Whose teaching you found more compelling? The teaching of Jesus

>>1488133
Why are you comparing an apocalyptic preacher to the Buddha?

>>1488133
Buddha is a basic bitch, he says really nothing that Aristotle didn't already say about moderation and minding the virtues. Plus Buddhism is ultra-passive and life denying which I find troublesome.
Jesus was significantly more active and his actions during his ministry have a lot more depth to them in terms of how they can be interpreted, now this of course is the reason Christianity is such a shitshow of different sects but I think that ads intellectual depth, since you have everything from life denying antinatalists to more worldly esotericism.

They both have the same basic message.

If someone orders you to do something abhorrent to you, you can always just die instead of doing as you're told.

>>1488133

I found the teachings of Jesus as written in the New Testament a mess, full of contradiction, strange non sequitors and references we can't get today. And people are still debating the meanings of a lot of parts due to possible mistranslations. Add to that the New Testament is actually based on Paul's teachings, who never actually met Jesus, and it's written in the Bible that Jesus's disciples were at odds with him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_at_Antioch

Yep, the New Testament is pretty much admitting that it's a farce.

What we now call Judeo-Christianis (Peter and a handful of followers) followed the actual teachings of Jesus, but it was lost and sadly, we will never know what he really wanted. Pauline Christians even faked epistles by Peter, even though it's stated elsewhere in the Bible that he had different ideas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Petrine_epistles

What unique idea did Jesus preach other than "believe in me, and you'll be saved from the coming fire"?

I have a special affinity for Christ's teachings as I was raised in it, but I have much respect of the Buddha's teachings too.

>>1488154
>Plus Buddhism is ultra-passive and life denying which I find troublesome.
Yet another parrot who cannot be bothered to do anything more than the bare minimum of research.

Please off yourself.

>>1489103
Buddhism threads bring out all the memekids. I can't get enough of the faggots who think nirvana is just void worship like Buddhism is some corny cult in a final fantasy game

>>1488133

I don't find either particularly compelling. If anything, I would say they're both wrong, albeit for different reasons.

File: Lao Tzu.jpg (41KB, 254x450px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 254x450px

Lao Tzu

>>1488154
>Buddha is a basic bitch, he says really nothing that Aristotle didn't already say about moderation and minding the virtues.

Isn't Buddha older than Aristotle?

>>1489231
>the Buddha
>wrong

I find the Buddha's more compelling in that I think he gives a more accurate commentary on the nature of the human condition. But I disagree with him that the solution is to attempt to escape it by eschewing much of what makes us human.

File: the master said, man who take laxatives and sleep aids before bed wake up in deep shit.jpg (219KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1200x1200px

>>1489288
Special mention goes to Kong Fuzi. Is there a Western equivalent?

>>1489314
>But I disagree with him that the solution is to attempt to escape it by eschewing much of what makes us human.
But he doesn't. Do you like to be upset by every little event in your life that doesn't go your way, is that a worthwhile human quality?

Buddhism embraces life, every moment of life in fact. It's just that it aims to dissolve the self-added layer you put over your pure experience of the world, because it makes you suffer.

>>1489288
I'd say this if it weren't for that the fact that Taoism is a really hard philosophy to internalise and practise in everyday life.

>>1489360
As I understand it, the aim of Buddhism is to take us off of the hedonic treadmill and to end the continual process of "becoming" that is the nature of the human condition. I don't think either of these are bad or to be rejected, and prefer the more tempered approaches of Epicureanism or Taoism.

>>1489325
Aristotle

But only the thomists follow him.

>>1489373
>As I understand it, the aim of Buddhism is to take us off of the hedonic treadmill and to end the continual process of "becoming" that is the nature of the human condition.
An awakened buddhist master is 'becoming' every waking moment, he's just shed the unneccesary concepts that make life burdensome, the end goal of Buddhism is not too dissimilar to the end goal of Taoism, to be aligned with the Tao through non-action/wei wu wei.

The can't be both right silly. And the Buddha. I mean there's no comparison. Jesus' teachings be like:
>there's wheat, and then there's weed, and there was like, a farmer and his son, and then came a crow and ate all the seed. Such is the kingdom of heaven
WTF Jesus?
>if you don't believe me you'll go to hell
Oh.
>throws a tantrum. Falls on the floor whining. Why can't they understand me father? Oh shut here come the Pharisees! Run nigga!
But you're god! Just call your angels to fight them!
>hell nah nigga! I'm out a here!

>>1489397
Well, I'll admit freely I haven't read much about Buddhism, so I'm just relaying what I've pieced together from here.