Many of the enlightened folk love to revel in their self-perceived superiority, it is true. :vomit: — praxis

It's not about superiority/inferiority...there are, let's just say, more pressing matters like suffering & death. Have I missed anything?

Okay. Nothing I've written quarrels with the facticity of suffering. You're point, such as it is, is lost on me.

Okay. Nothing I've written quarrels with the facticity of suffering. You're point, such as it is, is lost on me. — 180 Proof

I probably misunderstood you then. I thought you meant to say that christianity is about suffering in the here and now (like Jesus) and buddhism is about liberation of suffering, again, in the here and now (like the Buddha).

I couldn't square that with what both religions are about - morality - since morality and hedonism (suffering) have quite a complex relationship that doesn't seem to lend itself to simple linear correlation between the two - sometimes, being good means to bear pain. A bummer but that's just the way it is.

I disagree. Neither religion is "about morality" IMO. Christianity is mainly concerned with eschatology and Buddhism is mainly concerned with soteriology. And yes, Christianity consecrates suffering like Jesus and Buddhism practices ways to reduce suffering. 'Moralities' have been derived from these premises, respectively, but that is not their functions (re: the first few centuries of each religion, respectively).

I disagree. Neither religion is "about morality" IMO. — 180 Proof

Truth be told, you're absolutely right! Both christianity and buddhism are, first and foremost, about suffering and how one might liberate oneself from it - by being moral humans. Do good and the pearly gates await you; do bad and off to the fiery pits of hell. Morality is only a/the way by which one can escape the cluthces of Algea (pain).

I never realized this, thanks.

Christianity is mainly concerned with eschatology and Buddhism is mainly concerned with soteriology — 180 Proof

True, each religion has its own unique emphasis but I have a feeling the doctrine of impermanence has its own eschatological point to make.

:up:

I think it's possible to just use the terms Buddhism and the term Christianity without going into specifics about which type of Christianity etc. I have seen discussions on this topic which just use those terms. Although there are many different forms in each religion , they are 2 different traditions, each with a different set of core principles. One of the core principles in all types of Christianity is salvation through faith in Christ. Whereas
Buddhism has no such tenet in any of it's forms. It focuses on achieving happiness, wisdom, whatever you like to make of those terms in THIS life whereas Christianitys core tenet is salvation , achieving eternal Bliss in the Afterlife. And my point was since there are much more christians in the world today than Buddhists does that mean that salvation and eternal Bliss in heaven is more popular than striving for wisdom in this world which firstly means accepting reality AS IT IS which is a core tenet of Buddhism. I think Nietszche gives one of the most famous critiques of Christianity as a turning away or denial of this life. And the more I study Nietszche the more convinced I am of his argument.

Do good and the pearly gates await you; do bad and off to the fiery pits of hell. — TheMadFool

As far as I'm aware it's Christianity that teaches about the entering the kingdom of heaven and fires of hell for those who haven't repented, that's not a teaching of Buddhism. Buddhism says that whatever you do comes back to you. So that if you do good, you will be rewarded in some way and if you are bad it will have negative consequences for you. For me I interpret this from a psychological perspective, not metaphysical. The Buddhists are right that you will feel happier when you do good, eg help someone, and you'll feel bad if you deliberately harm people. I think that's what they mean, it's nothing to do with a God who punishes you

As far as I'm aware it's Christianity that teaches about the entering the kingdom of heaven and fires of hell for those who haven't repented, that's not a teaching of Buddhism. Buddhism says that whatever you do comes back to you. So that if you do good, you will be rewarded in some way and if you are bad it will have negative consequences for you. — Ross

Is it me or are you making a distinction without a difference? As far as I can tell, the notions of heaven & hell are just another way of saying what goes around comes around, you reap what you sow, aka karma. You couldn't possibly have missed that!

For me I interpret this from a psychological perspective, not metaphysical. The Buddhists are right that you will feel happier when you do good, eg help someone, and you'll feel bad if you deliberately harm people. I think that's what they mean, it's nothing to do with a God who punishes you — Ross

I never said anything about God. My focus has been the obvious similarity between how both christianity and buddhism adopt the carrot-and-stick approach to morality vis-à-vis hedonism (pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of suffering). Do good, the rewards will be great; commit evil deeds, the repercussions will be severe.

Psychological perspective? That reduces buddhism to a pernicious mind game, a sort of self-delusion, something the buddha and his long line of erudite disciples would be dead against. Buddhism is more than that. It's not just about making yourself feel better about yourself; it's a serious attempt to solve a real-world problem, that of suffering.

If one wants to know about Christianity, one first needs to strip off all the things notable Christians have said that is in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus Christ. One is interested in Christianity after all, and not Paulinism or Johnism.

Christ's message to the world was one of mercy and compassion - different, but not all that different, from Buddha's message to the world.

I am not religious, by the way.

If one wants to know about Christianity, one first needs to strip off all the things notable Christians have said that is in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus Christ. One is interested in Christianity after all, and not Paulinism or Johnism. — Tzeentch

How can we know what the teaching of Jesus are and what are the teachings attributed to him? While I think we can identify the influence of Paul and John, it is questionable that what is left are the teachings of Jesus rather than of those who were inspired by and may or may not have understood him. Those who may or may not have addressed their own concerns rather than his. Those who could not accept the failure to fulfill the promise and created their own mythologies, blending them with beliefs of death and resurrection. Those who saw the promise of the Messiah through pagan eyes, who deified a man.

How can we know what the teaching of Jesus are and what are the teachings attributed to him? — Fooloso4

There is much debate over this, and entire studies devoted to this question. Because we may never know for sure, it is up to each to look at the evidence and arguments and decide what they believe.

If you're interested in this subject, here are a few (non-religious) lectures which I found very interesting:

the notions of heaven & hell are just another way of saying what goes around comes around, you reap what you sow, aka karma. You couldn't possibly have missed that! — TheMadFool

Yes but Christianity doesn't mean heaven and hell in a symbolic sense as representing good or bad outcomes, the problem (for me) is that it literally believes in the existence of a heaven of eternal Bliss and hell of eternal damnation. These are ways to instill fear in people to make them "behave themselves" and so become instruments of control by the powers that be. Marx said that religion promises happiness in another world to make injustice and oppression in this world acceptable, to switch the focus away from happiness in THIS world and place it in ANOTHER world. Buddhism on the other hand teaches nothing of the sort. It doesn't believe in a supernatural Being for a start and it's focus is on achieving happiness in this world. They may have religious beliefs such as being reborn again , but it's philosophy can and often is taken separately by many people without the religious component. You should watch The Buddhist quotes on YouTube on wonder zone channel , a fountain of wisdom.

Because we may never know for sure, it is up to each to look at the evidence and arguments and decide what they believe. — Tzeentch

The problem of evidence is that there is no evidence. We do not know what Jesus taught. We can date the gospels and note significant differences, but we cannot determine how any of them relate to whatever it is that Jesus might have taught. The stories take on a life of their own. In addition, the canonical gospels are only a part of what was written.

I disagree. Neither religion is "about morality" IMO.
— 180 Proof

Truth be told, you're absolutely right! Both christianity and buddhism are, first and foremost, about suffering and how one might liberate oneself from it - by being moral humans. — TheMadFool

This cannot be right because religions tend to constrain moral development. Shared values/norms means no independent values/norms. Everything depends on group dependence. It’s not primary about morality, salvation, or a reduction in suffering. All that can be better achieved without religion. At core it’s simply about tribal solidarity.

buddha and his long line of erudite disciples would be dead against. Buddhism is more than that. It's not just about making yourself feel better about yourself; it's a serious attempt to solve a real-world problem, that of suffering. — TheMadFool

Now you've put your finger on it "a long line of erudite disciples". Why then do you view Buddhism negatively as taking a carot and stick approach. I agree Buddhism is a serious attempt to solve a real-world problem, that of suffering. And that's why I believe it contains wisdom which if practiced in ones life seems to me to be in line with modern psychologists description of a happy life. By the way what's wrong with feeling better about yourself. That's the consequence of happiness. People normally feel better when they are living a better life.

We do not know what Jesus taught — Fooloso4

Most texts written thousands of years ago would be open to question of how accurate they are. But what does it matter whether Jesus said exactly what's in the gospels. What we have in them is a very sophisticated and coherent set of moral values and principles on how to live and a religious creed just like in many other world religions. So whether it's actually Jesus exact word doesn't matter. What matters is the quality of the teaching. Does it preach wisdom. Is it something that improves the human condition. Of course it's well known that many people have been killed in the name of Christianity and the Church during the middle ages became very corrupt, a great multinational superstate with very autocratic powers. But just like Communism which was meant to liberate people it abused and misused to control hearts and minds. On the other Christianity has inspired many many great noble acts of love, kindness, compassion and care and some of it's values such as temperance, justice, caring for the poor and it's preaching against gluttony, avarice, greed and so on are in short supply in a world that no longer believes in many christian values. This arguably leaves a modern generation more prone to exploitation by advertisers and so on which manipulate people's greed, and other weaknesses. In a world nowadays where people have to figure out their own set of values, if they don't choose a wise set of values that leaves them prey to manipulation and exploitation. I think Nietszche was correctly worried about humanity sinking into Nihilism and despair with "The Death of God" . Others would argue that secular forms of ethics such as Stoicism could adequately replace Christianity. I have another thread on that topic if anyone wants to respond to it.

But what does it matter whether Jesus said exactly what's in the gospels. — Ross

I was responding to this:

If one wants to know about Christianity, one first needs to strip off all the things notable Christians have said that is in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus Christ. One is interested in Christianity after all, and not Paulinism or Johnism. — Tzeentch

It may matter for different reasons. For some Jesus is the voice of authority, for some human and or others divine, and so, if he said something or not makes a difference for them. But of course, if they think he said it and he didn't, well then, some assumptions may need to be questioned.

I think Nietszche was correctly worried about humanity sinking into Nihilism and despair with "The Death of God" — Ross

It is Christianity itself that led to nihilism according to Nietzsche. But this is the way of all self-overcoming. If not Christianity then whatever the dominant beliefs and practices were would eventually be negated.

It is Christianity itself that led to nihilism according to Nietzsche. — Fooloso4

That's not correct. "As a result, Nietzsche claims that nihilism is the devaluation of the highest values caused by the death of God"
https://brill.com/view/journals/fphc/11/2/article-p298_11.xml

The problem of evidence is that there is no evidence. We do not know what Jesus taught. We can date the gospels and note significant differences, but we cannot determine how any of them relate to whatever it is that Jesus might have taught. The stories take on a life of their own. In addition, the canonical gospels are only a part of what was written. — Fooloso4

Sure, on all those things.

There are many historical figures of whom we only have written records. It's up to each individual to decide whether they find that convincing or not.

For me it is not necessarily important who wrote it - it's the content of the message.

"As a result, Nietzsche claims that nihilism is the devaluation of the highest values caused by the death of God"
https://brill.com/view/journals/fphc/11/2/article-p298_11.xml — Ross

You would do well to quote Nietzsche directly. See, for example, The Three Metamorphoses, in Zarathustra.

My focus has been the obvious similarity between how both christianity and buddhism adopt the carrot-and-stick approach to morality vis-à-vis hedonism (pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of suffering). Do good, the rewards will be great; commit evil deeds, the repercussions will be severe. — TheMadFool

Good point. But I think human culture in general works that way, education and legal systems, from cradle to grave we are conditioned to feel that our behavior attracts punishment or reward.

Buddhism is more than that. It's not just about making yourself feel better about yourself; — TheMadFool

But that's how it tends to be seen in the West where life is fast and furious and all we have time for is five minutes to de-stress before rushing back to work ....

the notions of heaven & hell are just another way of saying what goes around comes around, you reap what you sow, aka karma. You couldn't possibly have missed that!
— TheMadFool

Yes but Christianity doesn't mean heaven and hell in a symbolic sense as representing good or bad outcomes, the problem (for me) is that it literally believes in the existence of a heaven of eternal Bliss and hell of eternal damnation. These are ways to instill fear in people to make them "behave themselves" and so become instruments of control by the powers that be. Marx said that religion promises happiness in another world to make injustice and oppression in this world acceptable, to switch the focus away from happiness in THIS world and place it in ANOTHER world. Buddhism on the other hand teaches nothing of the sort. It doesn't believe in a supernatural Being for a start and it's focus is on achieving happiness in this world. They may have religious beliefs such as being reborn again , but it's philosophy can and often is taken separately by many people without the religious component. You should watch The Buddhist quotes on YouTube on wonder zone channel , a fountain of wisdom. — Ross

If minimizing metaphysical content in a religion is wise (less foolish @180 Proof) then yes, buddhism stands out as one of the best religions out there. See Occam's Razor.

That said, it's worth noting that the two founders of christianity and buddhism have a place, although both are demoted in the process (Jesus is a bodhisattva and the buddha is a saint), in each other's religion. There's a connection between the two which needs further investigation by those interested.

My focus has been the obvious similarity between how both christianity and buddhism adopt the carrot-and-stick approach to morality vis-à-vis hedonism (pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of suffering). Do good, the rewards will be great; commit evil deeds, the repercussions will be severe.
— TheMadFool

Good point. But I think human culture in general works that way, education and legal systems, from cradle to grave we are conditioned to feel that our behavior attracts punishment or reward.

Buddhism is more than that. It's not just about making yourself feel better about yourself;
— TheMadFool

But that's how it tends to be seen in the West where life is fast and furious and all we have time for is five minutes to de-stress before rushing back to work .... — Apollodorus

For one thing, the objective of both Christianity and Buddhism, as I pointed out in a previous post, is to ameliorate/abolish suffering. It's telling, no?, that one simple but not so easy way to do that is to behave i.e. we need to act morally. What this suggests is the intuition that we are our own worst enemy; see the problem of evil & the free will defense.

As for the link between Buddhism and psychology, all I can say is the latter reduces humans to things, objectifies them, kinda like how naturalists study animals in the wild and in captivity; I'm not comfortable with that even though it seems the right way to go about it.

buddha and his long line of erudite disciples would be dead against. Buddhism is more than that. It's not just about making yourself feel better about yourself; it's a serious attempt to solve a real-world problem, that of suffering.
— TheMadFool

Now you've put your finger on it "a long line of erudite disciples". Why then do you view Buddhism negatively as taking a carot and stick approach. I agree Buddhism is a serious attempt to solve a real-world problem, that of suffering. And that's why I believe it contains wisdom which if practiced in ones life seems to me to be in line with modern psychologists description of a happy life. By the way what's wrong with feeling better about yourself. That's the consequence of happiness. People normally feel better when they are living a better life. — Ross

If you want to come at the issue that way, you'll have to admit/concede/accept that the Buddha was clinically depressed and obsessed as it were with suffering i.e. the Buddha was non compos mentis. Wisdom of Buddhism should be the last thing we should be discussing, no?

I disagree. Neither religion is "about morality" IMO.
— 180 Proof

Truth be told, you're absolutely right! Both christianity and buddhism are, first and foremost, about suffering and how one might liberate oneself from it - by being moral humans.
— TheMadFool

This cannot be right because religions tend to constrain moral development. Shared values/norms means no independent values/norms. Everything depends on group dependence. It’s not primary about morality, salvation, or a reduction in suffering. All that can be better achieved without religion. At core it’s simply about tribal solidarity — praxis

That's one way of looking at it but observe the residue, what's survived of Buddhism after two and half thousand years of practice cum modding - the truth of suffering & how it can be assuaged/eradicated; only the most relevant aspects of any religion lasts that long as people will simply reject, quite naturally so, any elements that they can't relate to. The same goes for Christianity.

For one thing, the objective of both Christianity and Buddhism, as I pointed out in a previous post, is to ameliorate/abolish suffering. It's telling, no?, that one simple but not so easy way to do that is to behave i.e. we need to act morally. What this suggests is the intuition that we are our own worst enemy; see the problem of evil & the free will defense.

As for the link between Buddhism and psychology, all I can say is the latter reduces humans to things, objectifies them, kinda like how naturalists study animals in the wild and in captivity; I'm not comfortable with that even though it seems the right way to go about it. — TheMadFool

True. Buddhism does seem to be closer to psychology than other traditions.

Could this be why it is less popular? In India, at least, after some initial successes it got nearly wiped out by Hinduism (and to some extent by Islam) and it has never recovered.

True. Buddhism does seem to be closer to psychology than other traditions.

Could this be why it is less popular? In India, at least, after some initial successes it got nearly wiped out by Hinduism (and to some extent by Islam) and it has never recovered — Apollodorus

It's the opposite actually, India hasn't recovered from Hinduism and Islam. Buddhism & Jainism are impractical some say, too many impossible demands. However, these religions are not meant for us - we're simply the guardians of these teachings, our duty is to create environments where these religions can be kept alive until such a point in time when they can be practiced without people kvetching about how unrealistic they are. That maybe far off in the future - another millennia?

Indians, Hindus or Muslims, no offense intended. Correct me if I'm wrong! Thanks.

I watched the videos.
The presentation on distinguishing the texts from each other is concordant with other analyses I have read. However some elements of Grime's presentation don't hold together for me:

The sharp line drawn between the "Hellenistic" and the "Hebraic" is assumed rather than demonstrated. In the discussion of what is the "natural man", the "wisdom" traditions may come from different ways of conceiving of the divine and our place in the world but it is a world we all live in. To state that the "sayings" from the Q document do not bear a relationship to the good as seen through the Torah is to culturally appropriate the tradition no less than Paul and Augustine attempted to do.

Coffee shot out of my nose when Grimes explained that the "prophetic" portion of the Q sayings was from a spot of bother the region was undergoing. Perhaps he was referring to the Romans' strenuous effort to turn it into their Club Med. Leaving that aside, the vision of the Sage in the Platonic tradition is missing something glaringly evident in the Hebraic. The god of the sage does not place scrolls in the mouths of Prophets to speak to a stiff necked people.

I could go further but I don't want to hijack the thread.

To state that the "sayings" from the Q document do not bear a relationship to the good as seen through the Torah ... — Valentinus

I think the teachings aren't compatible, even though they have been claimed to be.

For example, the contradiction in the dictom "An eye for an eye" versus "Turn the other cheek" is such a fundamental one I don't see how the two could ever be reconciled.

The latter seems to have a lot more in common with the Platonic teachings, for example those of The Republic.

I look forward to your OP explaining how the entire teaching of the Torah can be distilled into quoting:

"An eye for an eye."