Lots of Gods in the Mahayana tradition (China and Japan), but none in the Theravada tradition (Thailand, Burma, Cambodia). In none of them, however, is the Buddha a god. The Buddhist logic is that it’s cruel to take away people’s gods, particularly their household gods, or to undermine the family (ancestor worship). The gods have their own realm (‘The Realm of the Devas’), while the ancestors can still be honoured via the traditional ‘godshelf’ seen in Japanese homes.
If you think Buddha isn’t a deity go watch Monkey Magic. Can normal people stick a monkey in a rock for hundreds of years without killing it? Case closed.
Although I was taken straight to Athiest, having Mayan as my first actual religious preference was kinda cool given I (in my complete ignorance no doubt) associate them with combining chocolate and ritual sacrifice (what’s not to love?!).
If you think Buddha isn’t a deity go watch Monkey Magic
Now that’s an authoritative source…
Having grown up opposite a Mormon family am wracking my brains about the magical underwear. Polygamy, tick. An angel called Moroni, tick. The magical underwear isn’t ringing any bells though.
I have the whole box set after blogging about my latent desire to obtain it years ago and having a reader who also worked in a DVD store email me with an offer… very enjoyable but it does go downhill as they stretch the concept out, and start doing 70s ish things to be cool like, um, swearing and dancing under mirrorballs!
I remember the John Safran episode where he procures some magical underwear in Salt Lake City. Also, he and some scientist friends go door-knocking to convert the Mormons to evolution…
I am just wondering if the chart means that Christians (in this chart there are only the “boring, generic” types) can never be annoying, or whether that means that the annoying ones should become Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons.
Comment please?
15 Comments
My barking out laughter point was ‘are you rich or insane? You should be a scientologist!’
Um, buddhists aren’t deists if memory serves…
TimT, the moment when my husband and I lost it was the “Do you think underwear can be magical?” question…
Lots of Gods in the Mahayana tradition (China and Japan), but none in the Theravada tradition (Thailand, Burma, Cambodia). In none of them, however, is the Buddha a god. The Buddhist logic is that it’s cruel to take away people’s gods, particularly their household gods, or to undermine the family (ancestor worship). The gods have their own realm (‘The Realm of the Devas’), while the ancestors can still be honoured via the traditional ‘godshelf’ seen in Japanese homes.
I love that.
Thanks for the laugh, great stuff.
If you think Buddha isn’t a deity go watch Monkey Magic. Can normal people stick a monkey in a rock for hundreds of years without killing it? Case closed.
Although I was taken straight to Athiest, having Mayan as my first actual religious preference was kinda cool given I (in my complete ignorance no doubt) associate them with combining chocolate and ritual sacrifice (what’s not to love?!).
THE POWER OF MONKEY WAS IRREPRESSIBLE. Hiyaaaah!
Damn, LE, you beat me to it…
Now that’s an authoritative source…
Having grown up opposite a Mormon family am wracking my brains about the magical underwear. Polygamy, tick. An angel called Moroni, tick. The magical underwear isn’t ringing any bells though.
Googling ‘Mormon magic underwear’ resulted in this as the No# 1 entry.
I have the whole box set after blogging about my latent desire to obtain it years ago and having a reader who also worked in a DVD store email me with an offer… very enjoyable but it does go downhill as they stretch the concept out, and start doing 70s ish things to be cool like, um, swearing and dancing under mirrorballs!
I remember the John Safran episode where he procures some magical underwear in Salt Lake City. Also, he and some scientist friends go door-knocking to convert the Mormons to evolution…
I am just wondering if the chart means that Christians (in this chart there are only the “boring, generic” types) can never be annoying, or whether that means that the annoying ones should become Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons.
Comment please?
Have no idea, Andrew. I suspect like much humour, subjecting it to analysis has the effect of making the humour evaporate instantly…
Also you were trapped in the spammer, I don’t know how long for. It is a mite tetchy at the moment. Sorry about that.
I should be Mormon because I like bacon? umm ok.
One Trackback
[...] [Source: Skeptic Lawyer] [...]