Is Buddhism the true greatest ally of Christendom?

Is Buddhism the true greatest ally of Christendom?

Other urls found in this thread:

theonion.com/article/tibetan-teen-getting-into-western-philosophy-4782
twitter.com/AnonBabble

explain

Both are faulty slave morality religions, that put personal salvation / "enlightenment" over civilizational survival

Probably. They are 2 of the more philosophical religions.

Neither of them bring anything new to the realm of philosophy, both are just extreme forms of stoicism, with Christianity being worse in that it adds bizarre, insane claims of knowing what is after death

>who is Thomas Aquinas

they both seem to be able to accommodate nationalism, which is something an 'internationalist' religion like Islam reject.

Wut,Christianity has always been in conflict with nationalism

from the struggles of the catholic emperors against the nationalisms in central europe, to the modern calls of the Pope to erase all borders, Christianity remains a multinational project

theonion.com/article/tibetan-teen-getting-into-western-philosophy-4782

Kalachakra tantra, mleccha.

christianity came from an actual kike
buddhism came from an actual aryan

Hinduism is unironically the best religion. why do westerners seem to gloss over hinduism and focus on buddhism instead?

I think its the multiple God thing. breaking it into 3 creator/protector/destroyer is an alien concept. The rituals are different too, but to be fair all religions have off rituals/practices.

>Christianity has always been in conflict with nationalism
You should stick with posting copypastas, gaybro

> Constantine
> Nationalism

wut

you should read some history books, my anachronic sharter

The rituals in Kaliyuga are mostly pomp, all paths lead to Bhakti in the end.

...

If you research Buddhism, you'll learn that it is not ideal. It is just presented that way by the media. Google what is bad about Buddhism.

>from the struggles of the catholic emperors against the nationalisms in central europe
What you're misidentifying as "nationalism" is more rightly called investiture. The struggle was over secular authorities making appointments to the episcopacy. Nationalism, at the time, didn't even exist, much less enter into the equation.

>to the modern calls of the Pope to erase all borders
Even if we are to characterise what Francis said as an exhortation to open borders, this is a recent development. It is absurd to take controversial statements by a present-day pontiff and conclude that they a representative of the Church over the past 2,000 years.

What we do have is magisterial documents in the form of papal encyclicals where, for example, Pius XI stating that a love of one's race is natural and healthy so long as such temporal things are not divinised, which was the error of the National Socialists and others in the time period he was writing. We have, also, Pius XII issuing "Con inmenso gozo" in which Spanish nationalists were praised for their heroism in defense of Catholic Spain.

>Christianity remains a multinational project
Yes, as Christ commanded. But the baptizing of all nations does not demand ethnocide.

Same can be said about cuckstainity and pisslam among other religions

Theravada Buddhism, yes

Bhuddists in Nepal tried to set one of our Christian Pastors on fire, so I'm going to say not so much.

Heh