Something from the comment section that deserves to be its own article:

My problem with Buddhism used to be that its scripture is basically stupid. There’s a combination of reliance on the intellect and, simultaneously, trivial dogmatic conclusions that intellect is supposed to lead to – oh, things of the world produce suffering, you need to remove yourself from that. That’s just stupid, not to mention weak. Sure, suffering is bad, but there are worse things. What kind of a eunuch would avoid suffering that leads to some magnificent goal – for instance, the evolutionary vipassana method implies suffering as a method of transforming karma and growing one’s spiritual body. Should one avoid suffering implicit in the process and thus choose spiritual stagnation?
Sacrifice of Jesus is said to have produced great spiritual outcomes. It included a great deal of suffering. Should this suffering have been avoided as well? So Buddhism has that fundamental problem that it expects everybody to shit themselves at the mention of suffering like abject cowards, and yet expects disciples to patiently and calmly face and endure suffering in the process of karmic purification and evolution. To me, the argument that there’s suffering and one should thus renounce the world always looked idiotic, which it in fact is. Suffering is not the problem, it’s the symptom, the way pain is not the problem, but symptom. The problem is the design of the world which inhibits the perception of God’s presence, and removes all kinds of normal states of spiritual sovereignty and autonomy of the soul. It also introduces ignorance, by blocking spiritual insight which is otherwise normal, and so on. So, let’s see why the beings suffer. Some suffer because they are separated from God by the world. Some suffer because they are separated from their loved ones by death. Some suffer because the world makes them feel powerless and ignorant. And, also, all suffer because their body in this world is prone to sickness, injury and degradation. However, the true question is that of a worthy goal. If there’s no worthy goal to be achieved here, then the suffering is meaningless and pointless. If there’s a false perception of a worthy goal, then suffering is propagated by voluntary decision to partake in this. So there are all kinds of valid questions, and one could attack this problem from those positions, but buddhist texts as a rule don’t, and instead they endlessly spam you with “oh, the suffering; I better renounce the world”.

To elaborate on that, I prefer how both Hinduism and Christianity view suffering. In Hinduism, bliss is one of the essential aspects of God, and suffering – well, it means you’re not there. Other than that, sure: pleasure, or kama, is seen as a worthy goal… unless it stands in the way of artha (financial benefit), or dharma (righteousness, or correct action), or moksha (liberation from the world illusion), essentially putting it on the bottom of the ladder of values. This, essentially, means that suffering should be accepted instead of pleasure if anything of value is to be attained. If liberation is to be attained, hardships imposed by yoga and renunciation are to be accepted. If righteousness is at stake, one should always be ready to sacrifice oneself and endure hardship rather than commit sin. Even if financial benefit is at stake, one should prefer hard work and hardship in general if it is beneficial. In essence, Buddhism tries to appeal to frustrated hedonists, who try to obtain pleasure from the world, fail, and then tuck tail between their legs and exit whining like defeated dogs. Hinduism, on the other hand, feels very much like Christianity: if liberation, righteousness, or even financial benefit are at stake, calmly endure hardship and even get yourself crucified if the goal is worthy enough; choose to endure suffering willingly, because we’re not here for the fun and games. Sure, if fun and games are available, you have nothing better to do, it doesn’t harm anyone, and it doesn’t stand in the way of your spiritual practice, by all means, enjoy yourself and avoid pointless suffering. But the argument of Buddhism that tries to convince people to accept it – “oh, the suffering!” – will result in laughter or incredulity if used on a Hindu or a Christian, or any kind of a wise person in general. A worthy argument would be “The all-magnificent and wonderful God is all around us, and we fail to perceive it because we are deluded, and this is absolutely unacceptable”, and this would recruit every worthy person. Or, “injustice is inflicted upon the innocent, and we need to defend God’s children from evil” – that would also recruit virtuous people to the cause. But “there is suffering in the world, and that’s terrible”, that’s the argument for recruiting eunuchs.