--- In [email protected], ruthsimplicity <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > Once again, define evil for us... > > > > "Evil" is a word that people who want to > > do something nasty or despicable hurl at > > the person or entity they want to do it > > to, to make themselves look better. > > > > That's what it was when hurling the epi- > > thet at the "Axis Of Evil," and that's > > what it is when someone hurls it at Dick > > Cheney. They're trying to make themselves > > and the inordinate amount of hatred they > > are aiming at him and the bad things they > > want to happen to him look "less evil." > > > > I think that throwing around the word > > "evil" is as stupid when done by supposedly > > smart people as it is when hurled around by > > stupid, fanatical Christians and aimed at > > gays or people who have sex or who interpret > > the Bible differently. > > > > In short, I do not believe that any human > > being on the planet knows what "evil" is > > EXCEPT as an excuse for their own actions. > > And since I don't believe in a God, I don't > > believe that *any* entity in creation knows > > what "evil" is, either. > > > > Killing? Then Krishna and Arjuna are evil. > > Lying? Then Maharishi was evil, many times > > over. "Predation?" Then all those Old Test- > > ament prophets who told their followers > > to take the people they conquered and turn > > them into slaves and concubines were evil. > > > > When I hear someone use the word "evil," > > the only thing I usually think is, "Avoid > > that person...they're about to make an > > excuse for something bad that they plan > > to do or want to do or hope to do." > > > > And I think that my take on hearing the > > word "evil" is as good as anyone else's > > "definition" of it. > > > > Go ahead. TRY to define "evil" in concrete > > terms. No matter what example you use, I > > or others here will be able to find an > > instance of someone from religious scrip- > > ture doing that exact thing, and being > > praised and called holy for it. > > > > The word "evil" is a thought-stopper. > > Those who use it show that their ability > > to think probably stopped long ago. > > > > And those are my thoughts about "evil," > > because I can still have them, even after > > you hurled the epithet. :-) > > > > Now riff on them all you want. I promise > > not to call you "evil" if you do. > > We have had this conversation before, yes? > > I believe that there are evil people who do evil things.
You are free to believe that. I do not. I think that there are merely people, who do things. What you may consider "evil" not everyone else does. And until you can trot out some Supreme Being who points to one of the things you consider "evil" and says in a big, booming voice: "YES, SHE'S RIGHT... THAT IS EVIL," I am under no obligation to consider it evil. I reserve the right to consider it just one of those things that ignorant people do because they're ignorant. To believe in evil per se is -- for me -- akin to believing that there are some things that a person could do that would completely *prohibit* realizing their own enlightenment. And most of the sages I respect have said the exact opposite. The potential for Buddha- nature is just as present in Dick Cheney as it was in young Prince Siddhartha. Whether that Buddha-nature will ever be *realized* in Dick Cheney is another question. I would not consider it likely in this lifetime, but I admit the possibility, however remote. There is, after all, karma. And the effects of indulging in actions that lower one's state of attention (and that of others) can effect- ively block the perception of one's Buddha- nature. But it's still there, latent and achievable, if one stops the karma-producing actions. > You recognize them by their lack of conscience and > their bad acts. What YOU consider "bad acts." I can assure you that not everyone on this planet does, whatever the acts. I can pretty much assure you that I can find a passage in the Bible or the Bhagavad-Gita *praising* those very acts in some supposedly holy person or saint. So who is "right" about the definition of what constitutes "bad acts?" You? > The raping, torturing, murdering psychopath who takes > what he wants and does what he pleases at the expense > of others is evil. In your view. I consider him ignorant, more than anything of the effects of his own actions -- on others, and on himself and his state of attention. But "evil," no. > They are not crazy, they are cold and calculatingly > rational. And they are HUMAN. HUMANS do stupid shit. That does not mean that they are incapable of doing smart shit, or even the occasional good shit. I'd be willing to bet that Adolf Hitler did one or two good things in his life. Can you concede that possibility, or was he ALL EVIL? I think that using the word "evil" is an attempt to claim absolutes where there are none. And more often than not, it is also an attempt to excuse one of the lower emotions in the person who is using the term. "He is evil, so I hate him." Well, isn't hate evil? "He is evil, so I think he should be executed in public." Well, isn't killing evil? "He is evil, so he should be thrown in prison, where I hope he will be raped and tortured." See your own statement above. If you were to believe this, then wouldn't you be just as guilty of justifying rape and torture as the person you called evil above? And wouldn't you have prob- ably felt calculatingly rational *as* you justified it?
