the evil

[juldea]

I figured it out, and it scares me.

I was thinking about religious fundimentalists and those who seek to impose restrictions on other's life choices..
And isn't it better to have the choice to be good or bad and choose good, than to live a good life because that's all that's available to you?
Following down this path will lead to people raised in ignorance of the fact that they could, theoretically, choose evil. Ignorant of evil at all, even.
...and then it hit me.
What is that state but the state of the Garden of Eden before the original sin?
This is what people want? People in power? How immensely frightening.

...because, you see, I don't at all consider eating from the Tree of Knowledge to have been a bad thing.

Comments

[en-ki.livejournal.com]

Vaguely related and good (http://www.livejournal.com/users/bradhicks/#entry_118585).

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Quite good. I'm slacking off from a lot of work because of it. ;)

[anitra.livejournal.com]

Me too. Arg... I had real work to do today, too...

[tramissa.livejournal.com]

It also depends on your definition of good.

You see, I see homosexuality = good, not bad. They see it as being bad, therefore, by my view, living in this fundamentalist utopia = evil to me because I will be living with beliefs that I consider evil. Whether they actually ARE evil is another thing, but their garden of eden is still my garden of evil.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

because I will be living with beliefs that I consider evil

Just wanting to clarify my point: it's not that I have to live with/around beliefs that I consider evil - it's being forced to live BY beliefs that I consider evil. Without being given the chance/knowledge of other ones.

[tramissa.livejournal.com]

I got that, it's hard to describe what I meant because the situation wouldn't exist theoretically as I wouldn't have my own beliefs anyway...

I guess it's just that I view their garden of eden as evil and I want nothing to do with it.

[crimson5.livejournal.com]

Alot of those people don't really understand where thier goals are taking them. They can only focus on the here and now. There's lesson I learned from an RPG a long time ago. Basically, if you force virtue, it ceases to be a virtue. Perhaps the best example from that game, is one of the towns required you to donate half of your gold to charity. At swordpoint. Being forced to give, defeats the concept of charity. Perhaps the other viewpoint they fail to consider, is balance. It's possible for a society to become to good, and in the process destroy things that are good, but just have failed to keep up with the new distorted standards. To reuse the above example, imagine if everyone gave half thier income to charity, willingly. It would be considered evil to only give a fourth. Find me a person who donates a quarter of thier income to charity, and I'll show you me attempting to convince them to donate to the make Crimson5 rich fund. ;)
Zealots are a bad thing. I don't care what religion or beliefs they follow.

re: at gunpoint

[etherial.livejournal.com]

Spoken like a true liberal.

Re: at gunpoint

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Elaborate?

easy peasy

[etherial.livejournal.com]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/bradhicks/53848.html

As a "religious fundamentalist"

[anitra.livejournal.com]

I know that other people don't agree with my views on what is absolutely right and wrong. I can't stop gay people from having sex, any more than I can stop adultery or pre-marital sex (I group all of these in the same category, and recognize that I, too, am a sinner).

However, I shy away from anything that would specifically legalize these sins - I feel that would encourage more people to participate, because the law says it's OK.

This is why it pisses me off that I live in Massachusetts, where the courts pretty much bypassed the legislature. I know the courts only specified that gay marriage was not illegal, which is not quite the same thing as legalizing it. But it's the first step down a road where I really don't want to be.

Re: As a "religious fundamentalist"

[juldea.livejournal.com]

I am completely cool with you deciding what you think is right and wrong for you and your family. But not everyone shares your opinions on what is right and wrong, and by attempting to put laws that encourage your morality, you are removing from them the ability to make these decisions for themselves.

I guess it's just my opinion that the government should only make laws that stop people from directly harming others - why adultery, for example, doesn't fall under the same heading as homosexuality and pre-marital sex for me. The matter of harming yourself, in physical/spiritual/emotional/mental ways, is your own issue to deal with... (Yeah, I know it's a very sketchy line.)

I guess my basic question is: if someone is enough of a sinner to choose to engage in an action because the government legalized it, doesn't that make them not at all less of a sinner because they simply refrain from the action because it's illegal? How does it help their 'case' any, in the spiritual sense? People should be refraining from sin because it's bad in God's eyes, not the government's, right?

Re: As a "religious fundamentalist"

[learnedax.livejournal.com]

I'm curious about your position, and I hope my questions will not seem argumentative to you*.

Do you believe that morality, as it is supported by the government should be decided subjectively, or objectively? That is, issues of morality can be addressed by the government either based on the majority view, or based on what it determines to be the objective right course. Or is there a third method that you believe would be preferable?

If subjective, what would you do in a country that held different morals from yours? Would you move to a different country? If there were no country whose morals agreed with yours, would you act in accordance with local morality, or would you practice your morals regardless?

If objective, how can the right choice be determined? You have a set of personal morals, as does each lawmaker, but using those is another form of subjective choice, isn't it?

*Actually, I would argue one side point: the Massachusetts supreme court exists precisely to rule on the constitutionality of legislation. They did not bypass the legislature, interpreting the constitution is their job. Only whether they produced the best interpretation is open to question.

[ratbastrd.livejournal.com]

Now, I'm an atheist and all, but I have a picture on my wall of a detail from the Sistine Chapel ceiling, Adam and Eve reaching for the apple, that I added my own label to back when I was a teenager: "Man tastes freedom." So, yes, I pretty much agree.

As in heaven, so on Earth

[cristovau.livejournal.com]

The thinking is that the laws and restrictions are in keeping with the tenants of god's will. It isn't about a person, but the society. On a personal level there will always be temptation, but will the sin be lustful thoughts or going to a strip club? It's not the removal of choice between good and bad, but reducing the distance of any fall that might occur.

What gets to me is that it's selective and mostly concerns sex and not violence. The new testament is very clear in it's advise against violence and yet gun control, disarmament and peace protests are met with scorn.

And what really gets me is the hang ups with sex come with Augustine's interpretation of sin, while the pacifist message needs no interpretation. This is what bugs me about most christian faiths; to much attention to a specific interpretation and not enough to the core message.

Re: As in heaven, so on Earth

[juldea.livejournal.com]

But isn't the sin of lustful thoughts just as bad as the sin of going to a strip club? I wasn't aware that there were 'levels' of sin. Just sin. You can't be a "moderate" sinner. You are either a sinner who desires forgiveness, or you're not. So you're either a sinner who tries, or you're not. This blanks out all other circumstances, including what the 'government' says is allowed or not allowed.

[tpau]

hmmm... well. in the garden of eden they did not know good either. they were ignorant of EVERYTHING. and even the fundamentalist orthodox in my religion don't wnat to return to the garden of eden...

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Nod. It seems to me that being ignorant of everything is the logical result of legislating morality so much that all evil is squashed out. If there's no evil... there can be no good...

My religion rants are primarily focused on Christianity, as the only religion I have real knowledge of and experience with.

[mr-teem.livejournal.com]

Hurm. I guess I disagree slightly with that conclusion. I don't think fundamentalist doctrine (and I'm inferring you are referring to Christian fundamentalism) implies removing the knowledge of choice or temptation. Adam and Eve learned of choice and temptation via the Tree of Knowledge God made clear the consequences of that action and there was the strong implication that we couldn't unlearn what we had learned. The concept of "original sin", as I understand it, means we can never return to the Garden but instead man has to struggle with temptation and receive divine inspiration to be saved. Fundamentalist sects are doctrinal: they want to specify, in significant detail, what is sinful and impose a homogenity on society through temporal, as well as spiritual, institutions. (Which is a fancy way of saying they want to make stuff illegal, too.)

[juldea.livejournal.com]

I know that the removal of the knowledge isn't the outright, announced end goal of most Christian churches. My late-night epiphany was more in the realm of conspiracy theories. ;)

That, and my own musings on what the ultimate result of the legistlation of morality is.

[learnedax.livejournal.com]

This is what people want?

...because, you see, I don't at all consider eating from the Tree of Knowledge to have been a bad thing.

Uh, yeah, but don't you see the inconsistency there? You don't consider it a bad thing, but it is pretty definitively bad in Christianity, which 74% of the US is. Eden is an enviable state, and breaking it was the original sin; of course it's not surprising that Christian actions would (consciously or not) work towards approaching such a state.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Where is the inconsistency, exactly? I didn't say that they have to stop being and acting like Christians. Just that they shouldn't expect me to do so, and they shouldn't infringe upon my right to not do so.

Re: I Think I Love You

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Hrm, I think I need to make a trip to the bank to get a bunch of quarters. ;)

[crolack.livejournal.com]

The way I view it is that God presents all of us with the same challenge, deny your natural self for a more spiritural self.

The garden was a challenge, for Adam and Eve to deny their natural selves for a more spiritual one. They failed, God gave them that freedom to fail, but also setup a solution for redemption.

God sets what's right and wrong and challenges the individual to make the choice. No one has the right to impose their will on another being. We each have our own free will to make our own choices.