Christianity seems to have hit a wall when it comes to offering people a real sense of meaning today. The way it splits God from nature and the mind from the body just doesn't hold up anymore, especially since science, which Christianity ironically helped pave the way for, has pretty much dismantled that whole worldview. As a result, a lot of people are left feeling empty or nihilistic, stuck with a moral system that's life-denying. The focus on one true God and one chosen group has made it hard to embrace other perspectives, and the idea of some big final judgment day feels out of step with how we actually understand the world now. On the other hand Buddhism, with its idea of everything being connected, feels way more relevant. It doesn't ask you to believe in some sky daddy but invites you to find meaning in the here and now, in the actual stuff of life. It's not about guilt and salvation later, but about awareness and balance in the present.

any good books about buddhism? Mahayana or teravada?

>>17811464 (OP)
>Christianity seems to have hit a wall when it comes to offering people a real sense of meaning today.
It hasn't, people just actively resist the meaning that Christianity offers them, people just don't want to submit to God.

>>17811491
Submission is for goyim.

>>17811570
Buddhism is even more passive than Christianity.

>>17811464 (OP)
If you think Buddhism brings fulfillment then join a temple, practice it and take it seriously instead of remaining trapped in study and abstractions. Merely agreeing with ideas conceptually leads to larp unless you can actualize and live it as if it is real.

>>17811650
Being free is not submission, you willingly submit.

>>17811664
>you willingly submit.

>>17811667
Yes, christcucks willingly submit.

>>17811464 (OP)
I am almost certain you have read almost nothing from the Pali Canon

>stuck with a moral system that's life-denying
The point of Christianity is to get eternal life. The point of Buddhism is to get eternal death.

>with its idea of everything being connected
This is a vague statement that means nothing. What specific doctrine are you referring to?

>It doesn't ask you to believe in some sky daddy
wut
Gods are all over Buddhism. They interact with Buddha frequently in the texts. They are worshipped by (actual, non-Western) Buddhists. Buddha is indistinguishable from a god in most Buddhism, he's just a god like Hercules or Antinous who was once a mortal man.

>invites you to find meaning in the here and now, in the actual stuff of life
Buddhism's entire doctrine is based on this having no meaning. It's all impermanent cycles you need to escape from. Any significance to any of it is illusory, that's why the goal is to escape it.

In contrast, per the Bible, any good that someone adds to the world will be restored permanently in the resurrection. Everything has meaning and permanent consequences for all of reality, down to the smallest thing.

>It's not about guilt and salvation later
No one tell this guy about the Pure Lands

>>17811674
Stop pretending you understand Buddhism. OP was correct.

>>17811671
Buddhism is quite literally the opposite of freedom, you have to refrain yourself from any and all desires that other people are free to experience.

You literally just sit on your ass all day hoping that one day you'll cease to exist, or I mean "reaching Nirvana" or whatever the fuck.

>>17811677
Alright anon, please tell me the difference between a bodhisattva running a Pure Land who you worship to get blessings and a "sky daddy".

>>17811682
Wrong, one becomes free from desire. You are like a dog who has no choice but to chase his tail.

>>17811686
You don't understand Buddhism beyond surface level, read some books.

>>17811687
>Wrong, one becomes free from desire.
Giga cope.

You sit on your ass desperately trying to ignore your desires, which make you human, at least Christianity says that all things are good in moderation, you can enjoy sex so long as you're reproducing, you can enjoy food so long as you're not being gluttonous, you have enjoy the fruits of your labor so long as you don't become greedy, you can even rest and ejoy life one day of the week.

>>17811689
Lol. The inevitable response from Western "Buddhists". "My great wisdom is simply too vast to comprehend, one must spend years of study to understand".

Actual Buddhists are busy visiting temples to worship statues of bodhisattvas in order to get blessings in their life. Gods interact with Buddha all the time in the Pali Canon. But of course, you know more about what Buddha really taught that the people who compiled that, right?

>>17811696
Yes, that's the point of Buddhism, to practice it, not worship dogma.

>>17811701
Most Buddhists worship gods though, and the Buddha himself.

>>17811703
Buddha is Buddhism, understand Buddha.

>>17811701
Practicing it will take you nowhere. It will have no positive impact on your afterlife. Buddhist nations are some of the worst in the world in terms of quality of life so we can see that it doesn't improve this life either.

Buddha was as wrong about no having attachments giving you a good afterlife as he was about the existence of Asian gods. Assuming he even taught any of this and it wasn't warped beyond all conceivable recognition by the centuries and centuries of oral transmission of his teachings before finally being written down in the Pali Canon.

But I'm sure the legendary development of the Pali Canon wasn't so bad and didn't distort anything...right? Buddha really could fly up to touch the sun and really did talk with Mara...you believe those since you believe the Pali Canon, right Mr. "Buddhist"?

>>17811707
Buddha didn't see anything wrong with worshipping gods either.

Polytheism of the sort that believes in spirits and gods who are ultimately just limited mortal beings like humans is more sane philosophically than belief in the personal Omni-God, (though it may be questionable scientifically) and Buddhism's compatibility with that for those who are into it is a bonus imo. Though Buddhism, as an ethical religion, of course recommends against animal or human sacrifice. And unlike Christianity Buddhists don't need one big ultimate human sacrifice to justify putting a stop to bloody sacrifice. They just realize that it isn't good.

>>17811712
>Buddhist nations are some of the worst in the world in terms of quality of life
Japan. And many very highly Christian countries are not so great themselves. The effect of religion by itself on quality of life is limited.

>>17811779
A) The biggest sect of Buddhism in Japan is Pure Land, which is antithetical to everything OP has said
B) Buddhism in Japan is super-syncretized with Shinto
C) And even then, Japan is really most religiously disbelieving. Look at the details of what Pew saya about religion in Japan at https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2017/11/Religion20171117.pdf

"The number of religious groups in Japan:
Shinto followers: 89.5 million (70.4% of the total population)
Buddhists: 88.7 million (69.8%)
Christians: 1.9 million (1.5%)
Other religions: 8.9 million (6.9%)
Total: 188.9 million (1.49 times of population)
Japanese population:127.1 million
On the other hand, the Japanese National Character Survey in 2013:
72.0% do not have any personal religious faith
The Japanese General Social Survey in 2015:
68.6% do not follow any religion".

Japan is a country with a lot of Buddhist influence but describing it as a "Buddhist country", especially the sort of Buddhism OP is talking about, doesn't work.

>The effect of religion by itself on quality of life is limited.
And Buddhism also won't improve your afterlife. So it helps neither life nor afterlife. Buddha - or at least what centuries of unwritten oral tradition had him saying - was wrong.

>>17811956
>And Buddhism also won't improve your afterlife. So it helps neither life nor afterlife. Buddha - or at least what centuries of unwritten oral tradition had him saying - was wrong.
You have no basis for saying this except (I assume) substituting your own afterlife beliefs which if you're a typical Christian are many times more insane.

>>17811964
>You have no basis for saying this
You yourself don't even believe Buddha, at least the "Buddha" figure we got after hundreds of years of oral tradition. Do you think he could really fly up and touch the sun? Do you think he really spoke to Mara and taught gods?

>which if you're a typical Christian are many times more insane.
How so? You believe in reincarnation, don't you? Resurrection is just reincarnation but everyone at the same time, and only once. If you're free from ignorance, you resurrection is more elevated than if you're stuck in ignorance and vice. Buddhism says the same about your reincarnation.

>>17811978
Reincarnation supposes a law which the universe follows, which, given that the universe does seem to really like following laws, isn't totaly unreasonable. It also has some half-decent evidence behind it in the form of past life memories, and it agrees with the simple intuition that, if I'm alive now, I in some sense could've been alive before I was born and could be alive again in some sense after I die. It's symmetric. And Buddhism supposes that where one is reborn is influenced by one's moral actions, intentions, and mental development, which, if difficult to verify, is at least a sensible starting place.

Mass bodily resurrection at some unspecified point in the distant future (or in just two more weeks, according to many Christians over the past 2,000 years) on the other hand supposes a sudden extraordinary violation of apparent laws. And Christianity typically supposes that you have a soul that just came into being out of nothing when you were born (or maybe was pulled out of a big soul repository where souls were just sitting around doing nothing since the beginning of time?), and the usual understanding of the afterlife for Christians is totally unjust. Although people have a wife range of moral habits and mental development, Chrisyianity says they either go to the perfectly good place or the perfectly bad place with no in between, and both destinations are forever out of all proportion with the decision-making time span (this life), and the relevant choice for determining which side you get sent to isn't even based in your intentions and moral habits and the consequences of your actions broadly, but instead on your choice of whether or not to believe an ancient story about a guy who supposedly got raised from the dead although that isn't a thing that observably happens and there isn't good enough evidence for it to satisfy anyone who isn't making an unjustified exception for it.

>>17812024
The Christian cosmology is just all-around very akwardly put together, like it's clearly the result of several originally independent systems being thrown in with each other and then frozen before they could be properly syncretized.

>>17811464 (OP)
Depends on the form of Buddhism you are talking about. Lots of supernaturalism. Though I guess the four noble truths alone could be read as an non-spiritual system of well-living.
>>17811650
Would you call Islam - Submission, literally - passive? It's not about passivity. Not that Buddhism is passive, in itself, it's a taste thing really.

>>17812024
>the universe does seem to really like following laws, isn't totaly unreasonable
Under Buddhism I find it pretty unreasonable actually. There's an abstract law that isn't a god and doesn't have a mind in any sense, but purely mechanistically sends people to a dimension where they get chopped up by Hell Wardens for quadrillions of years?

>a sudden extraordinary violation of apparent laws
What law does it violate if it happens to everyone at once instead of everyone separately?

>typically supposes that you have a soul that just came into being out of nothing when you were born
Not really, the Bible doesn't comment on what specifically spirits are or how they get associated with a person. You see the full range of views among Christians from full physicalism to full Platonism.

>Chrisyianity says they either go to the perfectly good place or the perfectly bad place with no in between
Not so, it talks about how there are degrees of reward and punishment in the resurrection. 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 puts it this way: "If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day of Judgement will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss".

So you, by your own work, even make the resurrected world better. If your deeds are gold there will be that much more gold in the resurrected world. But if they're straw, they will burn up in the fire of the judgement. There is no perfectly good place: it is our eternal mission to add good to the world, both now and then.

>out of all proportion with the decision-making time span (this life)
Buddhist Hell is quadrillions upon quadrillions of years. If you say evil now doesn't have utterly gargantuan consequences, it's Buddha you're disagreeing with.

>>17812083
>an abstract law that isn't a god and doesn't have a mind in any sense
Well, the way I think of it would be that it is a mind that has the greatest influence - your mind, as said. Intention, moral habits, and mental development. But the dichotomy between minds and laws isn't real. Minds work largely on the basis of laws. Artificial intelligence is entirely based on laws, and biological intelligence is significantly (entirely according to physicalists) derived from natural laws via evolution.
>What law does it violate if it happens to everyone at once instead of everyone separately?
It violates the law that dead bodies don't magically reassemble themselves out of dust and come to life all at once and ascend into the sky or whatever at some random point in time. I think that's Newton's 94th law?
>the Bible doesn't comment on what specifically spirits are or how they get associated with a person.
Sounds incomplete then, if it's going to rule out past lives without giving an alternative account of where we were before this.
>degrees of reward and punishment in the resurrection.
It still seems to leave out a neutral place between heaven and hell, and it's still weird if this brief life results not only in eternal consequences but an eternal hierarchy where some people in heaven are better off than others.
>Buddhist Hell is quadrillions upon quadrillions of years.
That is an infinitesimal time period compared to eternity. The difference between eternity and that is the same as the difference between a minute and eternity. Still eternity.

>>17812061
>Would you call Islam - Submission, literally - passive?
In a way, yeah. All religions are passive to some degree, Christianity included, because all religions demand that you regulate your behavior by a certain standard and not just do whatever you want.

My point is that if you reject a religion for it's supposed "passivity", you're retarded.

>>17812125
>Well, the way I think of it would be that it is a mind that has the greatest influence - your mind
That's really not related to the question. You've talked about how all of this is done by an abstract law. How is an abstract law with no information processing abilities sending people to Hell Realms based on abstract moral implications of their actions?

>It violates the law that dead bodies don't magically reassemble themselves out of dust
Then you disagree with Buddha before you disagree with me. Many Buddhist Realms don't require a birth process to enter. When you enter a Hell Realm you enter with a spontaneously formed, complete, and mature body. One so durable it can last longer than our universe even while enduring extreme abuse. And this happens all the time when people die.

But me saying everyone will get a complete, mature, durable body is absurd because I say it will happen for everyone at once?

>Sounds incomplete then
Didn't Buddha, famously, have his "unanswerable questions"? Many of them about profound features of the world? Does that render Buddhism incomplete?

>It still seems to leave out a neutral place between heaven and hell
That's what happens immediately after death, as Ecclesiastes 9 discusses. Death is unconscious inactivity.

>it's still weird if this brief life results not only in eternal consequences
Weirder than a quadrillion quadrillion years of consequences? By what principle is one strange and the other not?

>That is an infinitesimal time period compared to eternity
The comparison being made is to our lifespans. Both are so much longer that our minds cease to be able to grasp them. The principle is the same: what you do now has consequences for longer than you can ever dream of imagining. Every smallest action is of absolutely vital consequence.

>>17812197
I have responses to all of this, but in the interest of not devoting myself to a never ending discussion with ever-longer lists of quotes and responses, I'll just settle for agreeing to disagree with you about how the systems are understood and their respective intuitiveness. Sorry to the reader.

To clarify one thing, I don't think minds are necessarily entirely a manifestation of laws. There could be, and I believe according to Buddhism there is, some room for not-predetermined volition in human decision making. But from my personal perspective (not confidently speaking for Buddhism here), a "mind" in the ordinary sense requires some sort of internal structure which behaves according to some sort of law, so it isn't like proposing that a mind is the foundation of everything is a viable get-out-of-jail-free card that lets you say your system doesn't have any impersonal laws. Otherwise, how do you say how the mind works? Maybe minds are built on laws and laws are built by minds in a neverending turtles-all-the-way-down. That seems about as viable as anything to me.

>>17812278
But if there is a real mind that made this law of karma that decides everybody's fate and applies to all people, wouldn't that be the "sky daddy" OP was deriding?

>>17812197
>How is an abstract law with no information processing abilities sending people to
there's not a law sending people anywhere, those places are just end points you yourself go by following specific actions that set you in a specific metaphysical direction
what you are talking is like saying that there's a specific force deciding where you go when you drive just because the car is moving by the forces of the combustion in the engine and inertia

>>17811956
>Buddhism also won't improve your afterlife
neither does christianity or islam

>>17812024
>Reincarnation supposes a law which the universe follows
no, it presupposes that things in the universe behave in a certain way by their own nature that can be described with the concept of karma
there's no need for a prescriptive laws that the universe have to follow

>>17812372
>there's not a law sending people anywhere, those places are just end points you yourself go by following specific actions that set you in a specific metaphysical direction
Is this random, or does this process follow some rule?

>what you are talking is like saying that there's a specific force deciding where you go when you drive
Well yes - it's exactly like that, 100%, because there is: your mind.

A process like this must be guided by a mind. And a mind with power over everything, like the mind running karma would need to be, is by definition God.

>>17812369
I never should've let that anon get away with conflating my statement that "Reincarnation supposes a law which the universe follows" with the common idea that karma in itself acts like a cosmic moral law doling out good and bad to people in proportion to their actions, because that isn't exactly how Buddhism understands it. Buddhism allows that some people live moral lives but in their immediate next life are reborn in a bad destination, and some people live immoral lives but in their immediate next life are reborn in a good destination. Because the way cause and effect works is very complicated, and it's largely your own mind that determines where you go from one life to the next, as this anon says >>17812372

What I meant is that there is a principle of cause and effect or, maybe more accurately, dependence, in Buddhism that allows for rebirth to occur. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da

So in Buddhism rebirth isn't something miraculous. It doesn't require a violation of the day-to-day cosmic order. It's just a continuation of it.

>>17812396
Also, personally the whole idea of moral justice doesn't make sense with an all-loving omnipotent God. In Buddhism immorality and suffering are ultimately rooted in ignorance and delusion. An decent all-powerful deity, instead of punishing people for being ignorant or deluded, could just grant them direct understanding of reality so that they would be able to avoid causing suffering for themselves and others, no reward and punishment system necessary.

>>17812396
>Buddhism allows that some people live moral lives but in their immediate next life are reborn in a bad destination, and some people live immoral lives but in their immediate next life are reborn in a good destination
Is this random, or does this process follow some rule?

>Buddhism allows that some people live moral lives but in their immediate next life are reborn in a bad destination, and some people live immoral lives but in their immediate next life are reborn in a good destination
Absent the effects of any karma they've accumulated in other lives? Can you please quote a specific portion of the Pali Canon that teaches this?

>What I meant is that there is a principle of cause and effect
Well yeah. The only thing that wouldn't apply to is something coming from nowhere or happening without any cause for no reason whatsoever. Almost no one disputes that's how everything in the world works.

>in Buddhism rebirth isn't something miraculous
If coming into a Hell Realm with a fully formed indestructible body that will last longer than a universe isn't miraculous, then neither is resurrection.

>>17812484
>An decent all-powerful deity, instead of punishing people for being ignorant or deluded, could just grant them direct understanding of reality
Buddha claims in the Pali Canon that he can fly up and touch the sun itself. Rearranging neurons wouldn't be beyond the power of someone who could do that. So why didn't Buddha grant everyone direct understanding of reality?

>>17812712
>>17812712
>Can you please quote a specific portion of the Pali Canon that teaches this?
Here is one sutta:
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN136.html
And there it's said that it can happen either due to delayed ripening of kamma *or* due to adopting and carrying out right/wrong view at the time of death.
>If coming into a Hell Realm with a fully formed indestructible body that will last longer than a universe isn't miraculous, then neither is resurrection.
Other realms can have other rules. Spontaneous generation of life is very rare in this world, but in another place with different rules it could be very ordinary.
>Buddha claims in the Pali Canon that he can fly up and touch the sun itself. Rearranging neurons wouldn't be beyond the power of someone who could do that.
How do you know? They seem like unrelated skills to me. And I can freely accept that much of the Pali canon is almost certainly mythology that has built up around the core ideas and teachings of Buddhism (as I believe the Bible is also heavily mytholgical) without tossing out those core teachings. I'm not a huge fan of the Dalai Lama or his type of Buddhism, but IIRC he once said something like "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change." and I agree with that. If I had to bet on one religion to be closest to the truth, I would go with Buddhism, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a bit off in many ways, like a very primitive low-resolution model of the truth, but still recognizably a model of the truth.

>>17811464 (OP) You don't know what Christianity means. Read ACIM if you're really interested (you are not, obviously, and you'll continue to make those shitty threads to waste people's time).

>>17812905
Or Buddhism could be totally wrong at bottom, but without knowing I still find the vague outline of its world model and many of its ideas to have the best balance of intellectually satisfying, comforting, morally motivating, and—most important—reconcilable with my experience of reality out of all the major religions, so it's the religion I most prefer to take as a world model. Christianity is very interesting to me, but as I've tried to describe already, there's way too much about it that just feels like an internally and externally conflicting disjointed mess that demands far too much attention to hold together. It sits very poorly in my head so I prefer to keep it outside.

>>17812932
I'm not OP btw, although I've talked far more than OP. I don't make ever threads but I comment a lot on those with topics that interest me if I don't see anyone else responding to comments very quickly. Maybe it's rude of me to do this but so far no OPs have said anything about it, so I'm not sure. I know hit-and-run OPs are very common on this website generally.

>>17812905
>there it's said that it can happen either due to delayed ripening of kamma
Then it wouldn't be accurate to say they lived "moral lives" - some of their lives were evidently immoral

>*or* due to adopting and carrying out right/wrong view at the time of death
Precisely. That's exactly what Buddha says here. But earlier, weren't you criticizing "the relevant choice for determining which side you get sent to isn't even based in your intentions and moral habits and the consequences of your actions broadly, but instead on your choice of whether or not to believe"?

So once again, you're disagreeing with Buddha before you're disagreeing with me.

>Other realms can have other rules. Spontaneous generation of life is very rare in this world, but in another place with different rules it could be very ordinary.
The same is true for the realm of the resurrection. The resurrected world will play by different rules from this one.

>How do you know? They seem like unrelated skills to me.
If you can change your body such that it can withstand the full power of the sun, you have absolute power over bodies. Changing neuron patterns to Buddhist ones is nothing compared to changing matter to be able to defy gravity and endure a star.

>I can freely accept that much of the Pali canon is almost certainly mythology
In other words, Buddha's followers were men incapable of preserving the truth. Everything we hear about what he supposedly taught comes from sources proven to be completely unreliable by your own admission.

>without tossing out those core teachings
This is the core. It's all codified speculation. The same process that lead the Sangha to believe Buddha could touch the sun lead them to believe he could guide them to a better afterlife. He could no more do the former than he can the latter.

>>17812932
>disjointed mess
So far it's looking like every issue raised with Christianity has applied equally to Buddhism. Is there a unique issue you see with Christianity?

>>17811464 (OP)
Christianity is based around on trying to cheat karma by believing in the salvific power behind sacrificing a rabbi who was also god incarnated wearing a kapparot chicken costume, its metaphysics and soteriology is pants on head retarded and even more so when you take a step back and see past the feel-good aphorisms and overly sentimental promises

>>17813679
>cheat karma-
Prove karma is real first.

>>17813713
>Prove Action is real
Do Christfags really

>>17813920
>Good intent and good deeds contribute to good karma and happier rebirths, while bad intent and bad deeds contribute to bad karma and worse rebirths.
Prove this is real.

>>17813993
Read Plato.

>>17813993
I don't need proof, it's just basic logic bro.

>>17814008
>Read Plato.
No, explain your point.
>>17814020
Why do good things happen to bad people and vice versa?

>>17814170
karma doesn't operate in a strict linear or deterministic manner nor do they cancel each other out. The seeds good or bad will sprout eventually, just a matter of when. Bad people aren't all bad and will have done some good large or small in their past lives or earlier life, similarly good people will have done ill not in this life but in an earlier life that can give rise to harmful karmic fruits.

>>17814170
>Why do good things happen to bad people and vice versa?
Bro did you not read Job

>>17811682
>refrain from desires
>>17811691
>ignore your desire
This is the problem with Buddhism. Most people have no reading comprehension and start arranging and substituting words to match their preconception of Buddhism.

>>17814216
Let’s be blunt: Buddhism is cognitively inaccessible to the average human. Not because it's obscure, but because it demands a level of introspective precision and ontological subtlety that most people simply can’t sustain. It doesn’t spoon-feed you eternal life, it doesn’t offer you a cosmic parent figure, and it definitely doesn’t care about your feelings. Buddhism begins where most religions end—after the myth has collapsed, after the self has been exposed as a linguistic hallucination, and after all concepts have been unmasked as provisional tools rather than truths. This isn't a faith for the dopamine-addled, TikTok-scrolling serotonin seekers. This is intellectual and existential anaerobic exercise—and most people choke within the first breath.

Take pratītyasamutpāda—dependent origination—not as a cute idea that "everything’s connected," but as a razor that severs the fantasy of intrinsic identity. You aren’t a thing. You’re a dynamic process—a shifting cascade of causes and conditions falsely framed by language as a static “self.” Every thought you think you think is already co-arising with what you call “world.” Emptiness isn’t a void; it’s a liberation from reification itself. But good luck explaining that to someone who thinks “karma” means their ex will get hit by a car. The average intellect can't navigate this terrain. They're still trying to reconcile an angry sky-dad with an all-loving deity, while Buddhism’s already dissolved the whole premise of a "you" and a "him." It’s not just high IQ—it’s post-IQ. The Dharma isn’t hard because it’s complicated. It’s hard because you are retarded.

>>17814192
>karma doesn't operate in a strict linear or deterministic manner nor do they cancel each other out.
That is quite literally what you said here:
>>17813920
You said karma was action.

>>17814262
any good books where you learnt all this stuff?

>>17814216
Buddhism teaches you to both refrain and ignore your desires. Both of these are true, why are you acting as if it's just substituting one word for another?
>>17814262
Buddhism is simply false, anon. Threre is no karma, there is no Nirvana, there is no reincarnation, this world is real and the self does exist, there is no enlightenment that Buddha reached and he probably didn't even exist.

>>17811674
The Christcuck is the ultimate consoomer. Spends his whole life scrimping and saving his “soul points” for Heaven like it's some divine Disneyland. No matter what life throws at him, he’s in line with his eternal fast pass, thinking it’s all worth it because eventually he’s getting that celestial upgrade. Dude passes on anything fun here on Earth because “that’s not God’s way” and keeps telling himself that skipping all the cool stuff is just gonna make the afterlife that much sweeter. Thinks he's getting the premium deluxe package with unlimited joy and eternal bliss. The twist? You don’t even get a preview. No return policy, no “try before you die” – just a lifetime of waiting, saving up cosmic good-boy points, and hoping Heaven’s not just some cloud storage.

>>17811956
Japan understand religious identity in terms of serious practice, basically either as a cleric, scholar or kannisho. To identify yourself implies some deep relationship.

Actual shinto is hyper local there and still connected to Tendai and Shingon Buddhist metaphysics for most people or simply just a thing you do. You would not identify as it. Basically, just like in Thai and Sri Lanakan Buddhism, local deities are devas or bodhisattvas with some being worldly deities, kinda like beings you can bargain with. Most people there identify with a local Buddhist temple and it is common for women to official join their husbands temple but none the less everyone tends to practice Shin buddhism and attend Shingon public rituals yearly. Not doing those Shingon rituals actually kinda marks you from not in their society. The Shin practice itself though is highly private. Further, many practice very privately, Myōken, which has origins in Tendai and Shingon. That is also hyper local and is actually esoteric Buddhism.

Link is a lecture on Shin. Basically, it is a Pure Land tradition that is closer to Zen in terms of practice.

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

>>17814337
>Spends his whole life scrimping and saving his “soul points” for Heaven
Christianity is quite literally all about how you can't buy your way into heaven because you can never make up for your many sins.

The rest of your post is plain retarded, if your basic understanding of Christian teaching is already this wrong.

>>17814318
that wasnt me

>>17814373
Christianity is the most grotesquely transactional of all major religions—built entirely on a deal so perverse it masquerades as mercy: an innocent man tortured to death so the guilty can feel saved without changing a thing. Its core premise is spiritual blackmail—believe in the blood sacrifice or burn forever. This isn't justice, it's a cosmic hostage situation. The follower sins endlessly, revels in hypocrisy, but points to the crucified scapegoat and says, “Paid in full.” It reduces morality to a loophole, where repentance isn’t growth but a get-out-of-hell-free card stapled to someone else’s flesh.

The whole system flatters the narcissist—absolving them not through responsibility, but through identification with the victim they helped kill. “Jesus died for me,” they say, never noticing the sheer egocentrism in making another’s suffering all about their personal ticket to heaven. The cross becomes a mirror for their delusion: a divine endorsement of their sickness, their bigotry, their laziness dressed up as faith. No other belief structure is so obsessed with blaming the world while demanding to be congratulated for being forgiven by default. Christianity doesn’t free the soul; it launders it.

>>17814348
It is important to note that Shin is often all pervading in their society, whenever you see an anime about the power of friendship or rules about not using phones on a subway, you are looking at a secularized understanding of Shin Buddhist shinjin or true entrusting. Same with the view of nature. This captures the rough idea from a religious view. Note westerners often get this in an extremely simplifed version found in inaccurate repersentatiosn of Zen Buddhism, but in reality it is found in a shared philosophical tradition called Huayan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUb1SJ7LFAs&t=5s


With that said, the philosophy assumed is shared with other far east asian Buddhist schools and often plays a bit role even in non-Buddhist philosophy in China, Vietnam and elswhere. Specifically it is a Tiantai and Huayan philosophy which kinda systematizes everything. Only a scholar would be expected to know that though. It is a type of metaphysical antifoundationalism.

>>17814383
>Christianity is the most grotesquely transactional of all major religions
It's the absolute opposite of transaction, there's you have absolutely NOTHING that you can give God in exchange of forgiving your sins.

>>17814392
Christianity's "guilty until proven innocent" doctrine is the most sadistic form of psychological terrorism ever inflicted on the human mind. You're born condemned, stained with "original sin" before you even take your first breath, and then told the only way out is through complete submission to an invisible cosmic dictator. But here's the sick joke - you can never actually prove your innocence in this rigged system. No matter how many prayers you say, how many commandments you follow, or how much you debase yourself, you're still a worthless sinner deserving of eternal torture. It's a perfect system of control that keeps you permanently enslaved to a guilt you never earned.

The only real escape is realizing that this whole corrupt system is bullshit and we don't need external validation from some celestial judge. We are the only ones who can set ourselves free by rejecting the very premise that we were ever guilty to begin with. No god, church, or religion has the right to declare us broken from birth. The power to judge our own worth and define our own meaning has always been within us - we just need to deprogram ourselves from this inherited guilt complex that serves no purpose except to keep humanity psychologically chained. True liberation comes from telling this whole rigged cosmic courtroom to go fuck itself.

>>17814412
>Christianity's "guilty until proven innocent" doctrine-
People's guilt is not something that is in need of being proved, God already knows every single one of the sins' you've committed from the first to the last. No one is innocent, we've all fallen short of the glory of God.

>>17814392
There is. You give god the belief that Jesus was god and died for your sins.

>>17814418
Christcucks get off on calling themselves worthless sinners—it’s their favorite kink. They slobber over the idea that they’re broken, dirty, and in desperate need of some cosmic daddy’s approval just to function. It’s not humility—it’s spiritual masochism. They proudly crawl around declaring they’re filth, begging for forgiveness like whipped dogs and calling it salvation. It’s not faith, it’s a submissive identity built around guilt, shame, and never being good enough unless a Jewish carpenter gives them a gold star.

They don’t want to improve—they want to stay on their knees, spiritually cucked for life. Their whole religion is a loop of sin, cry, beg, repeat. No growth, no strength, just ritualized self-loathing packaged as holiness. They’ve turned debasement into worship, and they’re proud of being pathetic. It’s not piety—it’s learned helplessness, and they cling to it because taking real responsibility would shatter their fragile, kneeling fantasy.

>>17814391
One interesting thing to note is that what we often think of as Japanese aesthetics and it's modern or retro look is acutally this as well. Concepts like spirtuality or materialism don't really make sense in Japan because there is no specific split between the private and public world. There is a kind focus on creating conditions for spontaneous realization of insight into reality which appears as ethical behavior. Art and even cleaning things can be a sight for that. the first video captures this in term of arts while the second explores from Pure Land buddhist view but also touches on the Huayan metaphyscis again and that view of art. Even though Imperial Japan sought to kinda stifle this by breaking religions and communities into sectarian affiliations, this, for the most part is not how they understand it in real life. It is sorta like everything is realized in it's proper place automatically. In other far east countries the approach is more gradual. China is notable for focusing on scholastic study for example and ethical practice before such insight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLTpYPM3smU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTfmCZnAsO0&t=4435s

>>17814427
Beliefs are not "given", anon, what retardation is this? Beliefs are claims of truth that one holds, it's not something that can be given to someone else, and why would God "need" your belief, even if it were something that could be given? God doesn't need you to believe something in order for it to be true.

>>17814435
>Christcucks get off on calling themselves worthless sinners—it’s their favorite kink.
Literal brainrotted porn addicted gooner logic.

>>17814439
In Christianity, the idea is one must profess creeds and be in various types of communion with varioues ecclesistical bodies. Even Protestantism talks about an invisble church composed of the saved.

>>17814449
>the idea is one must profess creeds
Which are not something that can be given to others in a transactional matter, you either hold the creed or you don't, but your beliefs are not a barganing chip.

>>17814439
Do you want the wording "You give Jesus your headspace" instead? You do action X (believing...), you get your sins forgiven. This is the transaction. Or are you a believer in universal salvation instead?

>>17814447
Let’s face it — christcucks are just spiritual gooners. They’ve been edging for two millennia, hunched over pews like porn addicts in a prayer loop, breathlessly whispering “come, Lord Jesus” while convincing themselves it’s holy. Every war, plague, or blood moon sends them into another twitching frenzy: Is this it? Is He finally coming? Their god is no longer a redeemer — He’s a delayed orgasm they’ve built a religion around.

They chant, kneel, beg, guilt themselves into trance states — not for truth, but for release. The Second Coming is their cumshot prophecy, the climax they’ve denied themselves for generations. And like true gooners, they’ve lost the plot completely. They don’t worship. They edge. They don’t love. They ache. And they’ll keep spiraling in devotional frustration forever, too afraid to admit the only thing holy left is their own helpless need.

>>17814469
>Do you want the wording "You give Jesus your headspace" instead?
No? Giving Jesus your headspace means nothing, there are NT scholars who do nothing but think about Jesus and the Bible and yet they don't believe.

>>17814333
Because Buddhism doesn't, and you're substituting words to match your idea that it does.

>>17814487
I kek'd to an LLM output