bodhigirlsmiles

this is certainly the season for sharing and giving. i want to take a moment to ask each of you to share something lovely - an expierience you've had - with or about another faith from your own. i will start. when i lived in the republic of china (taiwan) for a number of years, i had the opportunity and the blessing to work with some nuns from the order that mother theresa started. they were so very amiable and loving. they put up with some very unpleasant things every day (they took care of elderly folks whom no one wanted and literally dropped off at their doorstep), and yet they did so with grace, and an attitude of love that was so deeply moving. it was a joy to be in their presence....i learned so very much from them. have you any stories to share about another faith?

those silly defrocked deacons....always up to mischief!

Upright Pentacle/Pentagram Upright pentacles and pentagrams are among the most widely used religious symbols. They have been used in many eras and by many cultures and religions of the world: by ancient Pagans, ancient Israelites, Christians, magicians, Wiccans and others. The following pentagram-using groups are listed in chronological order: This symbol apparently originated as the symbol of a Goddess who was worshiped over an area which extends from present-day England to Egypt and beyond. Her name was Kore (a.k.a. Car, Cara, Carnac, Ceres, Core, Kar, Karnak, Kaur, Kauri, Ker, Kerma, Kher, Kore, Q're, etc.). As Carmenta she was said to have invented the Roman alphabet. From her alternate Roman name Ceres have evolved many English words: cardiac, carnal, cereal, core, corn, and kernel. The port of Caraalis, (now Cagliari, the capital of Sardinia), was named after her. Kore's sacred fruit is the apple. When an apple is cut through its equator, both halves will reveal a near-perfect pentagram shape at the core, with each point on the star containing a seed. Many Wiccans, other Neopagans and Roma (Gypsies) continue to cut apples in this way. The Roma refer to the core as the Star of Knowledge. In ancient Greece, Pythagoras (586 - 506 BCE) established a school which pursued knowledge in mathematics, music, religion, and other specialties. Driven underground, his followers used the pentagram as a secret sign to identify themselves to each other. The Masonic Order has traditionally traced its origins back 2,500 years to the Pythagoreans. Kore was worshiped within the Coptic Gnostic Christian religion in Alexandria, Egypt, during the 4th century CE. Her festival, the Koreion, was held yearly on JAN-6. This was adopted by the Christian church as Feast of Epiphany (a.k.a. Twelfth Night). This date is still celebrated as Jesus' birthday in Armenian churches, and is observed with more pomp than is Christmas by the Greek Orthodox church. In England, the Koreion became the Kirn - the Feast of Ingathering. The Christian church later adopted it to the Feast of Our Lady of Mercy. During the times of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), the pentacle was the first and most important of the Seven Seals - an amulet whose seals represented the seven secret names of God. It was inscribed on King Solomon's ring, which is often called Solomon's Seal in error. Each point of the pentagram was also interpreted as referring to the five books of the Pentateuch - the first five books in the Hebrew Scriptures; the Torah. The Celts believed that the pentacle was the sign of the Goddess of the Underground, who they called Morgan (a.k.a. Morrigan). The concept of five points seems to have permeated at least one of the Celtic lands. "Ireland had five great roads, five provinces and five paths of the law. The fairy folk counted by fives, and the mythological figures wore five fold cloaks." In Christian times: The five points of the pentagram have been interpreted as representing the five wounds of Christ (2 wrist, 2 ankle and 1 side). The Roman Emperor Constantine used the pentagram in his seal and amulet. It has been referred to as the Star of Bethlehem It was used to symbolize the star which allegedly led three Zoroastrian astrologers to the baby Jesus; it was called the Three Kings' star. The English warrior Sir Gawain, a nephew of King Arthur, adopted the pentagram as his personal symbol and placed it on his shield. It appeared in gold on a red background. The five points symbolized "the five knightly virtues - generosity, courtesy, chastity, chivalry and piety." Tarot cards originally had a suit of coins or discs. These were changed in the 19th century to pentacles when the Tarot became associated with the Kabbalah. They eventually became the suit of diamonds in modern playing cards. It has been widely used by past Christians as a protective amulet. During the burning times when the Christian church burned alive hundreds of thousands of innocent people, the meaning of the pentagram changed. It began to symbolize a goat's head or the devil in the form of Baphomet. "The folk-symbol of security - for the first time in history - was equated with evil and was called the Witch's Foot. The religion of Wicca is based in part on ancient Celtic deities, symbols, days of celebration, etc. The pentacle and pentagram are their main symbols. Many religious and spiritual groups use the pentacle or pentagram today. Inverted Pentacle/Pentagram Some religious and spiritual groups have used the inverted pentacle. During the 20th century, Satanists inverted the upright pentacle and adopted it as their own symbol. However, the symbol is most commonly shown with the head of a goat within the pentagram as shown below. Sigil of Baphomet The inverted pentacle with a goat's head is called the sigil of Baphomet. The term may have come from two Greek words, baphe and metis, meaning "absorption of knowledge." It has also been called the Black Goat, Devil's Goat, Goat Head, Goat of Mendes, and Judas Goat. Its first appearance appears to have been during the vicious interrogation of members of the Knights Templar by the Christian Inquisition. There was little consensus among different victims' descriptions of the Baphomet. It can probably be safely assumed that their description of the Baphomet is more a product of the Inquisition's torture methods than of any actual statue that was in use by the Knights. "In the 20th. century Karl Kellner and other German occultists formed the secret order of the O.T.O. (Ordo Templi Orientis or Order of Templars in the East). They installed the English occultist Aleister Crowley to head their British section. Crowley took Baphomet as his magical name." Today, the Baphomet is widely used by religious Satanists. The Church of Satan also uses a second symbol which is an infinity sign (a figure 8 on its side). A Roman cross is placed on top with a second, longer cross piece added beneath the top cross piece. The meaning of Pentacles/Pentagrams to their users There is no single consensus on the significance of these symbols. Various groups use and define them quite differently: Wiccans have attempted to reconstruct a Pagan religion similar to that of the ancient Celts. They have adopted the upright pentacle/pentagram, since it was the symbol of Morgan, an ancient Celtic goddess. Many wear it as jewelry and use it on their altars. The symbol is frequently traced by hand using an athame (a ritual knife) during Wiccan rituals. It is used to cast and banish their healing circles. Some Wiccans interpret the five points as representing earth, air, fire, water, and spirit -- the five factors needed to sustain life. Others relate the points to the four directions and spirit. Some Wiccans and other Neopagans bless themselves and others with the sign of the pentagram. Their hand passes from their forehead to one hip, up to the opposite shoulder, across to the other shoulder, down to the opposite hip and back to the forehead. Some of the more highly structured Wiccan traditions have used an inverted pentagram to represent a second or third degree status. "Many of these groups have since substituted a triangle form for the same degrees because of the association of the inverted form of the pentacle with Satanism and black magic." Ceremonial magicians also use the pentagram. Its points can "represent various elemental energies, spirits or deities." The Order of the Eastern Star is a international humanitarian organization composed of women who are wives of advanced Masons. They use an inverted pentacle as their symbol. Essentially all Eastern Star members in North America are Christians. The Rosicrucian movement consists of groups of Christian mystics. They frequently use a wand, sword, cup and pentagram as tools during their rituals. The pentagram represents "earth, matter and stability." The Masonic Order associate the five points of the pentagram with "Five Points of Fellowship." However, its "use in Masonry is vestigial and peripheral." Again, almost all Masons in North America are Christians. Some heavy metal rock bands occasionally use a pentacle or pentagram as a band symbol. It is often neither an upright nor an inverted symbol. Often, it is aligned to have a top point which is slightly off vertical. We are unaware of any band that is actually composed of religious Satanists. All the groups which we have studied simply use the symbolism and stage theatrics to generate notoriety, popularity and record sales. Satanism is composed of many diverse groups with no central overall organization. They number perhaps 29,000 in North America. Some Satanic grottos and temples use the Baphomet. The meaning of Pentacles/Pentagrams to Christians Because liberal and conservative Christians interpret the Bible in different ways, they have developed very different belief systems over time, and agree on very few points. This disagreemnt carries over into their understanding of pentacles and pentagrams. Liberal Christians generally view Satan as a principle of evil rather than as a living entity. Those who are familiar with Wicca and Satanism are aware of the lack of similarity of the two religions: Wiccans do not recognize the existence of the Christian quasi-deity, Satan. They have no all-evil deity in their pantheon of gods and goddesses. Satanists recognize Satan (or one of his precursors) as either a living deity or a principle. Wiccans are prohibited by their Wiccan Rede from harming, manipulating or controlling others. Satanists, on the other hand, are free to use magic to harm their enemies. Wiccans follow an gentle, nature-based, aboriginal religion that is similar to that of Native American spirituality. Satanists practice indulgence, gratification and vengeance, rather than concern for all humans and for the environment. Many religious liberals view the Wiccan upright pentacle or pentagram as an elegant, spiritual symbol that represents life. They see the Satanic inverted pentacle or Bahomet as primarily representing a self-centered religion. Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Christians generally have an entirely different view of Wicca, Satanism and other religions. This is influenced by some of their beliefs. In many, but not all cases: Since they believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, they regard as true those passages which state that the gods and goddesses worshiped by other religions are, in reality, Satan or his demons. They regard Satan as a living entity, a living, quasi deity who is totally dedicated to destroying people's lives and ruining their faith. They regard themselves as being in continuous "spiritual warfare" -- a personal battle with Satan and his demons. They regard Satanism as having existed as an organized movement, murdering and performing "black masses" for may centuries. This contrasts with a consensus of modern historians that: "no reliable historical sources indicate that such organizations existed; the black mass appears only once in the sources before the late nineteenth century." They do not differentiate between Wicca and Satanism. Because they consider the Wiccan gods and goddesses to be Satanic or demonic, they regard the two religions as very similar They commonly believe that Satanists, (and by extension, Wiccans) engage in Satanic Ritual Abuse and murder. Belief in SRA is gradually diminishing, but remains still at a high level. Books by conservative Christian authors about Wicca and Satanism are based primarily on books by other Christian authors, rather than on primary religious sources. Some of the ideas put forth in these books as truth can be traced back to 15th century Christian propaganda during the Burning Times. Many conservative Christians do not differentiate between Wicca and Satanism, or between upright and inverted pentacles/pentagrams. All are viewed as symbols representing evil, violence and lawlessness.

sorry about that!

this is certainly true of the ancient chinese symbol used by buddhists (the one that many recognize as a nazi symbol) on many temples. of course, hitler took the symbol and reversed it, indicating his desire to make and end of progression for jews and other "undesireable" people.

the above-mentioned difference between christianity and buddhism comes from their divergent understandings of the nature of evil. as seen in st. augustine, christians understand evil as the privation of good or as the rebellion of human beings against the will of god, who is viewed as infinately good. thus, in christianity, evil is understood as nonsubstantial, as not existing in itself, and as something to be overcome by good. accordingly, good has priority over evil not only ethically, but also ontologically. this conviction gives christianity its ethico-religious character and also gives rise to the problem of theodicy: that is, the question of how to explain the reality of evil in relation to god as absolute in goodness and power. on the other hand, buddhists base their beliefs and practices not on the ethical dimension but on the ontological dimension by realizing that everything is inpermanent and interdependent, and understanding that evil is entirely relative to good. good and evil are inseperably related to one another. therefore, what the buddhist is concerned with is not how to overcome evil by good, but how to transcend the good-evil duality. to buddhists, the problem of how to overcome evil by good is the "wrong question," based on an un-realistic understanding of the nature of evil and an unjustifiable assumption of the priority of good over evil. although, ethically speaking, good should have priority over evil, ontologically and existentially speaking, good is not stronger than evil, and good and evil have at least equal strength in their endless struggle with each other. accordingly, it is necessary for buddhists to overcome the good-evil dichotomy itself and return to their original nature prior to the divergence between good and evil. i always think of this as a little like the film the dark crystal, if you have seen it. in the movie, the powerful beings called the "urskeks" were without good or evil. when the crystal of truth was cracked, each of the urskeks split into two parts of their original self, the wise and good mystics, and the selfish and evil skeksis. only after the crystal was healed did the two halves go back into their original state of neither good, nor evil. (ok, that is perhaps a lame analogy, but it is one i think about nevertheless.) as has been discussed, in rejecting the priority of good over evil, buddhists emphasize their relativity. buddhism is similar, at least in this respect, to the manichaean insistence on the dualism of good and evil. the central theme of manichaeism is that the world is an inextricable mixture of good and evil with each force in constant combat with the other. thus, manichaeism proclaims two deities in opposition, a good deity as the author of light and an evil deity as the author of darkness. insofar as good and evil are understood dualistically as two different principles and as inextricably related to and fighting against each other, there is great affinity between manichaeism and buddhism. from a buddhist point of view, the weakness of manichaeism does not lie in its dualistic view of good and evil as two independent principles, but in the rigidity of that dualism, which takes the two independent principles as substantial realities. it is not a mistake for manichaeism to take good and evil as two equally powerful principles rather than emphasizing the priority of good over evil. it is, however (according to the buddhist way of thinking), a mistake for manichaeism to end with this dualistic view without attempting how to transcend it. in the history of christianity, st. augustine strongly rejected the ultimate dualism of manichaeism and insisted that only good has substantial being whereas evil is unreal - hence, his theory of evil as the privation of good.

in buddhism there is no theodicy. there is no theory justifying god because in buddhism there is no notion of one god whose goodness and power must be justified against the reality of evil in the world. buddhism has no need of a notion of one god because the fundamental principle of buddhism is "dependent origination." this notion indicates that everything in and out of the universe is interdependent and co-arising and co-ceasing: nothing whatsoever is independent and self-existing. this is the reason gautama buddha did not accept the age-old hindu concept of brahman as the sole basis underlying the universe and the accompanying notion of atman as the eternal self at the core of each individual. rather, he emphasized anatman, no-self, and dependent origination. the universe is not the creation of one god, buddhists argue, but fundamentally is a network of causal relationships among innumerable things which are co-arising and co-ceasing. in buddhism, time and history are understood as beginningless and there is no room for the idea of unique, momentary creation. since time and history are believed to be beginningless and endless, there can be no particular creator at the beginning of history and no particular judge at its end. thus the sacred and the human are, in buddhism, completely interdependent: there is nothing sacred whatsoever that is self-existing. the supernatural and the natural co-arise and co-cease: there is nothing supernatural which is independent of the natural. the same is true of good and evil in the buddhist way of thinking. good and evil are completely dependent on one another. they always co-arise and co-cease so that one cannot exist apart from evil, and no absolute evil which is an object of eternal punishment apart from good. to buddhists both the supreme good and absolute evil are illusions. in this respect, buddhism significantly differs from christianity, in which god is understood to be infinately good, and sinners who do not believe in god must undergo eternal damnation. in his enchiridion, st. augustine says: "no evil could exist where no good exists," but he does not say that no good could exist where no evil exists. this is precisely because to augustine, evil is nothing but the privation of good. evil does not exist in itself but is always parasitic upon good, which alone has substantial being. elsewhere in the enchiridion, st. augustine says: "wherever there is no privation of good there is no evil." here we can see the strong priority of good over evil. this notion is not peculiar to st. augustine but is common to christian thinkers in general. contrary to this, buddhists generally talk about the complete relativity of good and evil and reject the idea of the priority of the one over the other. the emphasis is on the inseperability of good and evil and even their oneness in the deepest sense. it is understandable why, given this emphasis on the relativity of good and evil and the consequent rejection of the priority of good over evil, christians often find an indifference to ethics in buddhism. whether or not this is the case must be carefully examined. we human beings must seek good and avoid evil. to be human, i believe, is to be ethical. unlike animals, persons can be human only when guided by reason and ethics in place of instinct. this is an undeniable fact. buddhists accept this without qualification. that is why, as i said previously, not to commit evil, but to do all that is good, is emphasized as the teaching of all the buddhas throughout buddhism's long history, as exemplified, for instance, in the precepts of monks and laymen, including the ten precepts. wherever persons exist this ethical imperative must be emphasized. a question arises, however, at this point as to whether it is possible for persons to actually observe that ethical imperative. can human nature be completely regulated and controlled by that ethical code? if we can actually observe that ethical imperative thoroughly only insofar as we try to do so, the problem of evil is very simple. in actuality, however seriously one may try to observe the ethical imperative, one cannot do so completely and instead cannot help realizing one's distance from the good to be done. this is the reason niao-ke said to pai le-t'ien, "any child three years old may know it, but an old man of eighty years finds it difficult to practice it." this is also the reason st. paul painfully confessed, "the good which i would do, that i do not; but the evil that i would not, that i do." because persons are flesh as well as sould this is the inevitable conclusion of the ethical effort. however strong the ethical imperative may be, we cannot actually fullfill it, but rather must fall into a conflict, the dilemma of good and evil. for christianity, this is evidenced in the need for a savior. someone who can make up for the places we fail. human nature cannot be completely controlled and regulated by ethics, which is why we must go beyond the realm of ethics and enter that of religion. the limitation of, and the dilemma involved in, ethics are equally realized in buddhism and christianity. so far, buddhists share with st. paul the painful confession mentioned above. one primary difference between paul and buddhists lies in the following: by saying, "if what i would not, that i do, it is no more i that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me," paul ascribes the ultimate cause of the problem to original sin and finds the solution, or salvation, in the redemptive love of god working through jesus christ. on the other hand, buddhists realize the ultimate cause of the problem in karma and find the solution in enlightenment, that is, the awakening to the truth of dependent origination and no-self. since our present existence is the fruit of a beginningless karma, we are involved in the conflict between good and evil. however, if we go beyond the dualism an dawaken to our original nature, we will be freed from karma as well as from the problem of good and evil. in christianity, the limitation of, and the dilemma involved in, ethics and its religious solution are grasped in contrast to the absolute nature of god who is all-good and all-powerful. in this sense, the religious solution realized in the context of the collapse of human ethics still finds its orientation in the problem of good and evil, although in a religious rather than an ethical dimension. in buddhism, on the other hand, the collapse of human ethics is grasped in terms of beginningless and endless karma and its religious solution is found in the realization of no-self which is neither good nor evil. the buddist solution of the problem is not faith in god as all-good but the awakening to one's original nature, which is free from both good and evil. in this sense,, we may say that buddhism has primarily an ontological orientation whereas christianity has primarily an ethical orientation. this difference may cause christians to feel an indifference toward ethics in buddhists and cause buddhists to feel skeptical about the christian emphasis on faith. we must, however, inquire into the background of this difference to elucidate the present issue.

how very christian of you! with buddhism, it is required of us to do battle with both equally....good and evil. i know this may be a very strange concept for those unfamiliar with buddhist teachings, so i will expand on it more in the course of my next few posts....

thank you for sharing that. through this post, i am hoping to share some of the differences between the christian (lds) and buddhist views on the nature of good and evil. i do not intend to say one is better than the other, nor do i wish to intimate that they are completely different. i simply wish to have an exciting and intellectually stimulating discussion on our two various points of view. i appreciate your reference to scripture. thank you!

back to augustinian and irenaean theodicy. rejecting manichaean dualism, augustine insisted that evil has no independent existence, but is always parasitic upon the good, the latter alone having substantival reality. "nothing evil exists in itself, but only as an evil aspect of some actual entity," he said. thus, everything that god has created is good, and the phenomenon of evil occurs only when beings who are by nature good (though mutable) become corrupted and spoiled. accordingly, to augustine evil is nothing but the privation, corruption, or perversion of something good. how does this spoiling of god's initially good creation come about? augustine's answer is that evil entered into the universe through the culpable volitions of free creatures, angels and human beings. their sin consisted not in choosing positive evil (for there is no positive evil from which to choose), but in turning away from the higher good, namely god, to a lower good, namely man. "for when the will abandons what is above itself," said augustine, "and turns to what is lower, it becomes evil - not because that evil to which it turns, but because the turning itself is wicked." when we ask what caused the fall of man, augustine's answer is his doctrine of deficient causation. there is no efficient cause of the will to do evil. rather, evil willing is itself a negation or deficiency, and to seek for its cause "is as if one sought to see darkness, or hear silence." what cause of willing can there be which is prior to the willing itself? according to genesis, a serpent tricked eve and adam to eat the forbidden fruit. adam's sin was not absolutely the first. the serpent was the evil tempter of adam's innocence. augustine was saying that adam had within himself the possibility of falling and that fallibility is not an evil in itself. however, the notion of fallibility explains only the possibility of evil and not its reality. thus, according to augustine, the origin of moral evil lies hidden within the mystery of human and angelic freedom. the freely acting will is an originating cause, and its operations are not explicable in terms of other prior causes. the second type of theodicy was developed by the greek-speaking fathers, notably irenaeus, prior to the time of augustine. whereas augustine held that before his fall, adam was in a state of original righteousness, and that his first sin was the inexplicable turning of a wholly good being toward evil, irenaeus and others regarded the pre-fall adam as more like a child than a mature, responsible adult. according to this earlier conception, adam stood at the beginning of a long process of development. he had been created as a personal being in the "image" of god, but had yet to be brought into the finite "likeness" of god. his fall is seen not as disastrously transforming and totally ruining humanity, but rather as delaying and complicating its advance from the "image" to the "likeness" of his maker. thus, humanity is viewed as neither fallen from so great a height as original righteousness, nor to so profound a depth as total depravity, as in the augustinian theology; rather, humanity fell in the early stages of its spiritual development and now needs greater help than otherwise would have been required.

what is the buddhist view of good and evil? from earliest times, buddhism had its own "ten commandments," or better to say "ten precepts," which are very similar to the ten commandments of the judeo-christian tradition. these emphasize not killing, not stealing, not lying, not committing adultery, and so forth. a remarkable difference between the buddhist and judeo-christian ten commandments, however, lies in the fact that, although both equally prohibit the destruction of life, that prohibition appears as the first commandment in buddhism and as the sixth in judeo-christian tradition. in the latter, the first commandment is "you shall have no other gods before me," a commandment whose equivalent cannot be found in the buddhist ten precepts. the differering emphasis in the item of the first position in two lists indicates the strong monotheistic nature of the judeo-christian tradition and the i-thou relationship between persons and god in christianity on the one hand, and it also shows the buddhist emphasis on the boundless solidarity of life between persons and other living beings, on the other. without the notion of transmigration which links human beings to other forms of life, there can be no proper understanding of why the destruction of life in general is prohibited as the first precept in buddhism. on the contrary, in the judeo-christian tradition, not the boundless solidarity with other forms of life, but personal obedience to the will of the one god, and the distinction between creator and creation with humanity at the summit of the created order are essential. this difference naturally reflects upon the different understandings of good and evil in these two religious traditions. the emphasis on the solidarity between humanity and nature, however, does not mean that buddhism is indifferent to human ethics. in the dhammapada, one of the oldest buddhist scriptures, there is a well-known stanza: "not to commit evils, but to do all that is good,/and to purify one's heart - this is the teaching of all the buddhas." this stanza has been held in high esteem by buddhists throughout their long history and is called "the precept-stanza common to the past seven buddhas, indicating that it is a teaching that was realized and practiced even before gautama buddha lived. the problem of evil in christianity and buddhism, however, is obviously not so simple as i have already suggested. there is the serious problem of the origin of evil that must be clarified. the problem of evil in both traditions involves the contradiction, or apparent contradiction, between the belief in the actuality of evil in the world and religious belief in the goodness and power of the ultimate. this, perhaps, is the point about which nick (and others) most fervently disagree with buddhist beliefs on this subject. this problem is especially serious in christianity because of its commitment to a monotheistic doctrine of god as absolute in goodness and power and as the creator of the universe out of nothing, ex nihilo. (this is something about which mainstream christians and members of the lds church disagree, but that is the topic of another thread alltogether.) the challenge of the fact of evil to this faith has accordingly been formulated as a dilemma: "if god is all-powerful, he must be able to prevent evil. if he is all-good, he must want to prevent evil. but evil exists. therefore, god is either not all-powerful or not all-good. a theodicy (from theos, god, and dike, justice) is accordingly an attempt (and a very good one, i might add) to reconcile the unlimited goodness of an all-powerful god with the reality of evil. i wish to note at this point, once again, that i do NOT wish to tear down the christian faith. i respect christianity very deeply and hope that my words do not give offense. if i have misspoken about the nature of theodicy, please let me know! accordingly, there are at least two questions to be addressed in this connection: why has an infinitely powerful and good god permitted moral evil or sin in his universe? and why has an infinately powerful and good god permitted pain and suffering in this universe? this is not a new philosophical dilemma. it has, of course, been discussed in nearly infinate ways in nearly infinate forums. in the christian tradition, there are two main versions of theodicy, the augustinian and the irenaean. limitations of space (and your patience, no doubt) constrain me to a description of only the essential points of these two types of theodicy in connection with the problem of moral evil. i leave it to someone far more knowledgeable than myself to explore the two in more depth. i am no scholar.

before i attempt to discuss christianity's take on the nature of evil, i wish to impress upon your minds that i do this from my understanding as an outsider to the faith. i speak from what i have learned, and i know that i may well be in error in my description of such. please feel free to correct me if you find the need to do so. in christianity, the good is not simply that which is desirable, such as happiness, nor is evil merely that which is undesirable, such as misery. the good in christianity refers to the act, belief, attitude, or state of mind that obeys and fulfills the will of god. evil, on the other hand, is an act or state of mind which disobeys and goes against the divine will. this is precisely because in christianity god is the creator, the ruler, the law-giver, and the redeemer of all universe, and the end for which human beings exist consists in establishing and maintaining a relationship with god. the ten commandments, which form part of the basis of judeo-christian ethics, are described in the bible as given by god to moses on mount sinai. sin is an attitude, act, or inward state of the heart that is offensive to god. as is well known, the origin of sin is to be found in the genesis story of adam and eve partaking, against the word of god, of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. sin, then, is a personal force by which we are opposed to god, and sinful deeds are its fruits. however, if one does not accept jesus as the christ and does not believe in his death and resurrection as god's work of redemption, one will be inflicted with eternal suffering. the sufferings of the damned in hell are interminable. this eternal punishment, which is laid upon the souls of the unredeemed at the last judgement, constitutes the largest part of the problem of evil in christianity. thus, in the full range of christian beliefs (from the doctrine of creation to that of eschatology), the problem of evil is a primary preoccupation and one which consists in a dis-relationship with god. stay tuned for buddhist beliefs on the nature of evil....

i would like to attempt to begin a conversation on the nature of evil. i hope to do this specifically within the bounds of buddhist as well as christian notions. this is meant to be an excercise in exploration as well as philosophy. if, in the course of what i have to say, it is found that my words do not fully express the accuracy of either christian or buddhist representation, please feel free to make it known to me. i do not have a complete knowledge of either belief system, (although i certainly know a far deal more about my own buddhism), and my hope is to bring forth whatever ideas all of you may have on the subject. it is said that human history began with the realization of evil. the problem of evil is indeed one which is deeply rooted in human existence. throughout the course of human history, both of the east as well as the west, evil has time and again been regarded as one of humanity's most crucial dilemmas. however, the approach to and the resolution of the problem of evil have in the east and the west not always been altogether the same. to begin with an example of the east, it is a fact that westerners in general and christians in particular often express the criticism that buddhists are rather indifferent to the problem of good and evil. whether or not their impressions are true must be carefully examined. on the other hand, quite a few buddhists whose lives are based on the realization of the as-it-is-ness, or suchness, of man and nature often feel somewhat uncomfortable with christianity's strong ethico-religious character and its excessive emphasis on righteousness and judgement. (i fear that this has been the case with myself, and i have, on occasion, spoken in a matter that is unbecoming of my beliefs.) giving up stereotypical understandings of each other, and with receptive and responsive minds, both christians as well as buddhists must try to enter into a deeper understanding of each other's faith by striving to achieve a critical, mutual understanding. only then may we be in a far better place to discover both affinities and differences. i have a feeling that this may prove to be a long discourse (on my part). i will therefore end this particular post and begin the next with part one....christianity's version idea of evil.

i have had a spirit follow me for the majority of my life. i first noticed her at around the age of 10. i have always called her sidney, although that is my name for her, not a name she has given to me. i've tried many times to talk to her, although she never responds when i do. she has spoken to me on occasion. sometimes i see her, sometimes i feel her, sometimes i hear her. she has followed me everywhere that i have moved. what do you make of this? i have felt no evil from her at any time, and there are others in my life (friends, family) who have seen her before (even without me telling them anything about her). she appears to be about 15 years old, dark complexion, long hair, and wearing a white dress. if i had to guess, i would say she is either indian (asian indian) or south american.

now you've done it! i will read it this very evening.

do you believe that members of other religions can or do receive gifts of the spirit?

oh, weeeelllllllll.....if that's the way you are going to be. fine!!

that may do well for members of the lds faith, but as i am buddhist, i may not know the reference! :)

i reread your post and can see that you did read that thread....lol sorry!

tell me more about this rp....sounds lovely indeed!

really?? even as late as 1910? (and did you see thread about the mary poppins song?)

i have to pause for a moment to tell you that i am an absolute anglophile. i often joke amongst my friends that i am going to take a copy of the declaration of independence, write JUST KIDDING on the bottom, and mail it to the queen. there isn't a place in all this world that i would like more to live. (i have seen every episode of the vicar of dibley at least a hundred thousand times!! ) also and without question, jane austen is my favorite author. no country in which such a wonderful person was born could be bad. it can't happen! don't get me wrong, i love the united states very much, but i have a strange (my parents are both from tibet!!!! so it makes no sense....) connection with england. god save the queen, indeed!

i would love to read over your papers. i teach english as well as literature. (i am also an ASL interpreter, and that requires and entirely different set of grammatical rules!)

you are so very welcome. i'm glad that you enjoyed it. i am a nerd in many ways, and i actually have been known to diagram sentences for fun. i know, i know. there is probably a 12-step program out there for people such as myself.

this reminds me of a story. some time ago, i was watching c-span and the queen was addressing parliament. she was discussing the deplorable literacy rate in the uk, among other things. at one point, she carefully removed her glasses, folded them, and then paused before looking up. and then she spoke. "it's beginning to get so bad that our youth are sounding more and more like the americans." you could hear the soft chuckles through the building. and what, my friend, is wrong with anglo saxon?? Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum....