The Problem of Evil in Christianity and Buddhism

[bodhigirlsmiles]

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.

[bodhigirlsmiles]

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....

[skalenfehl]

In the Book of Mormon, a prophet is explaining to his son about good and evil, that one cannot exist without the other. There must be an opposition in all things. Therefore in order to understand the source of evil, we must also understand the source of good.

Source: 2 Nephi 2

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

[prisonchaplain]

Bohdi, I will read your post a little later...but I wanted to throw out a notion I read some time ago. It may seem simplistic, but you can tell us if there is truth in the idea. In trying to get at the basic nature of Christianity and Buddhism it's been suggested that one look at the icons. In Buddhism, there is a serene Buddha, in need of nothing and very content. Evil is something something to avoid by not needing it...by simply discarding it as useless. Christianity, on the other hand, with an anguished Christ dying on an instrument of painful execution, there is extreme action. Evil is something to be conqured--even by death. God pursues his creation sacrificially, painfully. There is abiding peace, and yet much of New Testament imagery is military.

[bodhigirlsmiles]

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.

[skalenfehl]

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?

Please refer to my answer above. God has allowed this as part of His plan so that we can distinguish the two and be guided by our gift of free will to choose one over the other by being enticed by one or the other. We cannot know good without tasting evil.

Edit: Pulling another verse from said chapter:

16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.

Edited December 8, 2008 by skalenfehl

[Aesa]

Christianity, on the other hand, with an anguished Christ dying on an instrument of painful execution, there is extreme action. Evil is something to be conqured--even by death. God pursues his creation sacrificially, painfully. There is abiding peace, and yet much of New Testament imagery is military.

Indeed, you could say we do battle with temptation -- evil.

[bodhigirlsmiles]

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.

[bodhigirlsmiles]

Please refer to my answer above. God has allowed this as part of His plan so that we can distinguish the two and be guided by our gift of free will to choose one over the other by being enticed by one or the other. We cannot know good without tasting evil.

Edit: Pulling another verse from said chapter:

16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.

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!

[bodhigirlsmiles]

Indeed, you could say we do battle with temptation -- evil.

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....

[bodhigirlsmiles]

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.

[bodhigirlsmiles]

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.

[YoungMormonRoyalist]

Too....much.....deep....reading....for....too....late...a...time....

[bodhigirlsmiles]

Too....much.....deep....reading....for....too....late...a...time....

sorry about that!

[ninjormon]

A friend and coworker of mine is buddist, he tells me about who the real budda is in china, cambodia, vietnam....and how they are different in some places but that budda is not the fat guy we see but was a skinny guy, born of an angel father and fairy mother, he had multiple lives, each time he had to try to be perfect, give every thing away if someone asked and always peaceful, and how through generations the stories changed and thats why there are different versions now. I explained its the same thing with christianity and how most modern day churches came from the catholic church and why our Church is what we know it to be. The more I speak to him and he tells me about budda and monks I believe that budda is Christ and the monks are not much different than us elders aside from religion. That he visited asia long ago just as he visited the nephites. I also believe that there are or may be ancient writings from that time. Are there any other buddist or former buddist now LDS that think this? or friends of buddist? or just any takes on it?

[HiJolly]

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.

Ok, fair enough.

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.

Modern-day Christian doctrine says that eating the fruit was a sin, and that God cursed mankind from there on out such that we are all born into a state of sin, from our first breath. We disagree with that, though we acknowledge that we do indeed have a nature that is easily tempted into sin, as a consequence of being in the mortal sphere. But we do not agree that this nature condemns us from the start. We set the lower limit of accountability for choice at 8 years of age, by revelation. No need of Mary's immaculate conception, here.

We believe that the origin of sin is CHOICE (or, moral agency), and that the first choice (Adam & Eve eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge) was not a sin, for they did not know what sin was. All things were one and equal with them, all choices were equal and without consequence. Therefore, the choice to disobey God was not a sin, but was a transgression (no sinful consequences). At the same time, there was not righteousness either, with its attendant blessings. No risk, if you will, in living. Also, no reward.

Hopefully I didn't belabor the point too much...

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.

Inflicted by whom? Or?

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.

Let's talk a bit about what "eternal" punishment means. Here's Mormon doctrine on that: Doctrine and Covenants 19

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.

9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.

10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—

11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.

12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.

The problem of evil in Christianity, as I understand it, is why doesn't God get rid of evil. The LDS has the answer to that. It cannot be done, for it is a sympom or consequence of CHOICE. And CHOICE is given by God to us for a purpose, and His purpose will be fulfilled.

Moses 1: 39

39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

...which all started in the Garden of Eden:

2 Ne. 2: 25

25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

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....

Lots to cover, here. I do hope you see that Christianity's problem with evil is not an LDS problem.

HiJolly

Edited December 8, 2008 by HiJolly

[Guest DeborahC]

To me, evil and good are not so cut and dry.

To an American, cannibalism may be "evil."

To a cannibal, it's lunch.

[FunkyTown]

sorry about that!

There is wisdom in the Buddhist teachings: An apple begins as a seed, grows plump and red and ultimately falls to the ground to bruise and rot and send its seed elsewhere.

To the apple, all states are equal - It doesn't care that it grows or rots, but merely fulfills its purpose.

The same goes for a rock: A rock will sit there, being scoured by water and wind and plant. If you pick it up and throw it, it will move precisely the distance the force imparted on it suggests, subject to being countered by other forces. It, also, doesn't care where it sits or what forces work upon it.

Intelligence - Intelligence is the anomaly. "Suffering stems from desire" is considered one of the Noble Truths of Buddhism and that's true; Were one to transcend desire, one would transcend pain as well as evil.

The question of evil in Christianity is much similar to the question of Desire in Buddhist thought: If all things are naturally without desire, how did desire come to pass? Isn't desire for lasting happiness, for transcendence - Or even to attain a natural state - A desire of its own?

***

In LDS thought, Evil can most aptly be described as an allegory:

There once were two women who believed that all that mattered in life was to be happy. Time passed and it came that they each had a child that they loved more than themselves. Loving their child, they would do anything for their child to be happy.

One decided that she would spend all her life savings and purchase enough opium to keep her child happily sedated forever. She would dote on her child in its bed, keeping it constantly content and locked in an opiate induced haze.

The other raised her child as best she could and sent her to school. There, she had scraped knees, broken hearts and tears. She had times when she was frustrated and times when she felt she couldn't go on. In those times, her mother held her and said it would be okay. Still sad, the child continued on and lived her life.

Which one was the good parent in that scenario? For most, the first mother's instincts would fill them with horror. Despite the tears the second mother's child shed, most feel that her child lived the better life. Despite our lies to ourselves, there is something written on our hearts that we were meant for something more; We know and understand that an untested life is not worth living.

***

The argument against that argument is, "But if God is all powerful and all knowing, couldn't he just will that we spring to existence, with experience and knowledge?"

That springs from a fundamental flaw in reasoning, similar to the question: "If God is omnipotent, could He make a rock so heavy even He couldn't lift it? If he can, then he isn't all-powerful because he can't lift the rock. If he can't, then he isn't all powerful because he can't create something more powerful than himself."

It's similar to saying, "I want God to stand in the corner of a round room.", the user - By defining something as impossible - Has created an absurdity. Adding the words "God can" to an absurdity doesn't make it any less absurd. If one is Omnipotent, one can not stand in the corner of a room with no corners. If one is omnipotent and wants someone to have experience, the only way is for them to actually experience. If one is omnipotent, they're able to do all things which are possible, not all things which are possible to vocalize.

That is the nature of triumph over evil: To experience and transcend it.

Edited December 8, 2008 by FunkyTown

[Traveler]

One of the basic tenants in Judaic Christian thinking is knowledge of good and evil. Many Christians define good as their interpretation of G-d’s will and evil as everything else. LDS seem to add another dimension. I have summarized below my understanding of good and evil:

1. Good and evil are two diametrically opposed possibilities. From the Book of Mormon we learn that there is “opposition in all things”. We as LDS understand that with every exercise of agency there are in reality two choices or possibilities between which there is no “gray area” or “common ground”. To select one is to reject the other.

2. Good and evil are independent of G-d in that good is not good because G-d indorses good but that the LDS understanding is that G-d is good because G-d indorses and is committed to good by covenant.

3. Good is liberating to the soul and in contrast evil brings a soul into bondage and captivity. (A sentient soul that the essence of an individual that defines individuality and that which exist or belongs to an individual beyond death or the end of mortal life.

4. Evil is that which will occur unless intelligence intervenes. Intelligence is the only possibility for good and requires discipline and sacrifice.

5. Evil is also the result when intelligence seeks its own. Selfishness is intelligence seeking it own. Therefore that which is carnal or sensual by nature is evil and will always eventually enslave the individual that chooses to define themselves by such means.

6. Good is the result when intelligence makes sacrifice by discipline. Without discipline and sacrifice an individual will be overcome by “circumstance” and once overcome the individual becomes hopelessly enslaved.

7. G-d is the example of discipline and sacrifice. The first act of G-d (in the beginning) was the creation. The creation was an incredible act of divine discipline and sacrifice.

8. Divine discipline and sacrifice is the path of love and compassion. Without love and compassion for others divine discipline and sacrifice cannot take place.

Therefore the purpose of life is to become disciplined and master endless sacrifice through the mastery of love and compassion for others. Any other purpose in life is evil and results in captivity and bondage which is the spiritual death spoken of in scripture.

The Traveler

[bert10]

The BOM says that God gave the gospel to all races according to their ability to receive it. The battle has always been between Light and Darkness. The Lord has said 'I am Light.' The East seeks after LIGHT which is the inner meaning of Christ. The West follows mostly the outside meaning of the gospel. For example... Christianity worship the man named Jesus rather than seek after Light and Love. By the way..Jesus also Said I am Love. To make this short..... Whosoever attains and fills themselves with Light and Love regardless of the religion one is in....it shall be well with him on the last day. Peace be unto you bert10

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.

Edited December 8, 2008 by bert10

[Moksha]

Christianity, on the other hand, with an anguished Christ dying on an instrument of painful execution, there is extreme action. Evil is something to be conqured--even by death. God pursues his creation sacrificially, painfully. There is abiding peace, and yet much of New Testament imagery is military.

I thought the once and final Atonement displaced any further need for such military imagery or bloodshed through God's grace. For Christians, isn't this bringing us more in line with the Buddhist quest for essential reality?

[prisonchaplain]

I read Bodhi's first two posts and do believe she captures the driving view of evil in traditional Christianity. Others here will likely explicate where LDS theology departs, particular concerning the eternal response to evil, through hellfire. For my part, I've thought much of late about eternal hell, and why it must be so. I've come to the conclusion that hell must be eternal, because the sin (rejection of God) is an eternal and unforgiveable squandering of life. What God offers us is eternal, infinite relationship with him--with good. Our alternative is eternal separation from God. Ironcially, one definition of evil is the absence of good (of God, really).

[prisonchaplain]

I thought the once and final Atonement displaced any further need for such military imagery or bloodshed through God's grace. For Christians, isn't this bringing us more in line with the Buddhist quest for essential reality?

Jesus healed sickness, drove out demons, and forgave sins. He's called us to do likewise. Sometimes our religious efforts are termed "spiritual warfare." Paul said we BATTLE not against flesh and blood, but against spirits and principalities. I believe it's Ephesians six that addresses "the weapons of our warfare," faith, Word, etc. Even communion (sacrament) calls us to continual rememberance of the broken body and shed blood of Jesus. So, sorry, but no, our fight is not over.

[ninjormon]

Also what is good? is it the act of doing good or the lack of evil?