[Buddha-l] Fighting creationism

[SJZiobro at cs.com]

"jkirk" <jkirk at spro.net> wrote:

>We need a few facts here. 1) A few people have indeed deliberately set out 
>to spread the infection of HIV/AIDS, and succeeded in infecting some people. 
>Their acts were followed by arrest and trial, with guilty verdicts.
>2) I agree that the preponderance of evidence about the spread of HIV/AIDS 
>infection indicates that most of it is based on ignorance and lust.
>In some countries the ignorance is magnified by the delusionary idea that if 
>an HIV infected man, or one with full-blown AIDS, has sex with a virgin, he 
>will be cured.
>We can imagine the consequences.

Joanna,

Thanks for these reminders.

>I too am dubious about the moral etc. condition of humans, but there is 
>still hope to the extent that Buddhist teachings at least can help us, if we 
>will, to overcome our obvious liabilities in being human, liabilities that 
>animals in their worlds, and nature in general, do not suffer from. Perhaps 
>this could be a different way for Christians to interpret 'original sin', if 
>that sin were construed as the three genetic poisons of Buddhism.  (I forget 
>if, say, Calvin preached that the entire world or cosmos-- nature et al--
>suffered from original sin. If he did, he was wrong.)

Your comments relative to the three poions and original sin are interesting and mirror precisely what I concluded at least 20 years ago.
Concupiscence, ignorance, and anger are routinely articulated as results of original sin in various ascetico-philosophical texts (as well as in theological reflections).  I was always impressed by the insights into the human condition the various Buddhist articulations bring to bear on the matter.  

>Nature is not a moral world, even when we see a baby duck feeding a bunch of 
>carp. We see it, and think it is behaving like us when we are benevolently 
>disposed. I doubt it. Coming up with answers to this exceptional duck would 
>require years of studious observation, a la Konrad Lorenz. Maybe it was a 
>one-off?

Nature is not a moral world, and I'm sure this is why Richard disagreed with my phrase "natural evil".  I think there is non-moral evil, though, and it is evident when phrased in terms of being the lack of a due good, wholeness, integrity, etc.

Regards,

Stan