Buddha delivered the kingdom of the Mercy god, Jesus just kinda blabbed on about it. Philosophically speaking, of course.
When you say Jesus was a shitty Buddha, do you mean he was like a shitty version of the Buddha or that Buddhas are shitty and he was one of them?
Do they seem to have the same message/system/spiritual practices to you?
It seems like Buddha delivered and Jesus just blabbed. What was it about Jesus communication that did not deliver, where the Buddha’s did?
I assume also that Mercy god is some kind of metaphor, or?
I mean that Jesus was just a crappier “version,” if you will, of Buddha.
I’m thinking he or someone in his entourage had read a healthy dose of Indian, Persian, Jewish and Egyptian religious scripts. But the message itself of Jesus in the bible was that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. In buddhism there is no message, just instructions for achieving “Heaven” cough I mean, uh, “Nirvana.”
Master Un Mun, or perhaps better known as Master Yun Men in China, wrote a large number of Koans, many of which are still meditated on and taught with to this day. Here is one of my favorite koans by Master Un Mon(Yun Men).
A monk asked Ummon, “What is Buddha?”
Ummon said, “A dry shit-stick!”
(Note: A ‘dry shit stick’ was the medieval equivalent of toilet paper. Hence Yunmen’s reply is sometimes translated as “Something to wipe your arse on!”)
Or maybe you don’t know what you are talking about. After all all you have done so far is make derogatory claims without backing them up. Incidentally, if you plan on continuing this discussion. I’ll give you a break because you are new here,[you have a new name any way] but I respectfully request that you read the rules for this forum because, I think you have already violated one of them.
Which one? Felix isn’t hostile toward religion. He’s hostile toward posters. I guess it’s his job. We’re lucky we have a moderator that also contributes to the discussion.
- NO SLANDERING OF WORLD RELIGIOUS LEADERS.
I guess I’ll back off then, but it seems to me that this rule desperately needs changing. Or made less so that a resonant criticism = slander.
Oh don’t be so lame felix, he’s not slandering. If his thread were titled without the word “Shit,” there’d be no complaint: “Jesus was like Buddha, but not as good” or something. I don’t think his title is that much different from the one I just said, except that there’s a swear word in his.
I for one don’t give a shit one way or the other about Jesus or Buddha, but if I did I’d think his idea was at least worth considering, and it certainly holds a place above “slander”. This is just comparing two religious figures and pointing out which one is better, slander is more like “Jesus was a dirty whore-fucker who couldn’t keep his snake in his pants, and who also ate feces.” That’s slander.
OMG … guilty guilty guilty. I slander God a lot. And He’s the biggest world religious leader of all.
That rule is wrong. It kills lots of fun. It’s a “shut up” rule. Don’t like it at all. It forces me to be lovy-dovy … don’t curmudgeons and gadflies have rights to free speech too?
And why would Buddha care if he’s slandered? “Wouldn’t he laugh to be called a shit stick?”
There’s lots of wisdom at our toilet paper. We should study there often. TP doesn’t slander us. It speaks truth about us all … including to Jesus and Buddha … barring that they weren’t made like a Ken doll (down there).
Asserting that something is a shitty this or that actually says nothing about the object or sense content itself. It is an expression of the person’s feeling about the object. But when a person makes such a statement, they mistakenly seem to think they are saying something about it. So asking for clarification is an an appropriate response, in my opinion. The statement says something about FilmSnob and nothing about and Jesus. So why you think its a good idea, I can’t fathom. You seem to wish to push boundaries.
Your opinion is welcome, but keep this in mind, if, in my opinion, you violate the rules, it will be my opinion that will determine the consequences as far as this forum is concerned.
To slander is to make a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report. Why would you want to do that? It’s indefensible by definition. I didn’t think that rule was necessary but now I’m starting to like it.
I agree that asking him for an actual substantial argument/evidence to support his OP is in order totally, and were I a mod I would say just that. I might make a post saying something like “If this is just going to be an unbacked assertion, it’s not welcome.” But I wouldn’t dismiss it on the grounds that it’s “slanderous,” just on the grounds that it’s without substance. Slander all you want, just don’t make dumb OPs making large assertions without any support.
If you become mod here I will keep this post in mind. 
So if we say something malicious, TRUE, and defamatory we’re in the clear …??
And theologians wonder why nobody esle takes them seriously… What a bust, I’m going back to the philosophy forum.
No! because it wouldn’t be politically correct…ESPECIALLY if it’s true!
I don’t think they are saying the same things. jesus had a personified deity, the Buddha did not. I don’t see any similar systematic set of practices given by Jesus, his approach seems to be relational and attitudinal. Jesus does seem to shift Judaism to a more inward, introspective ethics, but this seems different from mediation practices. The Buddha seems pragmatic to me. Whereas Jesus is more telling people where they hearts - ie. emotions - should be in relation to other and God and him. This isn’t really Buddhism, where these emotions would be simply more things to observe and not identify with. More goals. If anything Jesus is more like the Bhakti versions of Hinduism, a love based, heart based religion. I think a decent case could be made he is a version of those religions and if he did go East, which some seem to think, I would bet he was influenced by Hinduism much more than Buddhism.
In a very real way Jesus was highly concerned about metaphysics. The Buddha essentially rejects metaphysics. A major difference in my mind.