In saying that “everything is perfect” I am arguing against the concept of sin, the idea of an ontological blemish. I am really saying that “nothing is imperfect,” which is the logical equivalent of “everything is perfect.”
By imperfect, I mean containing some ontological blemish. I would argue that all perceived blemishes are the result of subjective value judgments and do not map onto being itself. In that the concept of an ontological blemish is incoherent—that is to say, there is no such thing as an ontological blemish—then all things are without ontological blemishes and are thus perfect.
Once we clear the mind of the idea of ontological blemishes, however, we can begin to look at things pragmatically. We do not say, “This is right; this is wrong,” we say “I want this; I don’t want this.” If something happens that you don’t like, you don’t say, “It is evil,” you say, “This is the perfect expression of those conditions that created it—since I do not like it, how can I alter conditions so as not to reproduce it?” I think that this is a far more effective and accurate way to view the world. To seek to change things because you think something is wrong is to act out of need—to live your life reactively. To seek to change things because you want something different is to act out of desire—to live your life creatively.
Whatever else may be true ethically, sin is not something that can exist. Nothing can contradict the prime principle, of which it is a manifestation.
If you identify with the message of this article, please email it to people, tell your friends, even print out copies to pass around. Together we can raise awareness. Thank you.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
