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.
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.
Re: As in heaven, so on Earth
on 8 Dec 2004 07:41 (UTC)Sin has never been a boolean condition.
Re: As in heaven, so on Earth
on 8 Dec 2004 07:43 (UTC)Re: As in heaven, so on Earth
on 8 Dec 2004 08:32 (UTC)Actually, it depends on what your are calling sin. There is a meme in protestantism that suggests damnable sin is boolean, without redemption. And original sin has always been boolean, a set of all sinful, minus two.
Re: As in heaven, so on Earth
on 8 Dec 2004 21:46 (UTC)Re: As in heaven, so on Earth
on 9 Dec 2004 11:52 (UTC)