LosingMyReligion Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 So, I was watching the Trinity Bullshit Network (TBN) last night. Of course they were having their umpteenth telethon, convincing their gullible flock of--already fleeced--sheep to send money. Y'know, because their universal creator(who owns everything, by the way)needs some more loot? Anyway, some craggly old geezer gets up and starts proselytizing about how wonderful Da Lawd is and blase', blase', blase'. Usually, I just laugh at them all. In all honesty I just, occasionally, watch the station to make fun of them here. However, something he said--what ALL christians say at some point--pissed me off. The preacher basically said that if you talk to Allah you are just talking to yourself. And then he said Buddah can't do anything because he's fat and bald. Of course the dumb@$$ fundies that was sooooooooo clever. My gripe was... 1.) When you talk to Jesus you are talking to yourself to. What is the difference? and 2.) Christians are always pleading for religious tolerance. But they only care about tolerance when it comes to THEIR religion. Otherwise, they feel this incessant need to denegrate someone else's faith. If that dumb fuck on TBN knew anything he would realize that Buddhists don't have a personal god. In a way it is a secular faith. Fortunately he was on TBN where that kind of unknowledged bullshit is praised. Lastly, there are millions of Muslims(numerically proportionate to x-tians)out there who believe in Allah just as much as fundies do Jesus. Both of them are going solely on blind faith. But somehow these fundie X-tian freaks believe their Jesus is the real mccoy. Okay, I'm an infidel but that pissed me off. I guess it was the part about the Buddha. I think the Buddha was truly a great person, and I love the philosophy of that faith. If more X-Tians started behaving like Buddhists then maybe there wouldn't be so much war and obesity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twincats Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 This is all very distressing to me because I grew up during the heyday of Vatican II and it seemed to me (in my little childhood world as a SoCal Lutheran in the mid 60's to early 70's) that the mainstream religions were doing their best to get along. If those days were ever anywhere close to what I thought they were during my early childhood and teen years, it seems to be all over now! Because of my childhood perceptions, I always believed that religions could get along because they were based on faith; since no one religion could claim any concrete evidence, it made no sense to denigrate any other religion since they are all the same as far as evidence goes. No one told me this, not my parents, my pastor or my Sunday school teachers; it just seemed logical. I think this may what enabled me to turn apostate with so much ease much later in life when christianity and islam started to get ugly about who has the patent on Truth in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 And then he said Buddah can't do anything because he's fat and bald. Huh? Don't I know what the Buddha statues look like or don't I know what fat is? I cannot imagine a fat Buddha if I try. The two just don't go together any more than a slim and bald Santa go together. slim and bald=Buddha pot-belly and bearded red-hat=Santa Your Christian preacher must be R E A L L Y stupid. Even more so than I could have dreamed. And he went on the air like that??? Oh boy..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 Huh? Don't I know what the Buddha statues look like or don't I know what fat is? I cannot imagine a fat Buddha if I try. The two just don't go together any more than a slim and bald Santa go together. There are some Westernized stereotypes of Buddha being fat. Buddha Statues Oddly most of the ones I've seen show him thin, like these: More statues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 Thanks for the links. I'm not into serious study of Buddha statues but I have seen a few in professors' offices. I figure those would be the "real" thing and they are always thin. Not as thin as your second link, but neither pot-belly fat like the Santa ones. They are bald and very plainly clothed. Most of the appropriately thin Buddha statues at your first link had fancy clothing like some kind of wealthy ruler. I forget whether the statues I saw in professors' offices wore only a loin cloth or whether they wore a plain one-piece robe. But they definitely did not wear fancy robes like the first link shows. They are always sitting in a meditative lotus position. That sums up almost everything I know about the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted November 11, 2007 Share Posted November 11, 2007 the "Fat Buddha" or "Laughing Buddha" statues are Pu Dai, a Chinese god of good fortune retconned into a Buddha. If I recall correctly he is represented as the Maitreya or Buddha-to-be. I don't know about all that stuff, but the stories concerning Pu Dai present him as quite the character. The jist is that Pu Dai was a mendicant who was rumoured to be very wise and was invited to join many temples but he refused because the monastics prohibited drinking (note the wine jug hanging from his sash). He preferred to spend his time getting drunk, helping folks out and giving candy to kids. By the looks of his statues he may have been hitting that candy himself. A drunken Chinese Santa Claus in a way. I always liked the image of Pu Dai. I have a small collection of his statues. They brighten the decor of any room. To be honest, on certain days, I find the "delicate knowing smile" of the Indian Buddha statues to be more of an arrogant smirk. "If you meet the Buddha, slap that smile off his face." But on the actual topic. I guess that holding the cure for the disease of life gives one special dispensation to bad-mouth everybody else and then cry when they get bad-mouthed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbobrob Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Sadly, most preachers preach to the stereotype, because that might be all they know, and surely that is all their audience knows (stupid American stereotyped pop culture references). Imagine if a preacher got up and compared the real belief of others to Christianity. He'd have to show so much sympathy to the other religious thought, he'd probably be run out on a rail for being a Satanic sympathizer. Seen it on other boards, they would rather label everyone not like them Demon-possessed, rather than deal with everyone as real human beings. Don't have to take them serious if they are not real people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWIM Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Most preachers seem to aim at what the *majority* in their congregation will *agree* with regardless if they feel it is true or false. They play the crowd in order to inspire the highest amount of donations. Churches are businesses and should be taxed as one. If we are to revolt against church tyranny, one of the first things that need to be done, and it is possible too if the ex-c ex-religious world united, is to REMOVE the tax exempt status. I look at it like this, if they are going to thrive, raise funds, and clutter areas with churches, we as a society should benefit. I get so tired of paying thousands in taxes, while those bloated pigs get a free ride. It just is NOT fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts