Do Eastern religions have a better understanding of God?

Do Eastern religions have a better understanding of God?

Attached: images (14).jpg (295x295, 13K)

Other urls found in this thread:

warosu.org/lit/thread/S13208492
youtube.com/watch?v=5WKqO16mkGE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>dude, everything is God!
>we are all one

Europeans used to have a very good understanding of all the gods until Christians came with their Jewish nonsense

What is up with all the fedora tippers and pagan LARPers today? Must be summer.

You cannot form a logical argument against paganism, which doesn't also attack Christianity, without resorting to the Bible.

If paganism had any truth to it, why do they all change the names and status of their supposed deities?

Only pure blooded aryans truly understand the creator. No easterner would sacrifice his totality to create works as great as Hegel or Schopenhauer. True faith, passed from the father to the son is a strictly aryan concept, borne out the necessity of survival in the barren cold of the north. Eastern philosophy is a stillborn child compared to the beauty and splendour of Gods true chosen people.

Yes
This post is really incoherent, A few things can be said though
1) Hinduism comes from the Aryans whereas not a single major western religion does (in origin)
2) "sacrifice his totality" lmao what the the fuck does thos mean
3) Schopenhauer praised Eastern texts like the Upanishads as being the highest wisdom ever produced and unironically called himself a Hindu and a Buddhist and much of Hegel ideas were preempted by easterners.

That's not a bug, that's a feature.
The world is not static. Things change. Nature changes. Humans change. So do gods - especially gods, since they live (if such a word can be applied) much longer than any man. Without entering a discussion on the nature of pagan deities and rituals, one could note that a lot of pagan myths and traditions - traditions so strong, some of them have survived Christianity - were woven into the local culture, passed down as part of the oral lore. And there was no Bible, no canon. There wasn't even a strong religious authority to enforce the 'correct' way of worshipping, or to excommunicate you for disagreeing with them. Of course there would be some drift. That's a good thing. You interpret the will and nature of the gods according to your knowledge, then see if your interpretation matches the result of your actions.
But in any case, Christianity (and all Abrahamic religions, really) suffers from the same problems, though not as much. There are, and have been, so many branches and heresies of Christianity, and each one says that it's interpretation of the nature of God, of the rituals, of the church, is the correct one. Going from Protestants to Gnostics, from Catholics to Arians. It might be impossible to determine who goes to Hell nowadays.

Attached: 1559444098440.png (2114x1566, 2.71M)

cringe AND bluepilled

Christianity has long ago absorbed all good thing about peganisum while eliminating bullshit.

Formerly aryan religions that devolved into relics of their former selves hence why I compare Hegel who brought reason to the phenomenological experience in a manner that could not be matched with eastern philosophy vs Schopenhauer who held true to the fundamental beauty of it.

Schopenhauer was cringe and interpreted eastern religions in light of his atheism. Avoid Schopenhauer.

>buddhists dont believe in a “God” so much as like, a heaven? A sort of like, how nice and accepting are you? If you fight it and do sins, youre gonna be a cockroach or something. if youre nice then an eagle? Then maybe nothing at all.
>thats because life is suffering
>Buddha and buddhas are not the same
Just be really nice is what the first Buddha wanted us to do

Structurally [theism] speaking, the metaphysical contradictions that regulate a monotheist (or at it's most dire, monist) God can spring from any literate civilization; This being identifiable in Ancient Egypt, Judea, Greece, India, etc (symptotic and atemporally concurrent). Anti-structurally [atheist], no one religion can claim (in the dogmatic sense of "earliest" and/or "truest") to be [the most] systemic, but the simplest chronological answer would be: Buddha, then Jesus (asymptotic, etc).
Is this good enough?

Sick larping pal
Sick insight broski

actually all the christfagging reaches its peak around summer
when it gets colder we actually start discussing books again

>Formerly aryan religions that devolved into relics of their former selves
No they didn't, the intellectual tradition associated with them only deepened over time as more and more thinkers added to it. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
>hence why I compare Hegel who brought reason to the phenomenological experience
Hegel is pretty unimpressive compared to the writings of people like Adi Shankara and Abhinavagupta among others who both use reason and comment on phenomenology. See this thread below for Hegel getting btfo by a Vedantist. A lot of eastern philosophical writing is very beautiful as well but that's subjective.

warosu.org/lit/thread/S13208492

>I do not condemn the dissonance: let them only know, let them only love, let them only be mindful of the object they adore.

Attached: adore.jpg (993x2889, 1.04M)

youtube.com/watch?v=5WKqO16mkGE

Attached: closed individualism.png (1400x788, 88K)

What does idolatry have to do with any of this? It's simple:
Polytheism
Monotheism -> Pantheism
Atheism

Cringe but based for making me laugh