November 09, 2004

Getting Beyond Good vs. Evil: A Buddhist Reflection on the New Holy War. [Via MeFi.]
posted by homunculus 20 years ago
  • Please keep your religious propaghanda out of my internets. Thank you.
  • Sweet, simplistic hooey.
  • Yes, damn that piece for trying to show that things are not the easy-to-swallow binary caplets as the leaders of the respective movements want to make it out to be.
  • A Native American grandfather was talking to his grandson about how he felt about the tragedy on September 11th. He said, "I feel as if I have two wolves fighting in my heart. One wolf is vengeful, angry, violent. The other wolf is loving, forgiving, compassionate." The grandson asked him, "Which wolf will win the fight in your heart?" The grandfather answered, "The one I feed." This is a good way to think, imo. I liked the link, I found it interesting.
  • I found the interesting part to be the idea that opposite sides of an argument cannot exist without each other and in some ways mirror each other. In this case, the view of America as "the good" could not exist without the OBL "the bad". In turn, in this dualistic view, OBL can use the actions of America to portray himself as "the good" and America as "the bad". They fuel each other.
  • It's an interesting essay, but it misrepresents Christianity, Judaism and Islam. These religions actually consider religious dualism heresy. Rather, they embrace the idea that there is one, all-powerful being who is good and a much less powerful evil force that tempts us all. Perhaps the author meant to accuse the world of being Manichaeist?
  • The dogma may preach that, trampnews, but the actions and words from the leaders of all sides have shown another. I didn't see any misrepresentation in that article. Care to point it out?
  • Rather, they embrace the idea that there is one, all-powerful being who is good and a much less powerful evil force that tempts us all. what's the difference between this and dualism? that the locus of the good and of the evil is outside, rather than within, humanity? please help me here, i'm honestly trying to figure it out. from my perspective, the article was pointing out that each of these religions has a conception of good, to which they feel that they belong, and a conception of evil, to which they assign others. how does this not fit in with this description?
  • Although it is certainly not unique to the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) I think this dualism is ... That's the first point at which I noticed this misrepresentation. Perhaps it proves the author's point further to demonstrate that these leaders have, in fact, strayed from the foundation of their religion in viewing the world in a dual nature. It doesn't detract from the author's meanins, shawnj, you're right, but I think it's a bit disrepectful to attribute some characteristic (dualism) to a religion when the religion denies that very characteristic. heavily medicated: Dualism is the idea of two forces, good and evil, battling for the upper hand. (Think Star Wars.) The Bible, the Koran, and the Torah expressly forbid this kind of thought. The basic consensus among these religions is that God is good and controls everything (in fact, he could wipe out evil if he wanted) and therefore we are all inherently good. However, the evil "force" (Satan or what have you), because it is weak, tries to tempt men to do evil things. If men do evil things, it is the right of God and God alone to "smite" them and not the right of "good people" to battle "evil people." I guess to simplify, dualism is that one person is good and one person is bad and the good person is obligated to obliterate the bad person.
  • Yes, damn that piece for trying to show that things are not the easy-to-swallow binary caplets as the leaders of the respective movements want to make it out to be. The existence of complexity is also not an easy-to-swallow caplet. Don't be so glib.
  • trampnews: The Bible doesn't explicitly rule out dualism, at the very least (I can't speak to the others); otherwise there would never have been any dualistic heresies amongst Christians - indeed, Augustine has been accused of introducing Manichean thought into Western Christianity.
    but I think it's a bit disrepectful to attribute some characteristic (dualism) to a religion when the religion denies that very characteristic.
    One can claim whatever one likes, but that doesn't make it true in practise. Suggesting that pointing out variance from proclaimed doctrine is a useful tool for the would-be tyrant, but it's positively harmful to understanding the world as it is.
  • trampnews Thanks for the link on Manichaeism. Very interesting. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the whole concept of dualism. I had always thought that gthe concept of dualism implied that good and evil were opposite and separate from each other, whereas a non-dualism implied that there is good and evil in both sides of a dispute (the whole yin-yang thing). However, I fully realize I have no idea what I'm talking about, and would love to learn more as I'm just a Baptist raised Buddhist leaning atheist with a scientific approach to the world. :) Can you recommend any more extensive reading?
  • Manichaeism may be heresy, but I think it may be more prevelent, at least in Christianity, than one would think heresy would be.
  • Please keep your religious propaghanda out of my internets. So I shouldn't post this? It did seem like a bother.