the potential for China to adapt of Orthodox Christianity due to the compatibility between both religions as addressed in the book.

[Anonymous No.13585442]

>>13585272
As Solovyov, the great mystico-philosopher and friend of Dostoevsky, explains, the difference between Christianity and every other religion is Christ. Any syncretism which alleges that Christianity has no unique content worth considering ignores this obvious fact. Isn't it plain that not to recognize Christ as THE way, THE truth, and so on, and to say merely that, "well, Christ was one representative of the perennial wisdom all great religions were privy to," or that, "well, when Christ said that he didn't mean that a Buddhist or a Zoroastrian couldn't get to heaven," is to blatantly ignore and trivialize what Christ repeatedly says? Every syncretism trivializes Christ, in the same way that Islam and Judaism trivialize Christ and say that he was merely a prophet, merely a wise man, and so forth, and that one might as well worship Krishna or Odin instead.

Keep this in mind, OP. If your question concerns Christianity, as compared with any other religion, do not make the mistake of comparing them according to those categories you name in your OP. Fundamentally, whether you are Christian or not, to make any other issue than Christ himself the object of consideration is to dismiss the essential principle of that religion. Hopefully this clarifies the nature of the issue to some degree.

[Anonymous No.13585449]

>>13585442
Where does Solovyov talk about this?

[Anonymous No.13585483]

>>13585449
I have an anthology before me at this moment so I cannot say which of his particular works contains this specific point but I will recite what I have:

>At the present time there are many people in the Christian world, especially among the Protestants, who call themselves Christians, but believe that the essence of Christianity is Christ's teaching and not His person. They say: we are Christians because we accept Christ's teaching. But in what precisely does His teaching consist? If we take His moral teaching developed in the Gospels and wholly reducible to the precept 'love thy neighbor as thyself' (and it is on the moral teaching that emphasis is laid), we are bound to admit that this precept is not as such exclusively characteristic of Christianity. Far earlier than Christianity, the religious doctrines of India--Brahmanism and Buddhism--preached love and mercy not only for human beings but for all that lives. Nor can the specific content of Christianity be found in Christ's teaching about God as the Father, as a pre-eminently loving and merciful Being, for that concept too is not peculiar to Christianity. The name of the father was always given to the chief gods of all religions, and in one of them, namely the Persian, the supreme God was conceived not merely as a father, but as an all-merciful and loving father. If we consider the whole of the theoretical and moral content of Christ's teaching as expounded in the Gospels, the only thing that will be new in it and specifically different from all other religions is Christ's teaching about Himself, His speaking of Himself as the living, incarnate truth: 'I am the way, the truth and the life; he that believe on me hath everlasting life.'

[Anonymous No.13585507]

>>13585483
Damn that's interesting. I've studied liberal theology (the dominant form of Protestant theology in the German intellectual world in the 19th century) and that's exactly what caused the breakdown in liberal theology: it basically gave up on reconciling Christianity with Hegelism by the 1850s and then just became this sort of vague, milquetoast "just study the Gospel bro" that refused to answer questions about metaphysics or the metaphysical status of revelation/divinity from a Christian perspective, dithering between "Christ is the ultimate moral exemplar but that's all we can hope for" and outright "seriously dude, just don't ask questions, read your Gospels." I still can't quite figure out the extent to which it prefigured Barthian neo-orthodoxy or provoked it by being its radical antithesis, which Barth at least took it to be. So I wonder how much German theology Solovyov was familiar with. I also wonder if he's commenting on the underlying tendency of Germanic Protestantism to turn Christianity into an idealist metaphysics, the real root of modern perennialism, even prior to liberal theology and parallel with it.

Do you happen to know the name of that essay? Or at least the anthology?

[Anonymous No.13585589]

>>13585283
Interesting, and China is converting more and more. I wonder if those (kind of) ideas are at the root of it.

[Anonymous No.13585770]

>>13585483
>Christ's teaching about Himself, His speaking of Himself as the living, incarnate truth: 'I am the way, the truth and the life; he that believe on me hath everlasting life.'
Krishna says much of the same stuff in the Gita

[Anonymous No.13585814]

>>13585483
It is simply titled "A Solovyov Anthology" and it was published by Greenwood Press. The part I quoted is from the first section called "God and Man." In the next section he identifies what he believes to be the core teaching of the Gospels, saying that it cannot be any of the common interpretations such as non-resistance, obedience to God, belief in miracles, or the elevation of the Church above secular life. He says:

>[U]ndoubtedly, the central idea of the Gospel, according to the Gospel's own testimony, is the idea of the Kingdom of God. Almost all Christ's words are directly or indirectly concerned with making it clear--the parables addressed to the multitude, the esoteric conversations with the disciples, and the prayers recording in the Gospels to God the Father. All the texts bearing upon this, taken together, show that the Gospel idea of the Kingdom is not confined to the conception of GOd's power over all that is--power that belongs to God as Almighty and All-sustaining. That power is an eternal and unchangeable fact, while the Kingdom preached by Christ is something that moves, approaches, comes. It has different aspects. It is within us, and yet it is manifested outwardly; it grows in mankind and in the whole world through a certain objective organic process, and int is also taken by a free effort of our will. This may appear contradictory to those who worship the letter, but to those who have the mind of Christ it is all included in one simple and all-embracing definition according to which the Kingdom of God is the complete realization of the divine in the naturally human through the God-man Christ, or in other words, it is the fulness of the natural human life, united through Christ with the divine fulness.

Dostoevsky seems to furnish Zosimov with a very similar view. Another interesting point: Solovyov had a belief that the two Churches would come together during the Apocalypse. In my view, Solovyov's perspective can be distinguished from that of the Gnostics and their ancient and modern ilk, all of which desire in some form or another to **escape** the world, whereas true Christianity according to Solovyov means the redemption of the world and fulfillment in both the spiritual and the physico-temporal sense.

[Anonymous No.13585826]

>>13585814
meant to reply to >>13585507

>>13585770
At the very least, then, syncretism can apparently as little apply to Brahmanism as to Christianity. To get into the differences however would be a long discussion.

[Anonymous No.13586029]

>>13585272
Buddhism is hardly in tune with psychedelic revelations.
When people think that it usually means they think Buddhism, Taoism and Advaita are all the exact same thing.

[Anonymous No.13586435]

>>13586029
Who on /lit/ would think that!

[Anonymous No.13586650]

>>13585442
>>13585483
I see your devotion to Christ as historically unique and raise you a Hindu view on Christianity:

>Master expounded the Christian Bible with a beautiful clarity. It was from my Hindu guru, unknown to the roll call of Christian membership, that I learned to perceive the deathless essence of the Bible, and to understand the truth in Christ’s assertion—surely the most thrillingly intransigent ever uttered: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” 11
>The great masters of India mold their lives by the same godly ideals which animated Jesus; these men are his proclaimed kin: “Whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.” 12 “If ye continue in my word,” Christ pointed out, “then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” 13 Freemen all, lords of themselves, the Yogi-Christs of India are part of the immortal fraternity: those who have attained a liberating knowledge of the One Father.

and

>“Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus. . . . When Jesus heard that, he said, ‘This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.’” 1
>Sri Yukteswar was expounding the Christian scriptures one sunny morning on the balcony of his Serampore hermitage. Besides a few of Master’s other disciples, I was present with a small group of my Ranchi students.
>“In this passage Jesus calls himself the Son of God. Though he was truly united with God, his reference here has a deep impersonal significance,” my guru explained. “The Son of God is the Christ or Divine Consciousness in man. No mortal can glorify God. The only honor that man can pay his Creator is to seek Him; man cannot glorify an Abstraction that he does not know. The ‘glory’ or nimbus around the head of the saints is a symbolic witness of their capacity to render divine homage.”
Paramahansa Yogi, “Autobiography of a Yogi”

>>13586029
Every historical religion is a fleeting appearance inside of your mind. There is no tangible Advaita, Taoism, or Buddhism “out there” you can hold in your hand or conclusively say “this is it”. However, there are organic similarities between various thinkers and mystics of different cultures about certain similar ideas — group them under the name of “non-duality”, maybe — which some (like pic related) have pointed out. A crude interpretation could indeed say that people like those in pic related are simply saying “Taoism, Advaita, and Buddhism are all the same”, but it’s a bit more nuanced than that in reality.

[Anonymous No.13586782]

>>13586650
Are there similar passages in reference to the resurrection of the flesh?
>He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Not trying to patronize I would genuinely be curious to see such passages.

[Anonymous No.13586787]

>>13585272
>not acting like a nigger is passive

[Anonymous No.13586792]

>>13585272
>emotionally burdening (all of us being sinners, having to repent; having to obey God; the dualism Me-God)
It's a feature.

[Anonymous No.13587702]

>>13585272
Being forgiven frees you from the burden, though. It's just that the modern system wants guilt regardless and refuses to forgive anything, because people working to amend their sins work harder.
Until now that they are just broken.
Thanks secularism and white guilt.

[Anonymous No.13587733]

The Still Point: Reflections on Zen and Christian Mysticism

look it up.

also look into later works of Merton

[Anonymous No.13588172]

>>13585272

Buddhism is Materialism.

[Anonymous No.13588215]

>>13585272
>and I know that this board is predominantly Christian.
We can't have a Christianity thread without brainlets and antinatalists shitting it up.
Dawkins-like new atheists spam the board daily with múltiple threads pulling fallacy after fallacy and shitpost after shitpost. It's obviously a raid But If You DARE point the obvious You're a bootlicker.
Finally, neopagans and (((Mystics))) get to be all passive aggressive on Christianity and If You answer You're a zionist (despite the fact at most neopagans are KNOWN to be secular jews rediscovering religion).

You have a curious concept of Christian Supremacy.

[Anonymous No.13588414]

>>13585272
We have been blessed with an interesting thread for once. The book you seem to be looking for anon might be Thich Nhat Hanh's books "Living Buddha, Living Christ" Also, Elaine Pagels and scholars of Gnosticism (as in the mystical side of Christianity), and early Christianity, as well as scholars on Buddhism suggest the very same, namely: that there are parallels. Also, as far as I can recall, Pagels did a course in Princeton on the very same topic and is more or less convinced that there might have been some connection with the Early Christians the Buddhists.. Here's a Wikipedia article for a brief summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Gnosticism#Conze

Also, "The Sayings of the Desert Fathers" by Benedicta Ward is very interesting book too and seem to feature similar aspects, here's a assage from it:

> “Macarius said also, ‘If you are stirred to anger when you want to reprove someone, you are gratifying your own passions. Do not lose yourself in order to save another.”

> “The hermit said, ‘This is the way to be strong: when temptations start to speak in your mind do not answer them but get up, pray, do penance, and say 'Son of God, have mercy upon me.' ”

[Anonymous No.13588550]

>>13585314
bruh, in order to follow Christ for real you have to let go of your own personal ego and replace it with God. If that shit ain't psychedelic I don't know what it. Anyway, trying to learn buddhist concepts on a surface level is pointless, it's a rabbit whole taht will either suck you in or just a lot of 2deep4u nonsense that won't help you.
Don't try to force it, if you're one of the poor sods that can't help but fly towards the light it will happen anyway.
Also, all paths have the capacity to either offer us salvation or doom, so pick the one that is closest to you. I used to obsess about buddhism and all kinds of other stuff until I realized that orthodox monasteries offer the same shit, and I can actually go and live there since I can blend in with the locals.

[Anonymous No.13589483]

>>13588550
Not op but I’m in a similar situation, where do I go from here? Do I just read the bible... then blindly follow jesus? Or will reading the bible open up something for me

[Anonymous No.13589830]

>>13589483
No, join the church compatible with your beliefs and, secondarily, the closest to the traditions of your family.
There are many bible reading plans available you might want to try as well. If you have specific questions or goals.
Since this is /lit/, I would also suggest reading the early church fathers. The arguments on why a book was canonized or an idea was heretical will greatly develop your understanding. Also reading the Greeks and how they were brought into accord with the bible is, obviously, /lit/ approved.

[Anonymous No.13589898]

>>13589830
>No, join the church compatible with your beliefs
This is such a protestant mindset. Why not join the church that has the greatest claim to truth? You should find out what is true and then adjust your beliefs accordingly.

[Anonymous No.13589936]

>>13585272
Christianity is not interested in the state like Islam is. It simply ignores state authority as not relevant.

Buddhism like wise isn’t concerned with temporal things.

You come across as pretty ignorant desu. First thing that should catch you attention is that Christian monks and Buddhist monks practice the same way but never met or contacted each other.

Yet you didn’t notice this. Also, Buddhism is totally and completely against alcohol and drugs.

[Anonymous No.13590007]

>>13589483
If you believe in God I think the next step is to examine the claims that Christians make. If Jesus is who he said he was and really rise from the dead then that would mean Christianity is probably true. Treat the gospels as you would any other ancient, merely human set of documents and see what they can tell you.

We have four separate historical accounts of an event and they agree with each other on some crucial facts. Jesus was a real person and claimed to be God, he was crucified, and his followers genuinely believed he was telling the truth. Now because Jesus was crucified, it's reasonable to believe he really died. He was placed in a guarded tomb because it was in the best interest of the Jewish and Roman authorities to make sure that the body didn't disappear. We know for sure the body truly disappeared because the Jews accused the Christians of stealing the body. Jesus later appeared and interacted with multiple people at different times and places.

There's been a few attempts at explaining these facts. You could say the followers who interacted with Jesus after the crucifixion hallucinated, but that's not how hallucinations work. It also fails to explain the conversion of Paul was not previously a follower of Jesus and actually worked to prosecute Christians until Jesus appeared to him.

Some would say that the followers of Jesus made up the post crucifixion appearances in an effort to gain power or money but that also doesn't work because the followers prosecuted and martyred, and Christians as a group didn't really see any sort of power for hundreds of years later. There's also the problem of Paul that remains unexplained.

The one explanation that fits all the facts is that Jesus actually is who he said he was. The bible, when taken as a merely human document, shows that Christ not only rose from the dead, but that he established a church built on the apostles. The successors of the apostles, or the popes and bishops who inherited the apostles' spiritual authority. This church then had the authority to pronounce which human writings also had god as their author but that's beside the point.

There's quite a few books out there that make the historical argument for the resurrection of Jesus and they go into much greater detail than I can. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Habermas is good, Craig's book is a little more shorter and to the point if you want an alternative. Just avoid him when it comes to anything philosophical.

[Anonymous No.13590008]

>>13588172
Materialism can be wonderful, if viewed correctly. For myself, it is not the worship of Material, but the appreciation that the material world that I have. For it is the material world in which we are born into, through interaction with the material one can get to know themselves. It reminds me of the question I heard: who are you? you may answer in terms of your name, occupation, hobbies, skills, etc. but you will notice that all those things require the prerequisite of the external material world.

[Anonymous No.13590015]

>>13589898
This is such a retard mindset. Do you believe a bunch of untrue things? You are suggesting they go from what they know to be true, to things they know to be false. How would they chose which has "the greatest claim to truth" except with their beliefs?

[Anonymous No.13590029]

>>13590007
Lol please refute Craig’s philosophy for us anon

[Anonymous No.13590059]

>>13590015
There are some things we can't know from reason alone, things that must come from revelation. This is why you must discern which revelation is true prior to being settled on certain issues. If you've already decided on issues that must come from revelation, like the nature of God, then all you're going to do is find a church to fit your preconceived notions regardless of whether or not they're true.

[Anonymous No.13590437]

>>13590008
Assuming by materialism you mean that the universe and everything we know is ultimately just matter, I don't see how anyone can make sense of it because matter doesn't move itself. The wood doesn't turn itself into a bed and the bronze doesn't turn itself into a statue, as Aristotle would say. Something has to act on the matter to form it. In the case of wood and bronze you could say that humans are what change them into beds and statues, but the problem is that humans can't even explain their own motion since we go in and out of existence. Any attempt to explain motion results in something outside of matter.

[Anonymous No.13590590]

>>13588172
source?

[Anonymous No.13590596]

>>13589483
I'd say read the bible first, new testament preferably, old testament is fine but it becomes useful a bit later, get overwhelmed with questions since it's very metaphorical, and then check out a couple local communities and genuinely ask the priests for commentary. Ask them a lot of questions, and listen to the priests that seem honest and unbiased, I guess. If you get unlucky and you didn't like any of the answers remember about the Pharisees and move on. In general, monks tend to be better the less popular their monastery is, but completely inaccessible places are bad for us noobs since monks there genuinely don't want any contact with the world, so check the middle grounds, if that's possible for you.
>>13589830
this anon also give good advice, also when evaluating opinions online in general try to avoid both angry unsatisfied people and honey sweet "enlightened" folks, especially if they claim it themselves, unless they make a VERY compelling argument, logic always comes first.

[Anonymous No.13590627]

>>13590437
Everything physical in existence is composed of some form of matter, though its not just mere matter, in the sense of a mundane notion. more of a glorification of matter, on how wonderful it is. And if understood can be used in a manner that brings about further insight and understanding to ones own life.
When you say that:
> I don't see how anyone can make sense of it because matter doesn't move itself.
I'm not sure what you are referring to of what one can't make sense of. matter?
your post makes me think, thank you.
you saying that matter doesn't move itself, but we humans are made of matter. but we have two components that fuel us. One that effects all forms of matter, that is external influence. the second is an internal influence.
this internal influence can be subdivided into a few parts: 1. the divine, according to the individual a divine revelation from a dream/understanding/etc. could influence. 2. internal feedback. meaning if one was to perform an action in public, and the public enjoyed some parts of it, but other parts might be a little stale. then the said person will understand this, make note of it, and alter the action for desired results. this concept requires the action from the person followed by external reaction, then internal understanding of the reaction, followed by internal calibration, then an internal will to externalize the action, followed by external reaction to the calibrated act, and thus the cycle continues

[Anonymous No.13590636]

>>13590437
I enjoyed your thought. when matter is reshaped by human hands, where does the influence for the reshaping come from?
one answer could be culture. but even that can fall into what you mention, simply by then asking, where does culture come from?

[Anonymous No.13590658]

>>13585272
the true value of spirituality resides in the commonalities of the main religions. the internal derived truth based on these fundamentals is the key to enlightenment

[Anonymous No.13590675]

show me aharats and i will become a buddhist.

[Anonymous No.13590690]

>>13590059
How exactly will they come to know the revealed truth? Just sit in their room reading the Bible until the Holy Spirit stops by? They need to go find a community of believers. To learn with, practice with, and to keep in faith. Or the world with it's distractions and discouragement will keep them instead.

[Anonymous No.13590799]

>>13588172
t. braindead retard

[Anonymous No.13590805]

>>13590675
http://culadasa.com/about/

[Anonymous No.13590875]

>>13590596
>The OT is metaphorical

Heretic poltard

[Anonymous No.13591114]

>>13590675
https://youtu.be/Exb-9vO1FF8
also pic related

[Anonymous No.13592350]

>>13590675
Daniel Ingram.

[Anonymous No.13592360]

>>13585314
This >>13585354 OP. Christianity is plenty "psychedelic". There are several mystic traditions even. It's a more diverse faith than it's given credit for and I'm not surprised you would feel otherwise if all you've been exposed to is Anglo-profligate Protestantism.

[Anonymous No.13592994]

I'm a buddhist originally from Myanmar. I had a small Christianity phase when I was younger because most of my friends are Christians. I read the Bible twice but I couldn't find any truth in it. It felt like a mixture of multiple religions (zoroastrianism, euro-paganism, worship of Aton in ancient Egypt) with a high influence of Judaism and not much originality.

I chose to continue practicing Buddhism just like my fore-fathers before me.

[Anonymous No.13593012]

>>13592994
Nice, pal.
What your opinion on the pragmatic dharma? Ingram, Culadasa, etc?

[Anonymous No.13593853]

>>13585272
Friendly reminder that Buddhism/Daoism/Advaita and Christianity are complete polar opposites. And everyone should fight the Christians that are have now seen just how cringe Christianity truly is but are too cucked to just leave the religion and instead seeks to subvert other traditions.

Fight these Christians. Fight them wherever you see them.

[Anonymous No.13593856]

>>13586650
>>13585507
>>13585483
>>13585442
>>13585414
>>13585354
>>13585814
>>13588172

[Anonymous No.13593983]

>>13590008

No, I will NOT notice that.

[Anonymous No.13594183]

>>13585272
Dude, the christian message is not that you “must obey God”). The christian message is that you are a sinner and can never live up to God’s command by your own will (do you not know this? Do you consider yourself some infallible being? I don’t understand how someone could honestly not recognize themselves as sinners).

But by his infinite goodness God become flesh so that he may take the penalty of our sins upon him through his substitutional sacrifice, and conquered death and is alive in this world in the battle versus evil. In our faith in his infinite mercy, we are justified, and he may come to take place in our hearts as our nearest and most intimate companion on the journey of being transformed in His image.

Christianity is not emotionally burdening, it is emotionally healing in the realization of your own depravity and is the only message that offers hope for us fragile, faulty creatures. Surely we could never rise on our own.

Buddhism is just indian atheist nihilism. (Bruh, everything is an illusion, nothing is real, just realize it and wake up from the dream into pure black).

[Anonymous No.13594256]

>>13585272
>this board is predominantly Christian
Where do you get ideas this retarded?

[Anonymous No.13594301]

>>13585272
In short, Buddhism goes slightly deeper than Christianity. If you put mystical or "spiritual" revelations on a continuum, God is always found before emptiness. Christians tend to emphasise the God aspect and Buddhists emphasise the emptiness aspect meaning Christians will be inclined to stay at the level of God whereas Buddhists may go further. Emptiness is empty of God also so it's hard for Christian mystics to reach that level.

[Anonymous No.13594322]

>>13594183
That's always been my favorite icon.
I imagine the joy of what Adam and Eve were thinking:"He came back for us!?"
It's metaphysically beautiful.

[Anonymous No.13594326]

>>13594301
>Emptiness is empty of God
Privatio boni. Sounds satanic.

[Anonymous No.13594365]

>>13594326
It could be seen that way. Here is a scientific paper that outlines these "mystical" experiences. In it the author puts the participant's experiences on a continuum and as they reach the furthest location (location 4), experiences of union with God disappear. At that point you reach what the Buddhists mean by Sunyata (emptiness). http://www.nonsymbolic.org/PNSE-Article.pdf

[Anonymous No.13594382]

>>13594365
There's nothing scientific about a survey of peoples subjective experience or the assumption that a sample of a small number of people will scale up to the population at large. That's not an experiment and it's not repeatable. Please stop misusing the word scientific.

[Anonymous No.13594388]

>>13594322
So in sense God decided to "pull us up"? I am still at the Old Testament and he seems resentful towards everyone. Is Jesus God's change of heart?

[Anonymous No.13594419]

>>13594388
That "pull us up" is God's Grace.
But it requires cooperation from Man to want to be uplifted by their own will.

Hence in the icon, Adam and Eve see God and reach out to Him, but it is God who grabs them by the wrist and takes them with Him out of Hades.

[Anonymous No.13594421]

>>13594382
It's the best study of it's kind, instead of reading it and commenting on it, you instead chose to point out my misuse of a word. Do you think you're using your energy efficiently?

[Anonymous No.13594437]

>>13594419
Why is he so humanly agressive in the Old Testament. Why does he promise random people kingdoms and sons? Why does he punish people who held no serious ill intentions? Why does he test faith by ordering SACRIFICES of animals all the time? Why did he reject Cain's gift? Why does he push people constantly and then get PISS mad about it? Why did that change in the New Testament?

[Anonymous No.13594445]

>>13594388
Yes, the old testament literally translates to “the old pact/arrangement” between God and man, which was the pact between God and the israelites that they would have their lands insofar as they obeyed the Law (which demands nothing short of perfection, hence why the OT is a long story of Punishment. But it also prophesizes the messianic coming of a new ‘deal’. With the death and resurrection of Jesus the saviour and redeemer the old covenant based on obedience is replaced by the new life in Christ. The OT is included in the Christian Bible as the background story to the main message which is the gospel of the new testament.

Watch this
https://youtu.be/ocHm18wUAGU

[Anonymous No.13594451]

>>13594445
Jesus says Old Testament is valid.

[Anonymous No.13594461]

>>13594421
I'm not the guy you were talking to and I don't care whether or not what you're saying is true. The problem I have is you misrepresenting the evidence you have. You said it was scientific when it isn't. It could be the greatest survey ever conducted by man but that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't use the scientific method.

A lot of people will represent their evidence as scientific because they see that as more persuasive, and I see that as nothing but a verbal trick. This is either the case with you or you may not know what the scientific method is. Either way, time spent correcting error is time spent well.

[Anonymous No.13594484]

>>13594461
The nature of the experiences are subjective by nature, how else are you supposed to record them? I won't argue about what the scientific method means, the point remains that you have yet to read the study so whether or not it is "scientific" doesn't matter. Call it a "study" if you wish. I also confirm the results with my own experience, it's not something I have read and am passing on because I believe it to be true.

[Anonymous No.13594487]

cuck

[Anonymous No.13594501]

>>13594301
Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen refuted emptiness as the ultimate teaching, shentong (other-emptiness) is the true essence of Buddha's teachings, Buddha-nature is not empty of its own nature. Rangtong teachings on emptiness are only a preliminary step to prepare one for a higher level of realization by clearing away one's attachements to unreal phenomena. You have to have a really high IQ, be an advanced meditator and be really well-read in Mahayana/Vajrayana philosophy to really understand it but Dolpopa demonstrates in his Ocean of Definitive Meaning that the key masters of Madhyamaka and Yogachara actually held Shentong views and that these are the essence of the Sutras and Tantras as well.

[Anonymous No.13594502]

>>13594437
I don't think I'm in the position to answer the Will of God, but you have to remember that the people of the OT weren't the same as the people of the NT and contemporary people. They were base, animalistic, confused, and barbaric. They'd sacrifice children to demons. Their version of "hospitality" was to rape and sodomize their guests. They were not governed by morality and law as we are so accustomed to today; remember that Hammurabi's Code of Law was a revolutionary thing in pre-History. Imagine how societies were governed without this concept; probably arbitrarily and chaotically. You can look at Moses in Genesis and see how quickly his people devolved when he left to Mount Sinai to obtain the 10 Commandants.

So I wouldn't use the same measuring stick today that you would on past-humanity. Perhaps if you were in God's position, you'd make similar decisions after seeing what humanity was like back then.

[Anonymous No.13594536]

>>13594501
You're right, emptiness is not the end. First one realises God (being) then one realises emptiness (non-being). Finally you realise being and non-being are one and that is complete enlightenment. Also known as the Absolute or Parabrahman in Hinduism. You don't need a high IQ, all that's required is the acceptance of all experience so that one becomes completely empty of all resistances. Once you fully accept emotional experience, emotional experiences ceases.

[Anonymous No.13594540]

>>13594484
I don't care what the study says and I'm not interested in talking to you about it. My one single issue is you calling it scientific when it isn't. Whether or not there is a scientific way to test these subjective experiences or whether knowledge can be gained in ways that aren't scientific is irrelevant. The study you linked does not do it scientifically and should therefore not be called scientific. I suspect you called it scientific in the first place as a persuasion tactic and that's why I replied to you.

[Anonymous No.13594557]

>>13594451
Yes, but in what sense? In that he fulfilled the prophecies and that the Law is still valid, albeit not as a moral betterment program but as a Mirror.

[Anonymous No.13594581]

>>13594540
Then it's not scientific, I must have a misunderstanding of how the term is used. I'm interested in what makes a study scientific in your eyes?

[Anonymous No.13594616]

>>13594581
It would have to follow the scientific method. You have a hypotheses and you design an experiment to test it and repeat and adjust the hypotheses and experiment as much as necessary. If no experiment is possible or we can't think of an experiment that could falsify the hypotheses then we can't use the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.13594651]

>>13594616
Great, thanks.

[Anonymous No.13594674]

>>13585272
You cant cope with the fact that suffering for the sake of love is an expression of love? Repeating "love, love, love" while you are high on psychedelics is closer to being deceived that an actual Godly experience. Suffering is present in this world, you will not escape it. The prototype of a Godly man was brutally tortured, nailed to a piece of wood and murdered. What do you expect to happen if you folllow his teachings? Real things tend to be burdening at some point. Do you want the Truth or escapism in an illusion?

[Anonymous No.13594784]

>>13594674
>The prototype of a Godly man was brutally tortured, nailed to a piece of wood and murdered.
Skipped the part about the ressurection.

[Anonymous No.13594840]

>>13594616
>muh scientifg methog

>It would be difficult to encounter anywhere ideas that are more false. Who has ever maintained that there was a need for syllogisms to smelt metals, to crystallize salts or to shatter blocks? Did the mechanics, the opticians, and especially the numerous alchemists, contemporaries of Bacon, reason this way in forma? Such is Bacon's eternal ridiculousness: he wraps himself in his oracular toga to tell us things so simple that they could be called silly; and the crowd has no less belief that these pompous words signify something. For Bacon, there is only one science, experimental physics; the others are not properly sciences, since they only reside in opinion. These sciences are always empty of works, that is to say that the theologian, the moralist, the metaphysician, etc., could never put one of their demonstrations in a jar, put it through a filter, or under a hammer or through a still, etc.; therefore certitude belongs only to the physical sciences, and the moral sciences are only for the amusement of opinion. We must take great care not to believe that this system is only ridiculous; it is eminently dangerous and tends directly to the degradation of man. Undoubtedly, the natural sciences have their worth; but they must not be cultivated exclusively, nor ever be given first place. Every nation that commits this mistake will soon fall beneath itself. This truth was quite remote from Bacon; but what he was also perfectly ignorant of is that even in the natural sciences, any conclusive experiment is only a proposition, a necessary part of an internal syllogism; otherwise it would not conclude, which again obviously proves the existence of original ideas, independent of all experience: for man can measure nothing without a previous measure to which he relates himself. Even experiment becomes useless to him if he cannot relate it to a prior principle that he uses to judge the validity of the experiment. So in going back we necessarily arrive at a principle that teaches and cannot be taught; otherwise there would be progress to infinity, which is absurd.

[Anonymous No.13594865]

>>13594840
What are you quoting this for? I didn't say the scientific method is the only way to gain knowledge, and neither did I say it was the best way to gain knowledge. I objected to calling something scientific when it isn't.

[Anonymous No.13595050]

>>13594784
Yes but OP seems to have a problem with suffering and emotional burdens like its surprising

[Anonymous No.13595069]

>>13595050
my bad, m’guy

[Anonymous No.13595212]

The Bible really does not inspire me but reading biddhist sutras calms my mind and give me something to focus on. However, when I do feel faith in Christ, I feel more filled with Joy than dhamma and meditation give me.

[Anonymous No.13595450]

>>13594183
>The christian message is that you are a sinner and can never live up to God’s command by your own will
I always hear Christians saying this like its so profound and I always chuckle at it.

Imagine commanding people to do something they literally can't do.

[Anonymous No.13596859]

>>13586782
In the book I’m referring to? I don’t believe there’s an analysis or reference to that exact passage, no, but Hindu/yogic mysticism (and the book I was speaking of) speaks of finer bodies besides the physical body which adepts can materialize and project, and I believe in various yogic circles it’s a belief that Christ was such an adept and able to materialize a subtler body of his after death. Thus the meaning of the resurrection is not a literal physical resurrection of his body but that through this “soul” (or more accurately, souls plural) in us, death is conquered, and Christ was demonstrating this. This idea of subtler bodies in the human body is also found in traditions like Sufism, Taoism, and Vajrayana Tibetan Buddhism. The Hindu idea of subtler bodies was lifted by/elaborated on by the modern-day Theosophists, as well as by G.I. Gurdjieff (!), who has his own interpretation on the passage you mentioned, saying it refers to a literal rite of eating some of Christ’s flesh and drinking some of his blood so his disciples could communicate thereby with his astral body after his death by having some of the astral matter in these substances literally incorporated into their bodies. Of course, most Christians don’t like when people bring in other traditions (especially occult and esoteric traditions) in discussions of Christianity, but I’ve done it anyway! So make sense out of that whole mess if you feel up to it.

[Anonymous No.13596884]

>>13586782
>>13596859
(Same poster) — this is not to mention the metaphor of knowledge or experience as food for the soul used by some Sufis and yogis. So such a passage would function on another level as meaning that imbibing Christ’s teachings leads you to immortality (or rather, to the source of your being where you are already immortal, timeless and spaceless). That’s enough romancing for me about occultism today.

[Anonymous No.13597035]

>>13596859
>materialize a subtler body
>not a literal physical resurrection
This is a heresy and an instance which emphasizes the point I made in my initial post. As I said, syncretism is only capable of diminishing the significance of Christ by recognizing him as merely an adept, a fellow truth-seeker, and so forth. This is why a true Christian would have a problem with your occultism--if they didn't then they would not be real Christians. Here is Solovyov on what makes Christianity distinct from any old occultism:

>In limiting the work of salvation to personal life, pseudo-Christian individualism was bound to renounce not only the world in the narrow sense of society and public life, but the world in the broad sense of material nature as a whole. In its one-sided spiritualism the mediæval world-conception came inot direct conflict with the very basis of Christianity. Christianity is the religion of divine incarnation and the resurrection of the flesh, but it was transformed into a kind of Eastern dualism rejecting material nature as an evil principle. And yet material nature as such cannot be an evil principle: it is passive and inert--it is a feminine element receptive of this or that spiritual principle. Christ cast seven devils out of Mary Magdalene and animated her with His Spirit. But when the pseudo-Christians excommunicated the cosmic Magdalene from the spirit of Christ, evil spirits naturally took possession of her. I am referring to the way black magic and all kinds of devilry flourished at the end of the Middle Ages and at the beginning of modern history.

If you read the above carefully you will be able to discern a profound truth: that the pseudo-Christians and the syncretist pseudo-mystics are actually accountable for the evil in the world, which in turn fuels their contempt for the flesh. They are, at bottom, hypocrites, and Christianity became polluted with the same spiritualism when would-be Christians tried to attack them without invoking Christ. Therefore, they lost the power to, in the words of Solovyov, "lost the actual power of the spirit." A spiritualism which is incapable of purging the flesh is worthless, is it not? True Christianity can be nothing but the religion of the physical, fleshly resurrection. The "subtle" reincarnation you allude to comes from the influence of the devil, and no doubt he delights in such heresies.

[Anonymous No.13597446]

>>13592350
Kek

[Anonymous No.13598506]

>>13594183
>so that he may take the penalty of our sins upon him through his substitutional sacrifice
Only the following theories of redemption are acceptable here; Ransom ,Christus Victor, and Recapitulation. Penal-substitution fags, leave the board. Reformation fags, leave the board. Brainlets who don't understand that God offering Himself as sacrifice to Himself to satisfy His own supposed blood lust, please, just leave the board

[Anonymous No.13598516]

>>13594301
>
In short, Buddhism goes slightly deeper than Christianity. If you put mystical or "spiritual" revelations on a continuum, God is always found before emptiness. Christians tend to emphasise the God aspect and Buddhists emphasise the emptiness aspect meaning Christians will be inclined to stay at the level of God whereas Buddhists may go further.
Read St. Dionysius.

[Anonymous No.13598716]

In all this delving into the works of later writers who expound on the foundational Christian texts, I never hear much of any discussion regarding the various cults in classical antiquity and what exactly makes Christianity, which was a practiced in catacomb shrines, substantially different to other cults. Otherwise its rise could possibly be rationalized as a product of mere luck at establishing and promoting itself effectively at a time when there were a combination of circumstances that were advantageous to the propagation of the faith.

[Anonymous No.13598732]

>>13598516
It is like this
God-----Emptiness-----GOD
You are alone with God, one with God.
Even DMT fags know this.

[Anonymous No.13598744]

In all this delving into the works of later writers who expound on the foundational Christian texts, I never hear much of any discussion regarding the various cults in classical antiquity and what exactly makes Christianity, which was practiced in catacomb shrines, remarkable compared to other cults. Otherwise its rise could possibly be rationalized as a product of mere luck at establishing and promoting itself effectively at a time when there were a combination of circumstances that were advantageous to the propagation of the faith.

[Anonymous No.13598774]

>>13585814
Not really a refutation of Gnosticism, just a judgement.

[Anonymous No.13598810]

YOU JUST KNOW that only top brainlets can confuse Shitianity with buddhism

[Anonymous No.13598848]

>>13593856
I actually find these guys a little interesting, people who can be summoned simply by using certain keywords or discussing a specific topic in a thread. For example, that guy on /a/ who shows up every time someone mentions Azusa from K-On, just so he can make sure nobody calls her a slut, or that aussie on /b/ who shows up in every incel thread just to call people losers in order to impress his imaginary girlfriend. All of them seem to be mentally ill in one way or another.

[Anonymous No.13598979]

>>13590007
>The successors of the apostles, or the popes and bishops who inherited the apostles' spiritual authority

catholics are cringe

[Anonymous No.13599370]

>>13598810
It's all just Christians trying to subvert other traditions because they know Christianity is mental midget level but they're too deep into Christianity at this point and they refuse to give up its larping. But it's not anything new.

Christians subvert. Christians destroy.

[Anonymous No.13599411]

>>13599370
Actually the complete opposite is True. Hinduism had no concept of moksa untill after bhramins had to answer Davidian Christians in the 100-200 AD for instance and buddhism had no concept of missionaries untill It met christans too.
Christianity made the scientific method possible and changed the world forever. Even those who hate it accept It's premises and so will they do forever and ever. The modern socialist-liberal system is nothing but an heresy of Christianity.
Midwits however shall midwit forever. That is their call and curse.

[Anonymous No.13599631]

>>13598506
Are you denying scripture then? Cause penal substitution rhetoric is definetely there. I will admit that the merely forensic language that a lot of prots tend to exclusively use when talking about justification can become so centered on the cross as event that there seems to be little notion of salvation as a dynamic and ontological process. But it’s not either/or, we can still talk (and should primarily focus) on christus victor, but when it obviously is there you should atleast acknowledge and account for it.

>Brainlets who don't understand that God offering Himself as sacrifice to Himself to satisfy His own supposed blood lust
This is only hard to get if you are a modalist heretic.

[Anonymous No.13599677]

>>13595450
>>The christian message is that you are a sinner and can never live up to God’s command by your own will
>I always hear Christians saying this like its so profound and I always chuckle at it.
>Imagine commanding people to do something they literally can't do.
Sounds a bit based, desu

[Anonymous No.13599710]

>>13588550
>"Accepting Jesus Christ as savior is the same as Nirvana!"
>"That wacky Buddhist stuff is just too deep!"
lol

[Anonymous No.13600570]

>>13599411
yikes

[Anonymous No.13600921]

Can Atheists Summon a Demon?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssTefUlBSZk

[Anonymous No.13600973]

>>13600921
yes

[Anonymous No.13601032]

>>13600921
Why do you keep posting this everywhere? It's stupid. If you assume demons are real, then what makes them think they can know how to summon one? What makes them think they'll know if they succeed? If you were a demon there wouldn't be any sense in making a spectacle of yourself. This sort of cringy shit only makes atheists look bad because it sure as hell isn't going to change anybodies mind.

[Anonymous No.13601072]

>>13585272
I don't understand why people think Moses is some kind of spiritual paragon. He was just as much of a cumbrain as Mohammed.

Numbers 31:17-18 King James Version (KJV)
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

[Anonymous No.13601391]

>>13601072
Found the other day there are only two religions that have a negative view of dogs. Judaism and islam, the two religions people always have problems living around them. Ecclesiastes has some decent stuff but most of old testament is heavy metal lyrics tier blood and rape and shit.

[Anonymous No.13601882]

>>13599411
>Hinduism had no concept of moksa untill after bhramins had to answer Davidian Christians in the 100-200 AD for instance
That's wrong you retard the pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya Upanishads from the 9th-7th centuries BC describe liberation

[Anonymous No.13601899]

>>13599411
>Hinduism had no concept of moksa untill after bhramins had to answer Davidian Christians in the 100-200 AD for instance
This is on the same level as "Jesus was a yagi" bullshit

[Anonymous No.13601907]

>>13585442
Fuck Christ.

[Anonymous No.13601932]

If reality is an illusion or ultimately purposeless then what reason does a Buddhist have to philosophize or engage in science?

[Anonymous No.13602207]

>>13585272
christianity is the cooler buddhism