It depends really. I grew up Buddhist and things were chill. Speeches I heard at temple were just telling us to be good people, be nice to people no matter their race or gender stuff like that, don’t do harm to people or animals.
Even Abrahamic religions have good and bad spiritual leaders, some are cult like and others are just trying to get people to have decent morals.
Late to the party, and no offence to buddhism, but i always loved this quote from Terry Pratchett
“Master, what is the difference between a humanistic, monastic system of belief in which wisdom is sought by means of an apparently nonsensical system of questions and answers, and a lot of mystic gibberish made up on the spur of the moment?"
Wen considered this for some time, and at last said: “A fish!”
And Clodpool went away, satisfied.”
― Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time
I kinda lost my interest in Buddhism when I learnt that according to traditional Buddhist lore, women can’t reach Nirvana.
When they’ve collected enough good karma, they are reborn as a man.
I mean aint that different from what the old testament teaches. Not saying the choice is between Christianity and Buddhism, but I’d assume most religions have patriarchy vibes baked into them.
Not that I agree with religion, I see them all as means of various levels of crowd control for the masses, and somebody trying to benefit from it, be it a spiritual leader or an orange clown.
A classic cult tactic tbh. Convince people that they can divine meaning from random nonsense and they’ll convince themselves that they are more enlightened and above those around them who don’t understand.
Out of curiosity, which Buddhist tradition was this temple out of? I’ve had similar experience, but I get the feeling like Buddhist thought might be about as diverse as Christian.
It’s m8ch more doverse than Christianity, actually. Buddhism isn’t so much a religion in the judeochristian sense as a characteristic that many religions have. There are Buddhist traditions that worship gods, there are godless Buddhist traditions that worship the Buddha, and ones thay don’t even wirshio the Buddha but just think he was a pretty wise dude. Some require you to meditate daily, others to chant some mantras, and there are Buddhist traditions like Zen that worship nothing and are all about getting your head out of your ass.
Plain Buddhism was kind of a downer so they made stuff like pure land buddhism that is more of a fun afterlife version instead of hardcore OG Buddha which is like kill yourself and stop existing forever because the world is just an eternal cycle of pain and reincarnation into more pain forever.
Aye, perhaps not in the “Judeo-Christian” sense, but a religion nonetheless.
But actually it strikes me that “Judeo-Christianity” is more about theme or literature than form. The Christians claim a common God with the Jews, but that’s mostly it. In form Christianity seems more Greco-Roman than Judaic to me.
How does a monotheistic religion whose prophet explicitly claimed to be part of the succession of Jewish prophets and to have “come to confirm” their teachings seem more like a polytheistic religion where gods aren’t known for using prophets to send messages to the people to you? Serious question. I’m intrigued.
There are definitely elements of Christianity that mimic Greco-Roman (and other, older) mystery religions. Down to celebrating their deity’s birth at the same time and commemorating his death and rebirth by having followers share bread and wine.
My favorite theory of the origin of Christianity is that it was a Jewish attempt to mimic the mystery religions that were popular at the beginning of the Common Era.
The central point of mystery religions like the Eleusinian Mysteries is to cultivate the mystical experience. In judeochristian theology, that experience is considered sacrilegious. Some Jews let Jesus have it and became Christians, but nobody else is allowed. And the ones we call Jewish today didn’t even let that one guy have it.
The similarities between Christianity and Greco-Roman mysticism are only surface-level and were a marketing ploy to gain followers. In its core, Christianity is still Judaism, just packaged for export. Hence why two thousand years later, Christians are still quoting the Old Testament to justify bigotry, even though they claim to be followers of the guy who said “love each other as I have loved you”.
It feels to me like there’s an inconsistency between calling Christianity “Judaism for export”, and saying that it quotes the Old Testament for the purposes of bigotry. Or maybe it just feels antisemitic, even if not deliberately so. I mean it’s not like there isn’t bigotry in the New Testament, or radical acceptance in the Old.
But also I don’t think you can argue that Christianity is a mere extension of Judaism and at the same time argue that it shouldn’t utilize Jewish text.
I didn’t say that “Christianity” itself quotes the Old Testament for purposes of bigotry, but that the fact that some Christians do even when said bigotry contradicts Jesus’s teachings, which is indisputable, is proof that Judaism is indeed packaged into Christianity in a certain form. And the point of view under which it can be called Judaism for export is really quite simple: Judaism considers Hebrews to be the Chosen People and everyone else is just out of luck. At best, you can marry into the religion. Jesus comes along and in a manner of speaking opens up access to the Hebrew God for anyone willing to follow him, regardless of their bloodline. Hence Judaism for export. Christianity quite literally took several Jewish ideas, such as their creation myth, and packaged them with a new doctrine that allowed them to be exported to other peoples.
Let’s not throw around words like antisemitism with such carelessness. There is bigotry in the Old Testament, such as the infamous Leviticus 20:13. Mentioning this is neither an attack on an entire race of people nor an implication that bigotry is somehow exclusive to Judaism, which just for the record, it most certainly is not. I’m trying to have a good faith conversation comparing different belief systems, and I don’t have the filthy habit of judging a human being’s worth from their religion, or worse, from their ethnicity.
I felt a bit sympathetic to Buddhism up to the point when I actually visited a Buddhist temple and listened to the speeches of monks.
The amount of brain rot disguised as wisdom has made me feel Christianity ain’t that bad after all.
Sorry in advance to any Buddhist out there, but it struck me how the common perception of it differs from the actual thing.
It depends really. I grew up Buddhist and things were chill. Speeches I heard at temple were just telling us to be good people, be nice to people no matter their race or gender stuff like that, don’t do harm to people or animals.
Even Abrahamic religions have good and bad spiritual leaders, some are cult like and others are just trying to get people to have decent morals.
Fair point!
Late to the party, and no offence to buddhism, but i always loved this quote from Terry Pratchett
“Master, what is the difference between a humanistic, monastic system of belief in which wisdom is sought by means of an apparently nonsensical system of questions and answers, and a lot of mystic gibberish made up on the spur of the moment?"
Wen considered this for some time, and at last said: “A fish!”
And Clodpool went away, satisfied.” ― Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time
(copies the quote from https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/46982-thief-of-time?page=2 but i’m rather sure its correct, so i didn’t check my copy).
I kinda lost my interest in Buddhism when I learnt that according to traditional Buddhist lore, women can’t reach Nirvana.
When they’ve collected enough good karma, they are reborn as a man.
I mean aint that different from what the old testament teaches. Not saying the choice is between Christianity and Buddhism, but I’d assume most religions have patriarchy vibes baked into them. Not that I agree with religion, I see them all as means of various levels of crowd control for the masses, and somebody trying to benefit from it, be it a spiritual leader or an orange clown.
Good for them!
I hate you for making me laugh
Surely that’s not all sects of Buddhism.
That’s like saying, “I used to be a fan of pizza until I had one in Altoona, PA.”
There’s better pizza out there.
Wow, that’s an actual place. Is that Buddha’s favorite pizza joint or something?
Look up Altoona pizza.
American cheese? What’s wrong with those people…
A lot, they also framed Luigi
Their body, their choice.
More power to them, but that is NOT what i would choose lol.
Care to give any examples ?
A classic cult tactic tbh. Convince people that they can divine meaning from random nonsense and they’ll convince themselves that they are more enlightened and above those around them who don’t understand.
Out of curiosity, which Buddhist tradition was this temple out of? I’ve had similar experience, but I get the feeling like Buddhist thought might be about as diverse as Christian.
It’s m8ch more doverse than Christianity, actually. Buddhism isn’t so much a religion in the judeochristian sense as a characteristic that many religions have. There are Buddhist traditions that worship gods, there are godless Buddhist traditions that worship the Buddha, and ones thay don’t even wirshio the Buddha but just think he was a pretty wise dude. Some require you to meditate daily, others to chant some mantras, and there are Buddhist traditions like Zen that worship nothing and are all about getting your head out of your ass.
Plain Buddhism was kind of a downer so they made stuff like pure land buddhism that is more of a fun afterlife version instead of hardcore OG Buddha which is like kill yourself and stop existing forever because the world is just an eternal cycle of pain and reincarnation into more pain forever.
I get it, life sucks. but I ain’t giving up. This world is gonna have to stop me.
Yeah, Zen Buddhism kinda rocks.
Aye, perhaps not in the “Judeo-Christian” sense, but a religion nonetheless.
But actually it strikes me that “Judeo-Christianity” is more about theme or literature than form. The Christians claim a common God with the Jews, but that’s mostly it. In form Christianity seems more Greco-Roman than Judaic to me.
“Greco-Romo-Christan” maybe?
How does a monotheistic religion whose prophet explicitly claimed to be part of the succession of Jewish prophets and to have “come to confirm” their teachings seem more like a polytheistic religion where gods aren’t known for using prophets to send messages to the people to you? Serious question. I’m intrigued.
There are definitely elements of Christianity that mimic Greco-Roman (and other, older) mystery religions. Down to celebrating their deity’s birth at the same time and commemorating his death and rebirth by having followers share bread and wine.
My favorite theory of the origin of Christianity is that it was a Jewish attempt to mimic the mystery religions that were popular at the beginning of the Common Era.
The central point of mystery religions like the Eleusinian Mysteries is to cultivate the mystical experience. In judeochristian theology, that experience is considered sacrilegious. Some Jews let Jesus have it and became Christians, but nobody else is allowed. And the ones we call Jewish today didn’t even let that one guy have it.
The similarities between Christianity and Greco-Roman mysticism are only surface-level and were a marketing ploy to gain followers. In its core, Christianity is still Judaism, just packaged for export. Hence why two thousand years later, Christians are still quoting the Old Testament to justify bigotry, even though they claim to be followers of the guy who said “love each other as I have loved you”.
It feels to me like there’s an inconsistency between calling Christianity “Judaism for export”, and saying that it quotes the Old Testament for the purposes of bigotry. Or maybe it just feels antisemitic, even if not deliberately so. I mean it’s not like there isn’t bigotry in the New Testament, or radical acceptance in the Old.
But also I don’t think you can argue that Christianity is a mere extension of Judaism and at the same time argue that it shouldn’t utilize Jewish text.
I didn’t say that “Christianity” itself quotes the Old Testament for purposes of bigotry, but that the fact that some Christians do even when said bigotry contradicts Jesus’s teachings, which is indisputable, is proof that Judaism is indeed packaged into Christianity in a certain form. And the point of view under which it can be called Judaism for export is really quite simple: Judaism considers Hebrews to be the Chosen People and everyone else is just out of luck. At best, you can marry into the religion. Jesus comes along and in a manner of speaking opens up access to the Hebrew God for anyone willing to follow him, regardless of their bloodline. Hence Judaism for export. Christianity quite literally took several Jewish ideas, such as their creation myth, and packaged them with a new doctrine that allowed them to be exported to other peoples.
Let’s not throw around words like antisemitism with such carelessness. There is bigotry in the Old Testament, such as the infamous Leviticus 20:13. Mentioning this is neither an attack on an entire race of people nor an implication that bigotry is somehow exclusive to Judaism, which just for the record, it most certainly is not. I’m trying to have a good faith conversation comparing different belief systems, and I don’t have the filthy habit of judging a human being’s worth from their religion, or worse, from their ethnicity.
As a Buddhist it definitely varies like any religion. There are some bozo temples out there
Don’t blame the religion, blame the people.
Buddhist or Christian, people love brainrot.