Category Archives: Religion

Religion, Witchcraft

Control, Influence, and Madeleine L’Engle

Leave a comment
A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle

Image by Dana Durell via Flickr

While I was blogging yesterday about community, church, and worship my Zemanta plugin suggested a possibly related link with a quote from the author, Madeleine L’Engle.  I found part of that quote very interesting:

Artists have always been drawn to the wild, wide elements they cannot control or understand — the sea, mountains, fire. To be an artist means to approach the light, and that means to let go our control, to allow our whole selves to be placed with absolute faith in that which is greater than we are. The novel we site down to write, and the one we end up writing may be very different, just as the Jesus we grasp and the Jesus who grasps us may also differ.

We live under the illusion that if we can acquire complete control, we can understand God, or we can write the great American novel. But the only way we can brush against the hem of the Lord, or hope to be part of the creative process, is to have the courage, the faith, to abandon control.

Personally, I think L’Engle is onto something profound here, and it’s something that is as important in witchcraft as it is in L’Engle’s faith.  That profound truth is that it’s never about control, because control is an illusion.  Whether you’re talking about art, faith, or magic, there is no such thing as absolute control.

But something that L’Engle points out that there is a difference between control — especially absolute control — and influence and the creative process.  It is possibl to not still be in control and still hold considerable influence.  It is possible to be a less-than-perfect co-creator.  In fact, it’s the only thing we can be.  I’d even go so far as to say that it’s the only thing we should be.

Our job is not to gain mastery over everything.  That’s good, because that would be an impossible task.  (And my gods and my faith do not require me to undertake impossible tasks.)  Instead, ours is to look at the reality around us and identify what we can do and do exactly that.  No more.  No less.

Magic does not change that goal.  It is not a means by which we discover all the secrets of the universe and therefore become its master.  It’s merely another tool we can use to manifest our limited and imperfect influence.  And it’s a nice tool to have.

I also like how L’Engle makes that connection between faith and art.  I think it’s a great one, and I think there’s a similar connection between art and magic.  After all, they are both processes of creation, and I think all such processes are ultimately of the same essense.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Religion

Worship, community, and a few related bits

5 Comments
Wiccans gather for a handfasting ceremony at A...

Image via Wikipedia

A few years ago, I participated in a discussion about Wiccan devotions on an email list that focused on British Traditional Wicca.  One of the elders (I forget which tradition) commented that just about any act can become an act of devotion simply by keeping in mind the Wiccan Mysteries.  It’s something that’s stuck with me, and I tend to see things the same way, understanding that an act of devotion is about perception as much as it’s about carrying out any particular activity or procedure.  And in many ways, I tend to see worship (which I’m not sure I see as entirely distinct from devotion anyway) in much the same way.  After all, I’m constantly reminded of my paragraph from The Charge of the Goddess:

Let My worship be within the heart that rejoices,
for behold, all acts of love and pleasure are My rituals.
Therefore let there be beauty and strength, power and compassion,
honor and humility, mirth and reverence within you.

So to me, anything which brings to mind beauty, compassion, reverence, or any of the other virtues mentioned is an act of worship.  Any situation that brings about rejoicing and good cheer is an act of worship in my mind.  And if I meet another person and as a result we share these virtues and that rejoicing with each other, that is a moment where we have joined together in worship.

I’ve been thinking of this due to a conversation a couple of us had over on Matt’s post about “going to church.”  As part of the discussion, I suggested that if a small group of believers ran into each other at the grocery story, that might be considered “church happening.”  Scott disagreed:

I get
what Jared is saying, and I appreciate the intent, but this is not
church. Three people randomly meeting at a grocery store are not
gathered to communal bear witness to the risen Jesus through worship
and service.

Personally, I offered my own disagreement with Scott:

Why
not? Can’t service and worship happen anywhere and spontaneously? Isn’t
the act of just meeting and showing each other Christian love an act of
worship? After all, didn’t Christ himself say that people would know
his followers by how they loved one another? And once those people meet
so “randomly,” what opportunities for service might they find in that
“random” moment? Perhaps they can help the elderly woman who’s trying
to make her way through the crowded produce aisle. Perhaps they can
help the overly-tired mother with three very active children do her
shopping.

And therein lies my point. I think it’s important to see ANY
gathering of believers — no matter how random or unplanned — as
church simply because ANY such situation can lead to communal service
and worship. And I’ll be so bold as to suggest that not recognizing
each such moment as such simply blinds one to the opportunities such a
moment might actually offer.

Maybe my point is moot.  Maybe Christian theology simply doesn’t support my basic assumptions.  (Christians will have to decide (a) if that’s the case and (b) whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing if it’s not.)  However, from my perspective, it only makes sense.  Where more than one person meet, see the sacredness in each other and in the sharing of lives, loves, joys, and sorrows, worship can and will take place.

And I’d like to think that, as I mentioned, such a mentality does offer a chance for service.  Going through each moment of life with this attitude tends to make one more aware of opportunities to help others and touch lives.  Certainly, they might be small ways to do so.  But who says you have to do something big for it to count?

As I mentioned in the discussion in Matt’s blog, anything less than this mentality suggests to me a compartmentalization of sacred experience and sacred living.  Community — even religious community — doesn’t happen at special events.  It’s heartbeat lives in every moment lived, at least to those of us who take the time to listen for it.

To do otherwise would strike me as, well, irreligious.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Memes, Religion

Interesting Religions

10 Comments

Matt tagged me with a new meme he’s trying to start:

what religions do you find most interesting apart from your own? Would
you pick one of the major world religions? Say Islam, or Buddhism, or
Hinduism or Judaism? Or would you pick something more obscure, like
Wicca or Taosim or Rastafarianism or Gnosticism? Would you pick
irreligion, say Atheism or Agnosticism? Or if you’re not Christian,
would you say Christianity?

To participate, state your own religion (or irreligion) as your first
preference, state the other religions that interest you most as your
second and third preferences, then pass onto five others. If you’re
feeling brave, say why they interest you.

So here are my choices:

Orthodox Christianity (and to a lesser degree, Roman Catholocism and those Protestant denominations that still have strong “high church” elements in their worship/liturgy.  What can I say?  My friend Julio got me fascinated.  After he read my essay explaining the concept of mystery using baptism as an example, he pointed out just how close I came to the actual Orthodox teachings on Baptism.  (He also shared my essay with his priest, who purportedly commented that I’m “really Orthodox and just don’t know it yet.)  My exploration of my current path has given me a great appreciation for liturgy, and something I now feel was sorely missing and undervalued while growing up Baptist and during my stint in a Pentecostal church.

Wicca.  Now this may surprise some people (it’ll come as no shock to others).  Some might even think this isn’t entirely a fair answer.  But remember, I don’t consider myself Wiccan.  Also, bear in mind that I tend to use a rather narrow definition of the word Wicca on this blog.  The Wicca I’m talking about fascinates me because it has some strong similarities to the relatiosnship I have with Freyja.  Also, I love the interplay between traditionalism and creativity that can be found among many of its adherents, providing you take the time to actually get to know them.

Voudun, Santeria, and the other African Diasporic relgions.  I find their understanding of the Loa and Orishas to be fascinating and far more in line with my own beliefs about my gods than most other concepts of deity.  I also find the strong animistic, shamanistic, and even tribalistic elements of these faiths to be very invigorating.

In turn, I’d like to tag Yewtree, Lauren, Tina, Barbara, and Erin.

Religion, Society

I guess it was bound to happen at some point.

9 Comments

Tonight, I logged into Tagged to find the following message waiting for me:

Romans 6:23 “…the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord”… Do you know Him?

The person who sent it to me is not on my friends list, so I can only assume that he’s sending this message to random people on Tagged.  This makes him the online equivalent of door-to-door evangelists.  In my mind, it also makes him the online equivalent of a telemarketer calling me to sell something I’m not looking to buy, a Mormon missionary knocking on my door, or a door-to-door vacuum cleaner salesman (do they even have those anymore?).  In other words, like all those others, he’s a minor annoyance.

I simply don’t understand why people feel it is necessary or good to walk up to someone at random (or contact them online at random) and try to “sell” that person a particular religion.  To be frank, religion is far more important to me, and it’s something I’m only interested in discussing with someone I have an established, fairly well-rounded relationship with.  Anything else is just someone looking to make their next “sale” and gets treated like every other salesperson that decides to peddle their wares to me unbidden.

Of course, I do pride myself on politeness.  I don’t get nasty with telemarketers (unless they continue to press the matter after the polite “I’m not interested”).  I don’t get nasty with Mormon missionaries.  And I didn’t get nasty with this guy.  In fact, I sent what I felt was a rather polite reply:

I’m sorry, but I have a policy against getting into evangelistic
conversations with random strangers.  Please accept my best wishes and
a blessing for a full life, however.

Bye.  Smile

And with any luck, that’ll be end of the whole thing.

Update:  As I was making this post, I received the following reply:

I’m sorry about your policy.

God Bless

And I’d say that’s a pretty good place to leave the whole conversation.

Magic/Magick, Paganism, Religion, Witchcraft

Choice and Power

Leave a comment

Yesterday, I blogged about how the belief that we have no choices in situations is detrimental to our ability to live an ethical life.  Today, I want to discuss another reason why this belief is problematic for witches(1).  A belief that we have no choice in a given situation also destroys our personal power in a given situation as well.

We in the Pagan community talk about self-empowerment a lot.  It’s a key reason a lot of us came to a Pagan path, at least in my experience.  However, sometimes we talk about it in rather vague terms, never really making it clear what it means to be self-empowered.  To that end, I would like to suggest my own definition:  Self-empowerment is the act of embracing the realization that no matter what situation we may find ourselves in, we always have the ability to choose how we will respond and act.

Note that self-empowerment doesn’t mean we always get to control the situations we find ourselves in.  Nor does it mean that we can magically change everything in our environment to suit our needs.  Such a concept of self-empowerment would simply be out of step with and contrary to reality.  Hardships are going to befall us.  People are going to do things we don’t like and that hurt us.  Circumstances are going to limit our options and even make us face some unpleasant choices.  Those who want to find a way to turn their lives into a fairy tale need to keep looking.  They will not find it here.(2)

But what the principle of self-empowerment tells us is that no matter what those situations are, our actions are our own to choose.  It tells us that even if our choices are limited to unpleasant ones, there are still choices to make.(3)  Self-empowerment teaches us that no matter what is beyond our control, who we choose to be and how we choose to act is still our personal domain.  And that is an incredible power to wield, in my opinion.

Saying we have no choice in a situation robs us of that power.  It turns us into victims of our circumstances rather than people who are working to not only make the best of our circumstances, but improve it insofar as we can.  And that is a great tragedy.

And again, this is a creeping problem.  The belief that we had no choice tends to spread throughout our lives.  What started as one instance where we thought we had no control or no power becomes two.  Then it becomes five.  Then it becomes a regular occurrence.  Soon, we are never empowered because we fail to see our choices.  And then we wonder why our lives are nothing like we want them to be.(4)

Now some may be ready to ask me, “But what about magic?”  And it’s a good question, so I will answer it.  Back in 2007, I blogged about the role one’s will plays in magic.  At that time, I suggested that our will is the part of our psyche that initiates action.  It’s the part of us that actually goes about making all of these choices, and it’s central to the process of working magic.

So what happens when we say that part of us is incapable of making choices because there are none to be made?  We are effectively subjugating it or turning it off.  A belief that we have no choices actually hinders our will.  And a subjugated or hindered will simply cannot operate effectively.  Which means our ability to do magic effectively disappears as well.

Notes:
(1)  As witches are not the only people who believe in or value self-empowerment, I’m sure many other people will be able to identify with much of what I’m saying here.  I think that’s great.  But since I’m a witch, I’m going to focus on witches.  Though I do hope anyone who isn’t a witch still shares with me what value they might find in my thoughts.

(2)  In reality, I suspect they won’t find it anywhere.  But I respect their right to continue searching.  That’s their choice to make.

(3)  The other advantage to realizing you still have choices, even if they’re all less than ideal, is that it gives you the freedom to think creatively and look for even more choices.  The ones you see immediately may not be the only ones laying about.

(4)  Of course, there are also times when our lives are nothing like we want them to be because our desires are simply not realistic.  Again, this is because self-empowerment is not about living a fairy tale life.  Sometimes, we just have to find a way to live within our limitations.  But my experience is that even within our limitations, there’s a life that’s well worth living.

Gender and Sexuality, Religion

Thoughts from an Outsider

1 Comment
LGBT flag

Image via Wikipedia

I’ve been reading a lot of blogs the past few days, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America have been a major topic of discussion.  This is because the ELCA has been holding their Church-Wide Assembly this week, and the church’s response to GLBT people in various circumstances has been a huge topic of conversation.  They’ve voted on a statement on Human Sexuality (of which GLBT issues is only a small portion), a policy of allowing local congregations to minister to GLBT people in accordance with their own conscience, and a policy allowing the ordination of GLBT clergy in monogamous, lifelong patnerships.

It’s this last policy that I’d like to talk about briefly.  Although I am no longer a Christian and don’t foresee returning to that faith (and if I did, I’d be more inclined to join the Orthodox church anyway), it’s something that in some ways is near and dear to me.  As someone who loves to help and serve others, it pleases me to see new opportunities being provided to GLBT to help and serve others.  And as someone who once felt called to ministry, I admit some pleasure in knowing that such an opportunity has come in my lifetime, even if I no longer plan to take it.

As I’ve read various people express both their joys and their concerns about this decision in the ELCA, I began to consider my own time of serving in my old (American Baptist) church back home.  While I was not an ordained minister, I spent time as a Sunday school teacher, the leader of the youth group, and even the superintendent of the children’s Sunday school program.  (I also did speak from the pulpit as a lay leader a handful of times.)

I came out to myself as a gay man towards the end of my senior year in college.  When I graduated and returned home, I also returned to my small rural church an quickly found myself pulled back into leadership.  I almost immediate took over the Sunday school class for grades 7-12 as well as the youth group.  That summer, I also co-led our church’s Vacation Bible School program.  A few months after that, my aunt stepped down as superintendent of the children’s Sunday school program and I was asked to take over.

At the time, no one in my church (with the possible exception of a couple of family members) knew that I was gay.  To be honest, I’m not sure how the other members of the church would’ve reacted if they knew, and I was too afraid at the time to find out.  So I kept my sexuality a secret and focused on doing my duties as a leader in the church.  And I suffered in silence.

Yes, I suffered.  Those first few months to a couple of years after you come out to yourself can be quite difficult emotionally.  You find yourself sorting through a lot of feelings and trying to understand what it means to be gay and all the implications it has for your life.  So here I was trying to act as a leader in my church and deal with my own problems, and I was afraid to turn to any of the other church leaders to seek help during this time of my life.

At one point, I began having trouble upholding my responsibilities as a church leader began to sag due to the issues I was trying to work through.  (And things got even worse the few months before I finally left the church — as I had also begun to add in the complications that come with one’s first real relationship.)  I started to procrastinate and forgot to do certain things.  A few of the other leaders began to get upset, especially as they relied on me for certain things and I let them down on more than one occasion.  And I was frustrated because they never once asked what was going on with me or why I was becoming less dependable.  But to make matters worse, even if they had asked me what was wrong, I doubt I would’ve had the courage to tell them.  I just wasn’t comfortable.

As I think of my experiences, I think of the ELCA’s decison with some pleasure, knowing that at least some GLBT people who wish to serve in a Christian community will now be able to do so openly.  And this means that they will be able to get the support I felt was denied to me back when I was serving as I felt called.  And that is something that pleases me greatly.

Religion

Choice and Ethics

Leave a comment
The opening page of Spinoza's magnum opus, Ethics

Image via Wikipedia

“But I had to do it!  I didn’t have a choice!”

I think most of us have heard that statement or similar ones like it.  In fact, I’d be willing to go out on a limb and say that most of us have made that statement or similar ones.(1)  It’s a common sentiment to express when we are faced with a tough decision, especially one with ethical implications or consequences we’re not entirely comfortable with or feel defensive about.

Claiming that we had no choice in such circumstances allows us to feel better about our choices.  It helps us feel less responsible for them and their consequences.  It’s away to mollify our own sense of discomfort and even guilt.  It’s an entirely human temptation.  The problem is that it’s both self-deceptive and anti-thetical to living an ethical life.

As I’ve mentioned before, choice is essential to ethics.  If one cannot make a choice, then there is no way to act ethically.(2) So in order to act ethically, one must acknowledge and accept not only that one had a choice, but that one made a choice.

I think that this is sometimes hard to do because we’re actually uncomfortable with the ethical choices we are forced to make.  It’s easy to make the easy choices when it comes to ethics.  It’s easy not to steal from our neighbor.  It’s easy to refrain from beating up the person who makes you angry.  In contrast, it’s not always so easy to decide how to handle a hurtful situation with a loved one.  It’s not always so easy to deal with a situation involving a painful truth.

I think that it’s these harder situations that make the “I had no choice” argument so appealing.  If we can claim that our chosen course of action — that might hurt our loved ones to some degree — is beyond our control and choice, then we can escape responsibility and the sense of guilt involved.  It becomes “not our fault.”

The problem with this approach, I think, is that taking such an escape becomes easier the more we do it.  It becomes easier to forget our own agency in our actions the more we deny it.  So suddenly, nothing we do is of our own choice, nor are we responsible of it.  In effect, we become free of our ethical obligations.  But again, the problem with this is that we cannot then be ethical.(2)

I would suggest that it is better, rather, to accept that we do have an element of choice in such tough situations.  It allows us to acknowledge that we (hopefully) made the best choice is among a list of rather undesirable choices offered to us.(3)  This allows us to acknowledge both our sincere attempts to live ethically in a given situation and the difficulty and imperfection of the situation.  And it puts us back in a position of agency and personal empowerment.

Notes:
(1)  The variation I’ve personally struggled with recently is, “You put me in this position so I had to do it!”  The idea behind this is that someone else has created a situation where I had to make a hard decision, one that I could’ve avoided if they had made a different choice themselves.  The thing is, my entire argument still stands.  They may have created a situation where I had to make a hard choice, but it was still my choice to make in the end, and I have to own it.

(2)  This is not necessarily the same as being unethical, mind you.  But it does put us in a position that is not one that I would personally enjoy.  Nor would I enjoy the company of one who chooses to live in such a position.

(3)  I also suspect that the “I had no choice” argument is often tempting due to a fear that we didn’t make the best choice in a given situation, or that we might even discover that we totally overlooked a better choice.  That’s a concept I might come back to in a future post.

Related articles by Zemanta
Movies, Religion

Squint and tilt your head to the left while you hop on one leg…

4 Comments
Transformers Optimus Prime G1 Encore Reissue -...

Image by mdverde via Flickr

Fred Clark over at Slacktivist recently made another post in his series about what motivates some people to disseminate false, injurious information about others despite that information being demonstrably false.  In this particular post, Fred uses the videos over at Good Fight Theater as an example for the continuing discussion.  While I highly recommend Fred’s post and the ongoing series of which it is a part, I wanted to look at a related but slightly different topic:  The way that groups like Good Fight Ministries tend to stretch and twist whatever they’re looking at to make it fit Christian theology and/or cosmology.

For this post, I’m going to focus on GFM’s video regarding the first Transformers movie.  I’ve watched clips from a few other GFM videos, and I get the impression that my criticisms can be adequately applied to most of their videos.  But as the Transformers video is the only one I’ve watched in full, I’ll focus on that one.

The goal of the GFM video is to suggest and argue that Transfomers — and other movies about aliens (and an interest in aliens in general) — is an attempt to brainwash humans into accepting the lead of demons during the final battle of Armageddon as portrayed in Pre-Millenial Dispensationalism.  (As an aside, Fred also offers a wonderful look at PMD theology as part of his ongoing review of the Left Behind series.)  GFM does this by suggesting that in Transformers, Michael Bay is effectively portraying the fallen angels of Armageddon with as the good guys — in the form of the Autobots — and God and the angels of Heaven as the bad guys — in the form of the Decepticons.  However, it seems to me that GFM has to make a lot of assumptions — assumptions I’m inclined to question, challenge, and even refute — in order to make that argument.

The first assumption is that the Cube — the original source of creation life on the Autobots’ home planet — is somehow representative of the Christian god.  It’s not clear to me why GFM makes this claim.  While it is certainly understandable that the Cube possesses capabilities that is often considered the sole domain of the Christian god, I find that a tenuous argument for this comparison.  After all, nothing suggests that the Cube is the creator of the entire universe or even all life in it.  If the Cube is not the sole source of life — and much in the movie left me with the impression that its not — then the comparison between the Cube and the Christian God quickly falls flat.

Another consideration is the nature of the Cube.  Specifically, the Cube is not portrayed as a conscious being with personality or identity.  Again, this separates it from the god of Christianity, which is very much a conscious being with personality and identity.  This alone suggests that a better parallel to a divine force found in other religions that have a more impersonal conceptualization of God.(1)

This impersonal nature of the Cube creates another problem for the assumptions in GFM video.  The GFM video suggests that Transformers is based on the Gnostic idea that God is evil.  However, how can an impersonal god like the Cube be evil?  The Cube has no plans and gives no orders.  All of the actions of the Decepticons — those GFM ministries would like us to believe are the stand-ins for Jesus and the heavenly host in the movie — come from Megatron, not the Cube.

Theologically, this causes problems for GFM’s claims.  If we accept that Megatron is the stand-in for Jesus in this movie(2), then that would mean that Megatron is acting on the authority of God’s stand-in, the Cube.  However, it is clear that Megatron’s authority and power is not granted by the will of Cube, but is gained by him by his control of the Cube.  Such a discrepancy further destroys the analogy that GFM is attempting to make.

This also comes into play when we consider Optimus Prime’s plan to destroy the Cube.  GFM points to this as paralleling the fallen angels of his own theology who wish to destroy the Christian god.  The problem with this comparison is that the fallen angels of GFM’s wish to destroy God in order to take his place and rule over the universe.  In contrast, Optimus Prime merely seeks to destroy the Cube as a last resort in order to prevent Megatron from using its power to destroy and control others.  In this sense, it’s not only the actions that are being inverted in Michael Bay’s supposed “retelling” of the Final Battle, but the players’ motives as well.

This is particularly notable when you consider Optimus Prime’s plans for destroying the Cube if it becomes necessary.  The leader of the Autobots plans to destroy the Cube in a way that will require him to sacrifice his own life.  Indeed, the decision to ultimately destroy Megatron along with the Cube is actually Shia LeBeouf’s doing.  Optimus’s plans for self-sacrifice strike me as far more, well, Messianic.

In order to accept GFM’s interpreation of the movie, one must completely ignore the actions, goals, and motives of the characters being portrayed.  One must completely ignore where the analogy quickly falls apart.  And one must be willing to accept the wanton disregard for life and the desire to control and destroy others is an acceptable depiction of God’s just wrath.  (3)

In other words, to accept GFM’s interpretation of this movie as an inversion of the Final Battle of PMD theology, one has to put the entire movie through a blender and force it into preconceived notions.  It makes far more sense to me to watch the movie and consider the ideas it offers on their own merits.

Notes:
(1)  Of course, it’s possible that the folks at GFM consider all non-Christian religions to be nothing more than inversions and perversions of Christianity.  So this distinction may not matter to them.  However, I personally think it’s an important one.  After all, not everyone sees everything in terms of being a direct perversion of or attack on Christianity.

(2)  Bear in mind that the biggest argument for this supposition appears to be that
Megatron sounds a lot like Metatron, which is a name mentioned in
certain extra-Biblical texts and might be another name for Jesus
according to extra-Biblical commentaries on those extra-Biblical texts.  So not only is GFM playing fast and furious with the movie to make it fit their theology, but their having to invoke appeals to theology that many of their fellow Christians might find questionable.

(3)  And there I think is the greatest problem with GFM’s interpretation of this movie.  In order to accept this, one must not only believe in a god that is a wanton tyrant who treats his Creation with contempt and disregard for its ultimate well-being, but you must believe that such a god is worthy of respect and adoration.  Perhaps teh folks at GFM can do so, but my own conscience forbids it.

Religion

Good, Evil, Morality, and Human Nature

Leave a comment

embpent1.gifI recently ran across the LJ community pagan_prompt, which looks to be a pleasant replacement for the mostly defunct Witch’s Weekly site.  As I feel I’ve been suffering from a bit of writer’s block, I decided to blog about their latest prompt:

Is Human Nature generally ‘good’, ‘evil’, or something else? Why?

In many ways, I’m inclined to declare the question inappropriate and irrelevant.  Discussing human nature in terms of “good” and “evil” makes no sense in the faith I have come to understand and practice.  This is because in my mind, the question is based on an understanding of “good” and “evil” that is absent from my faith.

The question is rooted in the idea that “good” and “evil” are abstract realities embodied and controlled by external, often supernatural forces.  The question at its core is asking which of those two forces have the most direct influence over, control over, and ownership of human beings.

To me, however, good and evil are concepts in morality.  And morality is about choice.  A choice is good or evil, determined by factors such as what virtues or vices it promotes and what overall effect it has on a person, those around them, and the world at large.  There is no good or evil without a choice, and therefore human nature itself cannot be good or evil, because human nature is an abstract concept rather than a choice.

Human nature consists of impulses, desires, needs, feelings, and many other things.  Human nature will certainly influence the choices we make in our lives, and those choices will ultimately be moral and immoral (and I think it’s safe to assume that the average human being will make both kinds of choices throughout their lives).  However, all those complex factors in our nature make both kinds of choices possible.  So to say that we are inherently moral or immoral makes absolutely no sense.  It’s simply a matter of what aspects of our nature we choose to nourish, encourage, and pay heed to.