Dear George,

How can one follow anything other than one’s own conscience? One can ignore one’s conscience, but one can never know what anyone else’s conscience tells them unless one is able to reach into their mind. I regard it as an abdication of responsibility to let anybody else determine what is right or wrong for you.

Warfield had a blinkered view. Like many other believers in a particular religion he lumps together all those who follow another path as heathens. Every religion has its bigots, and Warfield is an example of one to be found in Christianity.

Pelagius was certainly a Christian. I have no problem with agreeing with wisdom whatever the source. Christianity has been subject to many influences. According to MacCulloch’s “A History of Christianity” at one time it was uncertain whether Christianity would follow Marcion, the Gnostics or the bishop of Rome. The history of Christianity encompasses many schisms, disagreements and arbitrary paths.

Dear Sells,

No man is a man of the mind.Our mind is only part of us. Augustine was very much subject to the demands of the flesh. He had the sick idea that it is sinful to heed the promptings of the flesh.

We can only express our humanity in relationships with others. The idea that we can take on the sins of others or that others can take on our sins is inherent in the idea of Original Sin. To me it an ugly, sick idea. It is also found in Judaism.

Leviticus 16:8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat. 16:9 And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD's lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering. 16:10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

Sex is a natural impulse and the context of its expression determines whether it is bad or good.

Dear David,

>>How can one follow anything other than one’s own conscience? <<

By being persuaded or made (e.g. legally enforced) to act according to what conscience dictates to the other, e.g. law enforcer or moralist. Otherwise, what you write is exactly what the saying is supposed to mean. Also, I just quoted from Wikipedia, to point out the distinction, not to endorse Warfield’s terminology. You obviously know more about his views than I.

Toni Lavis "I've just re-read all the 37 posts in this forum and the only person who has thus far suggested that criticism of Islam be silenced is you, Aristocrat. You're way off topic."

My point was that if a Muslim scholar wrote an article similar to this and people disagreed with it with such ferocity, then they'd be called bigots and Islamophobes.

"What is your position on the metaphysics of time?"

The article, while I appreciate its attempt to define time differently, isn't convincing. It appears to conflate a moral perspective (grace given to all as a result of the crucifixion) with time. This is fine, I suppose, as different conceptions of time have appeared regularly throughout history (Hindu, Chinese dynasties), but it's not clear how cause and effect notions of time is eradicated through such a view. Regardless if God/Christ is always present and has given everybody grace, each event can traced to preceding causes. I guess that the author is wanting us to forget such a way of viewing phenomena and imbuing us his moralised version of time.

Dear George,

I only commented on the obvious bigotry in Warfield’s statement that you cited. I was not familiar with his other views. Since then I have looked up more about him.

However, look at his statement. “"There are fundamentally only two doctrines of salvation: that salvation is from God, and that salvation is from ourselves. The former is the doctrine of common Christianity; the latter is the doctrine of universal heathenism." (B.B.Warfield)

Don’t believing members of all non-Christian Abrahamic religions (Muslims, Jews, Bahai’i) believe that salvation comes from God? Are all non-Christians heathens?

Are Buddhists heathens even though they may not believe in God?

It is characteristic of a bigot to lump together all those he denigrates and to think of them as all alike.

Dear Sells,

You have no problem with Original Sin. If law courts found a person guilty for a crime committed by another person that would be a miscarriage of justice. However, in Original Sin all humans are condemned for the supposed sin committed by Adam and Eve. Apparently miscarriages of justice are acceptable if they are part of a religious narrative. Furthermore, there is no reason to think that Adam and Eve are any more than legendary figures who had no real existence. So all humans are born guilty because of some act committed by imaginary entities. That is an ugly idea.

I am a father and saw my oldest son a few minutes after he was born. He was not wrinkled as most newborns are. He was simply beautiful, and I was in awe of his beauty. To think of that beautiful young life as guilty of anything is outrageous.

Dear david f,

As I said, I did not quote Warfield to approve of his terminology. So maybe he should have written “The former is the doctrine of e.g. common Christianity” and not used the word “heathen” which many see as derogatory, although in my dictionary it means simply “a person who does not belong to a widely held religion (especially one who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim) as regarded by those who do.”

Also, I have never heard of (personal) guilt being related to “original sin”, although apparently all sorts of misunderstandings used to arise from that (see e.g. http://taylormarshall.com/2011/07/does-original-sin-guilty-babies.html if you are into such Latin technicalities, that most Catholics nowadays do not care about because they never think of associating original sin with personal guilt). Many young generation Germans still experience the burden of the Nazi “national sin” (often explicitly connected to their grandparents) although nobody accuses them of being personally guilty of that.

Dear George,

Catholic Encyclopaedia

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

“Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.

From the earliest times the latter sense of the word was more common, as may be seen by St. Augustine's statement: "the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin" (De nupt. et concup., II, xxvi, 43). It is the hereditary stain that is dealt with here. As to the sin of Adam we have not to examine the circumstances in which it was committed nor make the exegesis of the third chapter of Genesis.”

runner maintains that we are all sinners. I have heard that from other Christians. That means humans are sinners whether they actually have sinned. It sounds like group guilt. It sounds like that beautiful baby is also a sinner. I do not recognise the concept of national sin or any sort of group guilt. Young Germans who did not live in the Nazi era are guilty of nothing connected with that era. Adenauer who was a German during that era was also not guilty of the Nazi crimes. However, as head of a successor government he had his government pay reparations even though he personally was not associated with the crime.

The meaning of words is determined by usage. Usage may or may not conform to the dictionary definition. I doubt that heathen in Warfield’s usage was anything complementary. It is quite common for bigoted Christians to refer to non-Christians as heathens or even atheists. I encountered a Christian group when I went to university which talked about bringing God to Muslims as though Muslims were atheists. I have also heard of Jews being referred to as atheists. Unfortunately some Christians conflate being an atheist with not being Christian. This is an old usage of the word, atheist. Early Christians were called atheists by some Romans since they did not believe in the Roman pantheon.