Topic: So Buddhism has Satan, but no God?
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #14,701
Very interesting.
Chris_Tomkinson !UoVHVa1d2. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #259,317
Um, it does?
This is news to me.
This is news to me.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #259,320
From: http://buddhism.about.com/od/lifeofthebuddha/a/buddhalife.htm
"Mara, a demon whose name means 'destruction' and who represents the passions that snare and delude us..." An archetype clearly consistent with that westerners would call Satan.
"Mara, a demon whose name means 'destruction' and who represents the passions that snare and delude us..." An archetype clearly consistent with that westerners would call Satan.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #259,321
isn't humanity considered the 'god' in Buddhism?
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #259,322
That is because God is a Buddhist himself, OP.Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #259,327
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #259,333
Some similarities certainly exist, but trying to cast Buddhist concepts into Christian roles will probably just result in bent perceptions of Buddhism.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 41 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #259,344
@previous (E)
So Buddhism doesn't believe in evolution either?
If Buddhism an Christianity both have "destroyer" archetypes, I fail to see how pointing this out would diminish either one.
So Buddhism doesn't believe in evolution either?
If Buddhism an Christianity both have "destroyer" archetypes, I fail to see how pointing this out would diminish either one.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #259,347
@previous (A)
I'm not sure Buddhism really has anything to say about evolution.
Pointing out similarities may be interesting, but to say that Buddhism "has Satan" is trying to blindly plug a Christian concept into Buddhism without taking into account the differences.
I'm not sure Buddhism really has anything to say about evolution.
Pointing out similarities may be interesting, but to say that Buddhism "has Satan" is trying to blindly plug a Christian concept into Buddhism without taking into account the differences.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 29 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #259,369
@previous (E)
> Pointing out similarities may be interesting, but to say that Buddhism "has Satan" is trying to blindly plug a Christian concept into Buddhism without taking into account the differences.
I could have just as easily said Christianity has Mara. If these differences you speak of are so important, what are they exactly?
> Pointing out similarities may be interesting, but to say that Buddhism "has Satan" is trying to blindly plug a Christian concept into Buddhism without taking into account the differences.
I could have just as easily said Christianity has Mara. If these differences you speak of are so important, what are they exactly?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 41 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #259,427
It probably depends on the branch of Buddhist thought you follow. There is not just "Buddhism" or "Hinduism" just like there is not just one "Christianity" or "Islam".
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 52 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #259,494
@259,369 (A)
> what are they exactly?
That is precisely the type of question a thoughtful comparison should answer. Following the link to Mara from the OP, it turns out that the folks at about.com had grappled with that very question in the "Is Mara the Buddhist Satan?" section of his entry.
Although there are some obvious parallels between Mara and the Devil or Satan of monotheistic religions, there are also many significant differences.
Although both characters are associated with evil, it's important to understand that Buddhists understand "evil" differently from how it is understood in most other religions. Some religions teach that evil is a force outside ourselves that seduces us into sin. This force is sometimes thought to be generated by Satan or various demons. The faithful are encouraged to seek strength outside themselves to fight evil, by looking to God.
The Buddha's teaching could not be more different --
"By oneself, indeed, is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself, indeed, is one purified. Purity and impurity depend on oneself. No one purifies another." (Dhammapada, chapter 12, verse 165)
Buddhism teaches us that evil is something we create, not something we are or some outside force that infects us. The "evil" Mara represents is a distraction from enlightenment within oneself.
Also, Mara is a relatively minor figure in Buddhist mythology compared to Satan. Satan is the lord of Hell. Mara is the lord only of the sixth heaven of the "desire realm" of the Triloka, which is an allegorical representation of reality adapted from Hinduism.
> what are they exactly?
That is precisely the type of question a thoughtful comparison should answer. Following the link to Mara from the OP, it turns out that the folks at about.com had grappled with that very question in the "Is Mara the Buddhist Satan?" section of his entry.
Although there are some obvious parallels between Mara and the Devil or Satan of monotheistic religions, there are also many significant differences.
Although both characters are associated with evil, it's important to understand that Buddhists understand "evil" differently from how it is understood in most other religions. Some religions teach that evil is a force outside ourselves that seduces us into sin. This force is sometimes thought to be generated by Satan or various demons. The faithful are encouraged to seek strength outside themselves to fight evil, by looking to God.
The Buddha's teaching could not be more different --
"By oneself, indeed, is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself, indeed, is one purified. Purity and impurity depend on oneself. No one purifies another." (Dhammapada, chapter 12, verse 165)
Buddhism teaches us that evil is something we create, not something we are or some outside force that infects us. The "evil" Mara represents is a distraction from enlightenment within oneself.
Also, Mara is a relatively minor figure in Buddhist mythology compared to Satan. Satan is the lord of Hell. Mara is the lord only of the sixth heaven of the "desire realm" of the Triloka, which is an allegorical representation of reality adapted from Hinduism.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 19 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #259,509
jump joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #259,528
You will find many similarities between Christianity and older religions because Christianity lifted almost all of its mythology from other places. It's not even an original work.
Which makes it all the more baffling that grown adults believe this shit.
Which makes it all the more baffling that grown adults believe this shit.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 35 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #259,532
@previous (jump)
Oh but believing in Buddhism is legit. No self. All evil comes from within. If you get raped you attracted it to yourself. LOL.
Buddhism is the retreatist religion. No religion is "original" btw.
Oh but believing in Buddhism is legit. No self. All evil comes from within. If you get raped you attracted it to yourself. LOL.
Buddhism is the retreatist religion. No religion is "original" btw.
(Edited 32 seconds later.)
jump replied with this 15 years ago, 38 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #259,539
@previous (A)
Well, no, it's not likely anything made by humans is completely original.
Your interpretation of Buddhism is flawed.
Well, no, it's not likely anything made by humans is completely original.
Your interpretation of Buddhism is flawed.
(Edited 22 seconds later.)
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 33 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #259,552
jump replied with this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #259,554
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 9 hours later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #259,626
@259,539 (jump)
> Your interpretation of Buddhism is flawed.
Maybe, but there can be no denying Buddhism is intrinsically pacifist with regard to the outside world.
> Your interpretation of Buddhism is flawed.
Maybe, but there can be no denying Buddhism is intrinsically pacifist with regard to the outside world.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #259,688
Buddhism is a philosophy/way of life not a religion, they have no gods, hell, heaven or whatever. The western media often confuses Taoism and related religions with it.
I'm an expert, expert.
/thread
I'm an expert, expert.
/thread
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #259,690
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #259,696
@259,688 (I)
I suppose that's true, but what's the difference between a religion and a way of life. To me it seems one is prescribed for you and one if self-medicating. They're both drugs meant to induce delusions, no?
I suppose that's true, but what's the difference between a religion and a way of life. To me it seems one is prescribed for you and one if self-medicating. They're both drugs meant to induce delusions, no?
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #259,700
@previous (A)
A religion believes in a higher form of a life/creator.
Also your source is about as bad as ED.
A religion believes in a higher form of a life/creator.
Also your source is about as bad as ED.
(Edited 29 seconds later.)
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #259,705
@previous (I)
> A religion believes in a higher form of a life/creator.
That's wrong. Not all religions accept the notion of a creator.
> A religion believes in a higher form of a life/creator.
That's wrong. Not all religions accept the notion of a creator.
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #259,710
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #259,714
@previous (I)
Jainism & Daoism, and there are others. Equating religion to belief in God or the supernatural is wrong. Buddhism is both a philosophy and religion.
Jainism & Daoism, and there are others. Equating religion to belief in God or the supernatural is wrong. Buddhism is both a philosophy and religion.
(Edited 25 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #259,732
@previous (K)
> Jainism & Daoism, and there are others. Equating religion to belief in God or the supernatural is wrong. Buddhism is both a philosophy and --religion-- drug.
ftfy
> Jainism & Daoism, and there are others. Equating religion to belief in God or the supernatural is wrong. Buddhism is both a philosophy and --religion-- drug.
ftfy
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 day later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,452
@259,494 (E)
> Although both characters are associated with evil, it's important to understand that Buddhists understand "evil" differently from how it is understood in most other religions. Some religions teach that evil is a force outside ourselves that seduces us into sin. This force is sometimes thought to be generated by Satan or various demons. The faithful are encouraged to seek strength outside themselves to fight evil, by looking to God.
>
> The Buddha's teaching could not be more different --
> "By oneself, indeed, is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself, indeed, is one purified. Purity and impurity depend on oneself. No one purifies another." (Dhammapada, chapter 12, verse 165)
>
> Buddhism teaches us that evil is something we create, not something we are or some outside force that infects us. The "evil" Mara represents is a distraction from enlightenment within oneself.
Christianity teaches that evil comes from within. "For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what defile a person". (Matthew 15:19) Evil is not from without, but within. The religions are in concordance on this matter.
> Also, Mara is a relatively minor figure in Buddhist mythology compared to Satan. Satan is the lord of Hell. Mara is the lord only of the sixth heaven of the "desire realm" of the Triloka, which is an allegorical representation of reality adapted from Hinduism.
Satan is categorically not the "Lord of Hell" - you seem to be think of Hades or Pluto. The Bible, in the allegorical and metaphorical Revelation of St John, describes Satan as a subject of Hell, not a ruler.
"And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever." (Revelation 20:10)
> Although both characters are associated with evil, it's important to understand that Buddhists understand "evil" differently from how it is understood in most other religions. Some religions teach that evil is a force outside ourselves that seduces us into sin. This force is sometimes thought to be generated by Satan or various demons. The faithful are encouraged to seek strength outside themselves to fight evil, by looking to God.
>
> The Buddha's teaching could not be more different --
> "By oneself, indeed, is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself, indeed, is one purified. Purity and impurity depend on oneself. No one purifies another." (Dhammapada, chapter 12, verse 165)
>
> Buddhism teaches us that evil is something we create, not something we are or some outside force that infects us. The "evil" Mara represents is a distraction from enlightenment within oneself.
Christianity teaches that evil comes from within. "For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what defile a person". (Matthew 15:19) Evil is not from without, but within. The religions are in concordance on this matter.
> Also, Mara is a relatively minor figure in Buddhist mythology compared to Satan. Satan is the lord of Hell. Mara is the lord only of the sixth heaven of the "desire realm" of the Triloka, which is an allegorical representation of reality adapted from Hinduism.
Satan is categorically not the "Lord of Hell" - you seem to be think of Hades or Pluto. The Bible, in the allegorical and metaphorical Revelation of St John, describes Satan as a subject of Hell, not a ruler.
"And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever." (Revelation 20:10)
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 34 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,480
@259,494 (E)
@previous (L)
he is lord of hell in the same sense that a gang leader in a prison where his gang has majority is lord of that prison.
@previous (L)
he is lord of hell in the same sense that a gang leader in a prison where his gang has majority is lord of that prison.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,500
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,510
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,549
@260,452 (L)
> Evil is not from without, but within.
Didn't Jesus go around casting demons out of people? There seems to be a pretty heavy dose of external evil in the Bible stories, if I recall.
> Satan is categorically not the "Lord of Hell" - you seem to be think of Hades or Pluto.
I'm actually not thinking of anyone here. I should have made it more evident that I was quoting the about.com page I cited.
> Evil is not from without, but within.
Didn't Jesus go around casting demons out of people? There seems to be a pretty heavy dose of external evil in the Bible stories, if I recall.
> Satan is categorically not the "Lord of Hell" - you seem to be think of Hades or Pluto.
I'm actually not thinking of anyone here. I should have made it more evident that I was quoting the about.com page I cited.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,558
@previous (E)
Those "demons" consisted of physical symptoms and behavior, such as epilepsy and other mental illnesses, and were not "corrupting influences on innocent humans", as might be suggested from your above summary.
Those "demons" consisted of physical symptoms and behavior, such as epilepsy and other mental illnesses, and were not "corrupting influences on innocent humans", as might be suggested from your above summary.
Anonymous L double-posted this 15 years ago, 47 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,560
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,570
@260,558 (L)
Jesus casts out the chantard demons in Mark 5:1-13
Those demons certainly sound like external corrupting influences.
Jesus casts out the chantard demons in Mark 5:1-13
1 They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes. 2 When Jesus got out of the boat, a man with an impure spirit came from the tombs to meet him. 3 This man lived in the tombs, and no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain. 4 For he had often been chained hand and foot, but he tore the chains apart and broke the irons on his feet. No one was strong enough to subdue him. 5 Night and day among the tombs and in the hills he would cry out and cut himself with stones.
6 When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him. 7 He shouted at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? In God’s name don’t torture me!†8 For Jesus had said to him, “Come out of this man, you impure spirit!â€
9 Then Jesus asked him, “What is your name?â€
“My name is Legion,†he replied, “for we are many.†10 And he begged Jesus again and again not to send them out of the area.
11 A large herd of pigs was feeding on the nearby hillside. 12 The demons begged Jesus, “Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them.†13 He gave them permission, and the impure spirits came out and went into the pigs.
6 When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him. 7 He shouted at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? In God’s name don’t torture me!†8 For Jesus had said to him, “Come out of this man, you impure spirit!â€
9 Then Jesus asked him, “What is your name?â€
“My name is Legion,†he replied, “for we are many.†10 And he begged Jesus again and again not to send them out of the area.
11 A large herd of pigs was feeding on the nearby hillside. 12 The demons begged Jesus, “Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them.†13 He gave them permission, and the impure spirits came out and went into the pigs.
Those demons certainly sound like external corrupting influences.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,572
@previous (E)
Not in a moral sense, or origin of evil sense.
"As a man thinks in his heart, so is he. [Proverbs 23:7]"
Not in a moral sense, or origin of evil sense.
"As a man thinks in his heart, so is he. [Proverbs 23:7]"
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 28 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,585
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,588
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 30 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,595
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,596
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 19 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,599
@260,572 (L)
I'm not sure in what sense you don't see this as an external force, but Jesus running around banishing devils and Christians throwing around concepts like original sin seem to differ quite a bit from the Buddhist ideas I've heard expressed.
The Christian notion of evil and its relation to the acceptance of God seems to be so far removed from Buddhism that I find it difficult to believe that the two religions are "in concordance on this matter" at all. They don't even seem to be talking about the same thing.
I'm not sure in what sense you don't see this as an external force, but Jesus running around banishing devils and Christians throwing around concepts like original sin seem to differ quite a bit from the Buddhist ideas I've heard expressed.
The Christian notion of evil and its relation to the acceptance of God seems to be so far removed from Buddhism that I find it difficult to believe that the two religions are "in concordance on this matter" at all. They don't even seem to be talking about the same thing.
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 31 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,600
If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why does he order such misfortune
And not create concord?
If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why prevail deceit, lies and ignorance
And he such inequity and injustice create?
If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Then an evil master is he, (O Aritta)
Knowing what's right did let wrong prevail!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil#Buddhism
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,621
@260,599 (E)
> I'm not sure in what sense you don't see this as an external force, but Jesus running around banishing devils and Christians throwing around concepts like original sin seem to differ quite a bit from the Buddhist ideas I've heard expressed.
I'm am saying they do not represent evil as coming externally, they merely represented physical ailments. Evil is not caused by demons, it is caused by man. Original sin is not accepted by all of Christianity - either way, Adam and Eve sinned BEFORE they had any form of "sin nature", making the theory not totally satisfactorily. If people take it back a step further and claim Satan persuaded them to sin, it does not explain how Satan came to sin. The Garden of Eden myth does not explain the origin of evil.
> The Christian notion of evil and its relation to the acceptance of God seems to be so far removed from Buddhism that I find it difficult to believe that the two religions are "in concordance on this matter" at all. They don't even seem to be talking about the same thing.
I think you are coloring both doctrines with your cultural and social perceptions of them. I see no fundamental discord between Christianity and Buddhism in these areas.
> I'm not sure in what sense you don't see this as an external force, but Jesus running around banishing devils and Christians throwing around concepts like original sin seem to differ quite a bit from the Buddhist ideas I've heard expressed.
I'm am saying they do not represent evil as coming externally, they merely represented physical ailments. Evil is not caused by demons, it is caused by man. Original sin is not accepted by all of Christianity - either way, Adam and Eve sinned BEFORE they had any form of "sin nature", making the theory not totally satisfactorily. If people take it back a step further and claim Satan persuaded them to sin, it does not explain how Satan came to sin. The Garden of Eden myth does not explain the origin of evil.
> The Christian notion of evil and its relation to the acceptance of God seems to be so far removed from Buddhism that I find it difficult to believe that the two religions are "in concordance on this matter" at all. They don't even seem to be talking about the same thing.
I think you are coloring both doctrines with your cultural and social perceptions of them. I see no fundamental discord between Christianity and Buddhism in these areas.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 50 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,629
@previous (L)
I don't know about your interpretation, but the idea of Jesus talking with demons and having to force them out of people seems to indicate that they don't just represent physical ailments. The Bible has plenty of accounts of Jesus simply healing people of physical ailments without any mention of demons. Why mention demons at all? Isn't Satan supposed to be the prince of demons or something? Don't they run around doing evil things and possessing people? How are these not external forces? And regardless of where you feel original sin came from, inherited sin isn't something individuals create for themselves.
Christianity seems to see evil and sin as intertwined with acceptance of God. This idea obviously doesn't transfer over to Buddhism. As Anon I seems to be pointing out, Buddhism doesn't really grapple with the "problem of evil" at all. Am I coloring both doctrines with my cultural and social perceptions of them? Probably. I'm not sure how I could do otherwise. I still don't see how you could think the two are even talking about the same concepts.
I don't know about your interpretation, but the idea of Jesus talking with demons and having to force them out of people seems to indicate that they don't just represent physical ailments. The Bible has plenty of accounts of Jesus simply healing people of physical ailments without any mention of demons. Why mention demons at all? Isn't Satan supposed to be the prince of demons or something? Don't they run around doing evil things and possessing people? How are these not external forces? And regardless of where you feel original sin came from, inherited sin isn't something individuals create for themselves.
Christianity seems to see evil and sin as intertwined with acceptance of God. This idea obviously doesn't transfer over to Buddhism. As Anon I seems to be pointing out, Buddhism doesn't really grapple with the "problem of evil" at all. Am I coloring both doctrines with my cultural and social perceptions of them? Probably. I'm not sure how I could do otherwise. I still don't see how you could think the two are even talking about the same concepts.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,630
@previous (E)
> I don't know about your interpretation, but the idea of Jesus talking with demons and having to force them out of people seems to indicate that they don't just represent physical ailments. The Bible has plenty of accounts of Jesus simply healing people of physical ailments without any mention of demons. Why mention demons at all? Isn't Satan supposed to be the prince of demons or something? Don't they run around doing evil things and possessing people? How are these not external forces?
Some texts do mention other races of spiritual beings, but they are not the origin of evil. They are evil in the same way that man is evil - because he chooses to be.
> And regardless of where you feel original sin came from, inherited sin isn't something individuals create for themselves.
Don't confuse the related but separate concepts of original (inherited sin) and that of a sinful nature, expressed as total depravity or otherwise.
> Christianity seems to see evil and sin as intertwined with acceptance of God. This idea obviously doesn't transfer over to Buddhism. As Anon I seems to be pointing out, Buddhism doesn't really grapple with the "problem of evil" at all. Am I coloring both doctrines with my cultural and social perceptions of them? Probably. I'm not sure how I could do otherwise. I still don't see how you could think the two are even talking about the same concepts.
Evil is not a substance, but a description. Darkness is not a substance, but a description of the absence of light. Evil is not a substance, but a description of the absence of love. To posit an tangible existence of evil is antithetical to Christianity, which teaches that God created everything.
> I don't know about your interpretation, but the idea of Jesus talking with demons and having to force them out of people seems to indicate that they don't just represent physical ailments. The Bible has plenty of accounts of Jesus simply healing people of physical ailments without any mention of demons. Why mention demons at all? Isn't Satan supposed to be the prince of demons or something? Don't they run around doing evil things and possessing people? How are these not external forces?
Some texts do mention other races of spiritual beings, but they are not the origin of evil. They are evil in the same way that man is evil - because he chooses to be.
> And regardless of where you feel original sin came from, inherited sin isn't something individuals create for themselves.
Don't confuse the related but separate concepts of original (inherited sin) and that of a sinful nature, expressed as total depravity or otherwise.
> Christianity seems to see evil and sin as intertwined with acceptance of God. This idea obviously doesn't transfer over to Buddhism. As Anon I seems to be pointing out, Buddhism doesn't really grapple with the "problem of evil" at all. Am I coloring both doctrines with my cultural and social perceptions of them? Probably. I'm not sure how I could do otherwise. I still don't see how you could think the two are even talking about the same concepts.
Evil is not a substance, but a description. Darkness is not a substance, but a description of the absence of light. Evil is not a substance, but a description of the absence of love. To posit an tangible existence of evil is antithetical to Christianity, which teaches that God created everything.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 37 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,638
@previous (L)
I think the problem is that these seem to be external to the individual. Of course an individual is capable of doing evil on their own, but things like demonic possession and inherited wrongs seem to suggest external influences as well. And I still don't see how you reconcile the Christian idea of evil as opposition to God as similar to any Buddhist conception.
I think the problem is that these seem to be external to the individual. Of course an individual is capable of doing evil on their own, but things like demonic possession and inherited wrongs seem to suggest external influences as well. And I still don't see how you reconcile the Christian idea of evil as opposition to God as similar to any Buddhist conception.
(Edited 26 seconds later.)
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,665
@previous (E)
I view it as like saying illness is an external influence of evil. It is an external influence that is evil, but it doesn't make us evil. Original sin is inherited guilt, not inherited wrongs.
Evil is the opposite of love and God is love. I'm not really seeing the distinction between this and the Buddhist view.
I view it as like saying illness is an external influence of evil. It is an external influence that is evil, but it doesn't make us evil. Original sin is inherited guilt, not inherited wrongs.
Evil is the opposite of love and God is love. I'm not really seeing the distinction between this and the Buddhist view.
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 34 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,668
@260,570 (E)
Those demons need to be invited in and permitted to take over the body before their evil can be manifest. A flu virus isn't "evil," it isn't even fucking alive, but once it's in your body the "evil" becomes manifest and is a threat to you.
Buddhism says evil comes from within and we must resist it. But that's just like saying viruses effect our body from within and we need a healthy immune system. True enough, sure, though it would be fucking stupid to conclude that viruses outside the body don't constitute a threat to us. But this is what Buddhism says when you get right down to it, that evil outside of us need not effect us. Which is wrong. Totally fucking wrong because violations of self are something we are hard wired to consider evil. Oh I forget, Buddhism has no self so there can be no violations of self because the self is only a mental construct. It's also why Buddhism is irrational and fucking stupid.
Those demons need to be invited in and permitted to take over the body before their evil can be manifest. A flu virus isn't "evil," it isn't even fucking alive, but once it's in your body the "evil" becomes manifest and is a threat to you.
Buddhism says evil comes from within and we must resist it. But that's just like saying viruses effect our body from within and we need a healthy immune system. True enough, sure, though it would be fucking stupid to conclude that viruses outside the body don't constitute a threat to us. But this is what Buddhism says when you get right down to it, that evil outside of us need not effect us. Which is wrong. Totally fucking wrong because violations of self are something we are hard wired to consider evil. Oh I forget, Buddhism has no self so there can be no violations of self because the self is only a mental construct. It's also why Buddhism is irrational and fucking stupid.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 5 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,735
@260,665 (L)
These are still external evils that require God to overcome. Christian evil requires a Christian God to turn away from, that's where the comparison seems to fall down.
These are still external evils that require God to overcome. Christian evil requires a Christian God to turn away from, that's where the comparison seems to fall down.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,874
@previous (E)
> These are still external evils that require God to overcome.
Such as?
> Christian evil requires a Christian God to turn away from, that's where the comparison seems to fall down.
So your argument now isn't that they are fundamentally different, just that they are not exactly the same?
> These are still external evils that require God to overcome.
Such as?
> Christian evil requires a Christian God to turn away from, that's where the comparison seems to fall down.
So your argument now isn't that they are fundamentally different, just that they are not exactly the same?
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 59 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,876
why they are so bald?
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,879
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,886
@previous (E)
But you claim the comparison is poor because not every detail is identical. That is why it is a comparison... they are comparable... maybe not identical... but similar.
But you claim the comparison is poor because not every detail is identical. That is why it is a comparison... they are comparable... maybe not identical... but similar.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,888
@previous (L)
No one is claiming that. If every detail were identical, there wouldn't be anything to compare.
No one is claiming that. If every detail were identical, there wouldn't be anything to compare.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,895
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #260,904
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 14 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #261,278
@260,895 (L)
But but, Obama is Black and Bush and White. So see they're really not the same after all.
Anon E doesn't understand how comparisons work. Possibly he considers Buddhism superior to Christianity in some way. I suspect he has a hard on for bald men.
But but, Obama is Black and Bush and White. So see they're really not the same after all.
Anon E doesn't understand how comparisons work. Possibly he considers Buddhism superior to Christianity in some way. I suspect he has a hard on for bald men.