![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
juldeaI 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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
on 7 Dec 2004 21:04 (UTC)no subject
on 7 Dec 2004 21:05 (UTC)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.
no subject
on 7 Dec 2004 22:36 (UTC)Zealots are a bad thing. I don't care what religion or beliefs they follow.
re: at gunpoint
on 8 Dec 2004 03:16 (UTC)As a "religious fundamentalist"
on 8 Dec 2004 04:43 (UTC)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.
no subject
on 8 Dec 2004 05:36 (UTC)Re: at gunpoint
on 8 Dec 2004 05:49 (UTC)Re: As a "religious fundamentalist"
on 8 Dec 2004 06:03 (UTC)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?
As in heaven, so on Earth
on 8 Dec 2004 06:13 (UTC)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.
no subject
on 8 Dec 2004 06:16 (UTC)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.
Re: As in heaven, so on Earth
on 8 Dec 2004 06:22 (UTC)no subject
on 8 Dec 2004 06:57 (UTC)no subject
on 8 Dec 2004 07:02 (UTC)no subject
on 8 Dec 2004 07:21 (UTC)My religion rants are primarily focused on Christianity, as the only religion I have real knowledge of and experience with.
no subject
on 8 Dec 2004 07:27 (UTC)That, and my own musings on what the ultimate result of the legistlation of morality is.
no subject
on 8 Dec 2004 07:27 (UTC)Re: As a "religious fundamentalist"
on 8 Dec 2004 07:34 (UTC)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.
Re: As a "religious fundamentalist"
on 8 Dec 2004 07:39 (UTC)Thanks for pointing that out, I forgot to.
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)no subject
on 8 Dec 2004 07:47 (UTC)...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.
no subject
on 8 Dec 2004 07:51 (UTC)Re: As in heaven, so on Earth
on 8 Dec 2004 08:23 (UTC)Depends who you talk to. Roman Catholicism has a history of rating sins and their penalties, again stemming from Augustine. It created a whole industry of pardoning and relic selling in the middle ages. Some of this spills over into protestantism. Paying for your sins is an exchange idea. And yes, there were sometimes sales on absolutions. Can you imagine if this extended into the present day? "Unfaithful to your wife? Well at Walmart we have saint knuckles good for a class ten absolution for just $19.95. That's right! Only $19.95."
The actual belief about just how bad we are varies from church to church. For many, we are damned or saved randomly, despite our efforts in either direction. For some, a baptism and dedication to the lord cleans everything. For some it's a matter of what's in your heart, if you accept god and want to be good, it doesn't matter if you are weak willed.
Augustine was the first big bring the city of god to earth and repent your sins advocates. A lot of that was in reaction to his tempest tossed life. His beliefs helped shore up the hopes of those who saw the Roman empire fall around them. So, you could say that Fundamentalists can blame the fall of Rome for their puritanical side.
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 a "religious fundamentalist"
on 8 Dec 2004 08:36 (UTC)What I said about encouraging people to participate - as people decide that this is something that's not wrong, it will slowly creep back into the church. (Example: gay clergy.) I'm concerned because it makes it much harder to convince people that the action is still wrong, even though the government condones it (example: abortion.) If we can't convince them it is wrong, then they won't have an incentive to repent and turn to Jesus. People may believe that they are right with God while living in unrecognized/unrepentant sin (example: My dad, who everyone thought was a wonderful Christian man, but has not repented of his adultery against my mother. Even now, he does not acknowledge that any of what he did was wrong. I am concerned for his soul, and I wonder if he ever was a Christian.)
Basically: I am concerned for people's souls. I don't quite want to "force" my morality on them, but I also don't want to encourage them to slide even deeper into sin. Which means that I don't have strong feelings on banning gay marriage, but I do have strong feelings on allowing it. I hope that makes sense.
This would be much less of a gray issue if church-recognized "marriage" and state-recognized "marriage" (AKA civil union) weren't so closely tied together.