I've been getting some blog comments which suggest that calling people "Satanic" is waaaay nicer than calling people "crappy."
Well, I dunno about that.
Apparently, according to this reader, calling Buddhists "Satanic" is somehow much more polite than, say, suggesting that, due to the results of their actions in their current lives, some misguided Christians may find themselves reborn as single-celled intestinal inhabitants. Or worse. Which I, personally, rarely do. (See posts below, where poster Honest Observer make reference to this behavior).
The argument appears to be that calling people "Satanic" is a theological statement, while calling people "crappy" is, well, not nice. Or something.
I, as one Buddhist among many on the receiving end of the "Satanic" Mohler-esque namecall thing, strongly disagree. The S-word is the religious equivalent of the N-word.
If you want to call my religion "misguided" or something, that's fine.
Name-calling that implies devil-worship, on the other hand, is REALLY not nice. In the N-word sense. It's beyond the pale.
On the other hand, "Crappy-Christian" is accurate. I'm using this nomenclature in a theological way, pointing out that those Christians who behave in ways inimical to Christ's teachings are doing a crappy job of being Christians.
Any questions?
Well I'm not sure which is worse - worshiping the devil or being a pile of poop. At least a devil worshiper can be redeemed. There really isn't much hope for a steaming pile of poop is there. Other than being flushed down the toilet I suppose. Wouldn't it be nicer to just call Christians bigots?
Posted by: John | December 13, 2006 at 12:35 PM
I'm not sure I understood. Were you wanting equate Christian bigots with piles of poop?
Posted by: Buddhist Jihad | December 13, 2006 at 09:08 PM
Oh I don't know, perhaps it was just a bad attempt at humor. :) Come to think of it calling bad christians bigots isn't that much better than calling them crappy.
Posted by: John | December 14, 2006 at 10:54 AM
Well, the point is to encourage them to be neither crappy nor bigoted, is it not?
Posted by: Buddhist Jihad | December 15, 2006 at 01:08 AM
Well I think the 'good news' is that there seems to be a movement to 'take back' the christian church. There's an article in newsweek this week about it I believe, and one does appear to hear more and more about a general dissatisfaction among Christians. To be honest I do think there are a lot of 'good christians' out there, christians who do see it as most important to reflect the life of jesus and his compassionate nature. I would say that these people are far closer to being Buddhist (without realizing it) than the other, bigoted lot.
Posted by: John | December 15, 2006 at 09:41 AM
More power to them.
There are certainly some sectors of Christianity which have enjoyed very favorable relations with Buddhists -- mainly contemplatives, like Thomas Merton.
More recently, there are the loudmouth "Satanic"-name-calling kind who believe that the Dalai Lama causes earthquakes and hurricanes. (See stories below).
Posted by: Buddhist Jihad | December 15, 2006 at 09:56 AM
whooooooaa Best blog ever!!!
Buddhist jihad rock on! You have readers from Europe to.
Posted by: Yoda | December 18, 2006 at 01:42 PM
Welcome, Yoda. May the Force be with you.
Posted by: Buddhist Jihad | December 18, 2006 at 03:32 PM
There is one thing I don't get. What is wrong with coming back another kind of creature. Who are we to say they are better or worse than we?
Posted by: Mary McCurnin | December 18, 2006 at 05:51 PM
Technically speaking, some rebirths have inherent advantages over others -- for example, it is harder for single-celled amoebae to come in contact with the dharma. Therefore, in general, it is considered preferable to take rebirth as a human. There are exceptions, of course.
The Jataka Tales recount Buddha Shakyamuni's many rebirths prior to becoming enlightened.
Posted by: Buddhist Jihad | December 18, 2006 at 11:38 PM
Satanist don't worship the devil, the religion if you will is anti religion which directly opposes the teachings of Christianity.
Satanism is more concerned with the journey of the self and finding spiritualism within ones own head, it's quite personal.
There is a deep respect for animals, and people in the satanist beliefs, and a respect for how we are as human beings, which most faiths seem to pull us as humans away from.
I would hope that people who write so much on faith, would be better informed.
Posted by: Marina | January 03, 2007 at 02:53 PM
I know about Wicca, not about satanists.
The exact name-calling, however, was "Satanic," by which Talibangelicals mean something pejorative.
Posted by: Buddhist Jihad | January 03, 2007 at 05:40 PM