Positively Glorious!

Alright, I tried, but I can’t let this one go. Apparently, someone wants to use The Last Airbender as a way to “explain the difference between Buddhist and Christian worldviews,” and specifically to discuss “how Christians should respond to Buddist philosophy.” (and by “respond” the article obviously means “reject” or even “condemn”)

The full article is: The Last Airbender: How Should Christians Respond to Buddhist Philosophy? It’s short and not particularly deep, so it’s easy enough to read real quick. Though I present most of the article here, it’s not in the original order, and so it’s best to read the source.

The Last Airbender is the newest movie directed by M. Night Shyamalan. Based on a popular Nickelodeon cartoon, the movie is filled with references to Buddhist philosophy. With the increasing popularity of Buddhism in America, what should be the Christian response?

First of all: Really? We’re going to enter a theological argument on the “response” to Buddhism by Christians (specifically Americans) based on the simplistic view of Buddhism that is presented in an action movie? There’s approximately the same amount of Buddhist philosophy presented in The Star Wars trilogy- which was a better show anyway, so why not use that?

It’s ignorant to assume that you can distill another worldview into such simplistic terms for argument unless you are going to accept that your own worldview can– and should– be so distilled. How would Christians feel if I responded to this argument with an argument on Christianity that was based on the Keanu Reeves movie Constantine? They’d say I was stupid. And I would be.

Furthermore, setting up a straw-man argument on Christianity vs. Buddhism is rather inane anyway, unless you are coming from it solely from the perspective of “How can we prove that Christianity is better than everything else” or the subtly different, and much more bigoted “how can we destroy everything else so that Christianity is all that remains.” In that case, no argument is necessary because you and Christianity have already won– simply because “everything else” is fundamentally flawed, or even evil.

But I’ll stop there, since it’s not really evident that this is a bigoted “destroy all people not like us” article.

Daniel King is a missionary who thinks he has an answer to this question. He has ministered in over fifty nations around the world and led over 1,000,000 people to Jesus, many of them Buddhists.

Oh, wait. I take that back. Yes it is.

He explains, “The basic problem that Buddha confronted was suffering. In The Last Airbender we see a young Buddhist monk attempt to deal with the suffering caused by an evil dictator. Jesus also encountered suffering, but His solution was completely different from Buddha.

The article continues to postulate the ways that Buddha dealt with suffering, and the ways that Jesus did, ending with the line:

Buddha dwelt [sic] with suffering by trying to deny its existence. Jesus dwelt [sic] with suffering by relieving it.

Honestly, this was what made me want to respond. Again, really?

If you’re actually postulating how a Buddhist, versus a Christian, would deal with suffering, which you indeed seem to be in that line, you have contradicted yourself. Saying The Buddha dealt with suffering “by trying to denying its existence” is a lazy strawman argument. Especially given your previous paragraphs:

Buddha was deeply impacted by the suffering he saw four thousand years ago. Buddha was born as a prince and raised in protected luxury until one day he saw a poor leper. This confrontation with reality shook him and he began searching for a solution to the problems of this world.

Buddha revealed the four noble truths of Buddhism. The first truth was “Life is Suffering.” The second noble truth Buddha articulated is that “This suffering is because of our desire.” The third truth of Buddha’s enlightenment is that “When desire is eliminated, suffering is eliminated.” Buddha’s fourth truth revealed the “Eight-Fold Path” to removing desire from your life.

How can you state that The Buddha’s first truth is that “life is suffering” and then state that he denies suffering’s existence? How can you state that “Buddha was deeply impacted by the suffering he saw” and then state that he dealt with it by trying to deny it’s existence?

Think.

Everything The Buddha taught was based on the very existence of suffering, but it was also fundamentally driven by the desire to find a reason for that suffering, the cause. Finding the reason for a thing, you are thereby able to address that cause so that the path to suffering needn’t be followed. That’s not denying it’s existence, and it’s rather lazy of you to suggest that it is simply to promote your apparent argument that Christianity is better.

However, Jesus dwelt with suffering in a different way. When Jesus saw a man who was crippled for thirty-eight years, Jesus healed him by saying, “Take up your bed and walk.” When Jesus found a dead twelve-year-old girl, he brought her back to life. When a blind man approached Jesus, He restored his sight. When five thousand men plus woman and children were hungry, Jesus multiplied five loaves of bread and two fishes to feed the entire crowd. Jesus performed many miracles to set people free from their suffering.

Regarding your support of the Christian path, you’re suggestion that Christianity is better because “Jesus dealt with suffering by relieving it” does not address your central question. You ask the question about Christians as a whole, but answer it by stating what Jesus did as an individual. Buddha tried to teach of a way for all people to avoid suffering. The only description you have of Jesus is one of miracles. Are you suggesting that the principles of Jesus are simply to “bring dead girls back to life?” Sadly, Jesus did not give everyone else the power to heal the lame, and to bring dead girls back to life.

Is your suggestion that Buddhism is an inferior spiritual tradition because Buddhists don’t have the ability (or desire) to “relieve” all suffering, and that Christians do, in fact, relieve all suffering? We’ve a bit of history to discuss on that front, unfortunately.

Your description of a Christian path of simply “relieving” suffering is not an answer to “how Christians respond to Buddhist philosophy.” In fact, you’ve not actually addressed that question at all. You’ve merely set up an easily argued position about why Buddhism is inferior to Christianity.

Sadly, I don’t even think the discussion has merit at all. Why should a Christian need to “respond” to Buddhism at all. They are two non-exclusive spiritual traditions, each trying to find peace, beauty, and even God in different- often overlapping- ways?

Is Christianity so weak and questionable that it would have suffered if you’d stated something like “Buddhism tries to teach that suffering is avoidable, Christianity tries to teach that suffering is relivable?” Why is it not possible to say that both traditions try to deal with suffering in different, though not mutually exclusive– and in not at all competing– ways.

What response need there be by Christians to Buddhists? Setting up a Christianity vs. Buddhism debate doesn’t build a place for each to learn from each other and live together in peace, it only builds a place for each to argue against each other’s search for spiritual meaning. It builds a place that houses only conflict and destruction.

I can’t believe that Jesus himself, with his focus on love and acceptance, would have have come at something from such an aggressive, if not outright bigoted, position.

According to Daniel King, the movie The Last Airbender provides believers with an opportunity to explain the difference between Buddhist and Christian worldviews.

This is the clincher. You’ve turned two incredibly ancient and complex spiritual traditions, one which you seem to hold dear, into silly soundbites for the sole purpose of creating a simplistic spiritual smackdown. Are you seven?

The final line should read:

According to Daniel King, the movie The Last Airbender provides a way to simplify both Buddhism and Christianity into inane soundbites so that Buddhism can be easily proven to be inferior to the more righteously sounding Christianity.

Buddhism, neither the religion nor the philosophy, doesn’t deserve such a stupid argument, and neither does Christianity. The entire discussion turns Christianity into a sophomoric debate topic, and I think it deserves better treatment than that.

I’m neither a Buddhist nor a Christian, so your argument merely annoys me. If I were a Buddhist, I assume it would simply amuse me. If I were a Christian, however, I’m pretty sure it would offend me.

As a child, I thought the movie Ben Hur was a story about how rockin’ cool it would be to row in a Roman ship, then become an awesome gladiator, and be able to kill people by running them over in a chariot!

Sure, there were boring parts to the movie where people talked to each other about weird political stuff, but mostly it was about throwing spears, riding horses, and killing people.

It’s a somewhat different movie when you watch it as an adult.

Continue Reading »

A post from my friend Anne Key:

Today is the Spring Equinox, and we are at the height of the season, at Mid-Spring. The first half of Spring, from the beginning of February until today, has been a time of clearing out the dry leaves and twigs from last year and preparing the ground for this year’s sprouts. And now comes the surge of the robust and relentless energy of growth. Continue Reading »

Some Jehovah’s Witnesses came to my door today. After a discussion that lasted nearly an hour, they told me that “this has been a fascinating conversation. Would it be okay for us to come back and learn more about what you’re saying.” I said certainly, but I know they won’t come back. They’ve said that before, and they never return. Probably because by the time they say “fascinating conversation,” they are starting to question their beliefs and see that it may be possible to believe more than one truth, rather than only “The Truth.”

Or, maybe it’s just because they see someone with a strong, unshakable, and well-rounded spirituality as a less than likely convert. Either way, about the time I start explaining what it means to be god, they bugger off to greener pastures. It’s a shame really. Because I truly believe that fundamentalist religious adherents could learn a great deal by believing in other religions. Continue Reading »