After a romp through the article I still wonder if Original Sin was the name of a cardinal, or of the great God who created all.

Thank you David - this has helped a great deal for it has put into perspective for me the current debate within political pohilsophy about the relationship between ideal and non ideal theory.
The Tutu interview came and at a time when I was wrestling with the problem that John Rawls in his Justice as Fairness creates in assuming that people will want to be "fair" I felt he did not take account of those people who had no intentions of being fair.
In an earlier draft I included a passage from Lord of The Flies - Golding describes the island as being wonderful and as the narrative unfolds we see that it is the actions of the boys that turn that paradise into a living hell. It seems that this is what is happening here now and now.
I suspect that it is yet another dimension of the nature versus nurture debate that will yield the answer why there is evil in the world.
John Töns

BAYGON wrote:

"I suspect that it is yet another dimension of the nature versus nurture debate that will yield the answer why there is evil in the world."

My answer to "why there is evil in the world." is that humans are animals with language and 'evil' is a linguistic category.

I think there can be neither an objective definition of evil nor an objective definition of morality.

A great article from David, most of which I agree with.

The hand wringing about evil, and its source, is almost a non issue for the evolutionist and non duelist. Evil is a relative concept, definitions of which change with time, place and culture. The source of evil lies only within the evolved psyche of us humans and it's definition in our particular culture is now contained in collective law which has ascent by general agreement (i.e. Democracy).

Although not a perfect system this seems to be the only real option as definitions of evil (and sin) from religious belief and scriptural "authority" have failed miserably.

The silly concept of "Original Sin" is indeed derived from non-Christian thought and was taken up by the Roman Catholic church (like many other of their ridiculous concepts) to empower themselves.

Maybe it's time for us to move on from using ancient writing as a source of wisdom and "truth".

Dear Priscillian,

Priscillian, bishop of Ávila (died 385), a theologian from Roman Gallaecia (in the Iberian Peninsula), was the first person in the history of Christianity to be executed for heresy (though the civil charges were for the practice of magic).

Glad you've been resurrected. As the cannibal said when he vomited up the missionary, "You can't keep a good man down."

Heresy is rejected wisdom.

Respect the sanctity of doubt.

I think that original sin, whilst large in christian doctrine, and deeply ingrained in people's consciousness, is increasingly recognised as Augustinian, and not intrinsically Christian. Certainly Irenaeus didn't seem to need it, and saw Adam and Eve in a different way. Andrew Prior - http://churchrewired.org

'The hand wringing about evil, and its source, is almost a non issue for the evolutionist and non duelis'

That is obvious in the way you can murder the unborn and somehow justify it. It is also obvious that you can a justify every evil deed by employing a few Phd students to write a paper confirming your dogmas. Just look at the cronies who leapt to the defence of an artist exploiting young kids recently by photographing them nude.

The bible is the most truthful and accurate decriptor of the human heart. If evolution was half true we would see evil decreasing in the world. Instead the human race is becoming more godless, blasphemous and immoral. Christ is still the only answer for sick hearts. The problem is that most go to the wrong place for a diagnosis. The belief in the evolution myth has allowed many to actually think that they are good people. This would be rather comical if it was not so sad. All who don't turn to Christ will die in their sin and go to eternal torment.

David F
Finally, somebody recognises me.

Yes, they did burn me at the stake for heresy but I've learned a lot important lessons since then.

1. Heresy and wisdom have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Heresy is simply contradicting the prevailing opinion (all religion is (usually some other person's) opinion).
Wisdom is the result of good information.

2. Doubt has no sanctity, it is a state of remaining unconvinced

3. Beware the fatuous platitude.

4. Don't ever try and attempt more than 2 posts per 24 hours and...... never write your fatuous platitudes in numbered point form.

The doctrine of original sin goes back to St Paul. I have no idea why anyone would want to blame Augustine for it. It also goes hand-in-hand with the concept of grace - another Pauline thesis. Perhaps these things go back to the teachings of Christ as well, given that Paul's letters predate the Gospels and were accepted as significant by the early church.

Grahame - you attributed the doctrine of Original Sin to Paul and said: -"I have no idea why anyone would want to blame Augustine for it. "

Were you not perhaps being a little disenguous in the latter part of that statement given, as one poster remarked, a fairly wide acceptance of the concept as Augustinian, and the wealth of material available which supports this acceptance?

As to why anyone would believe it? I can't speak for anyone else and am not a theologan, but my understanding has always been that the attribution to Paul was only made AFTER Augustine's doctrine was disseminated. Further, that Paul did not present an actual Doctrine of Original Sin: - this was a meaning extrapolated from his writings and is therefore posited upon individual interpretation in the light of Augustine?

As I said, I am not a theologan, but perhaps this answers why indeed someone/anyone would have accepted Original Sin as an Augustinian concept?

Original sin can be seen in the children.

They all need to be taught the right way...showing that they/we are a fallen species.

The consequences of the Original sin (and subsequent sin) can also be seen in the environment.

Everything that was PARADISE has mostly gone. The peaceful relationship Adam and Eve had with Creation (all of the little animals etc) and the earth, has gone...to be replaced with the weeds and the hard toil to bring forth mans food (Genesis 3:17-19).
*
Todays chemical industries spend billions just to keep those weeds at bay.

Now the animals, in their fallen-from-the-Original-state, hunt each other to live.
Many men hunt other men with carnal hopes of overcoming and dominating.

Gone also is the covered sky (the upper water canopy that surrounded the earth and made it a warmhouse) and the springs (mist) that once watered the earth before the great rains of The Flood (Genesis chapter 6).
Now the canopy is gone and the UV pours in and we have deserts and storms.

The Original Sin and its consequences are as clear as day.
You need to read Genesis.
Its all there.

Romany, I'm not sure why I should accept something just because someone says it is widely accepted. If you go to Romans and read Chapter 5 you will find this at verse 19 "For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous." The first "one man" is Adam, the second "one man" Jesus. This clearly looks to me like a theology of original sin. Paul is full of it. His view is that we have all died to sin, and that we are rescued from it by the sacrifice of Jesus, but that because of our sinful nature we cannot grasp salvation for ourselves but come to it via the grace of God.

The reason that many try to load Augustine up with the invention of the doctrine is it then allows them to argue that it is not authentically Christian and to then try to substitute another doctrine for it.

GrahamY

'The reason that many try to load Augustine up with the invention of the doctrine is it then allows them to argue that it is not authentically Christian and to then try to substitute another doctrine for it.'

You have summed it up well.

Well..for once (?) Graham Young and myself are pretty much on the same page.

Romany.. you say you have studied the Bible?

Please.. no one who has read Romans would ever attribute the doctrine of Original sin to Augustine. (so clearly a lot of theological mythology is out there)

They would know absolutely that it came (as a developed doctrine) from Paul, who spends the first 3 chapters of his letter to the Romans developing systematically that very point!

Chapter 1 Gods wrath against mankind. (information about God is available, man rejects it) and the reality of human rejection of Grace.

Chapter 2
-Gentiles are sinful, under judgement.
-Jews are sinful.. the law does not help them.

Chapter 3 ALL have sinned.

"Original" sin ? it's part and parcel of the human condition as Paul shows. He explains the connection to the Fall of man in Adam in Romans 5:12ff please read it.

In spite of David's colorful story of Augustine and Plato..one need go no further than Paul for the origin of the idea. Augustine had access to the Scriptures and it is rather strange (to be kind) to consider that Augustine ignored Paul, who himself received revelation from the risen Lord.

I would take the word of a Trained Pharisee..

<circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6as for zeal, persecuting the church>

Over any Rabbi at any time. It should be remembered that Rabbi's also decided (in the absence of specific numbers) that betrothal could be confirmed by intercourse with a child of 3 yrs and 1 day age.
No...that's not from the 'protocals of zion' its from the Babylonian Talmud.

A bit late in the day but, among other things, this talk and essay gives a unique understanding of "sin".

http://www.dabase.org/birthday.htm

"Sin" being the always, in every present moment, active dramatisation of the presumption of being separate from The Divine Conscious Light, which has inevitably manifested in the situation described in this essay.

http://www.ispeace723.org/liberationfromego2.html

Plus this essay tells us how the religion of self-transcending love, as demonstrated and taught by Saint Jesus of Galilee was changed into the ego-consoling, and power and control seeking worldly "religion" of churchianity.

http://www.dabase.org/exochrist.htm

Which INEVITABLY produced everything described in this reference

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com

A couple of grammatical nit-picks, Polycarp. It should be 'and I' not 'and myself' at the beginning of your post (myself should only be used where I appears in relation to it I- as in 'I gave myself time to relax.' And at the end of your post the plural of Rabbi is Rabbis, not Rabbi's, which indicates something that belongs to a/the Rabbi. Now that grammar is back on the educational agenda, I feel obliged to point these thing out!

On the original sin front, I have always regarded it as one of the twin 'get out of gaol free' cards offered by Christianity, the first being I can't help doing the wrong thing, I was born sinful and the second being do whatever you like as long as you repent later to ensure forgiveness. Those two, Runner, are far more responsible for the current state of humankind than evolution.

DB, -

"Romany.. you say you have studied the Bible? Please.. "

Right. No-where in the above statement are the words "You are lying." "I know better than you." "I have better knowledge than you." Nor do the words "I myself am an ill-mannered, smug and self-righteous person" appear either. But each one of those statements can be extrapolated from your words.

I defy you to present me with The Doctrine of Original Sin in Romans 2, 3 or 4. I will, however agree with your statemnt "so clearly a lot of theological mythology is out there" if you are able to do so.

Although, as you once stated that the King James is impossible to interpret as it appears to you as though it had been written on Mars, I imagine you will dive into the dumbed down, multi-deconstructed and translated copy which appears to have been tailored for your own particular use, which is cheating somewhat. Does it come with a spiral binding and a black and yellow cover, too?

The doctrine of Original Sin was EXTRAPOLATED by some from Paul. Do you not know what the word means?

Not considering myself the gatekeeper of all knowledge of things biblical and, being more familiar with the Augustinian model I was responding to someone elses post. What was there in mine- apart from the fact that it differed from your viewpoint - to suggest I would welcome being maligned?

How DARE you impute disbelief in my moral and ethical standards? And how DARE you constantly impugn the knowledge, beliefs and/or scholarship not just of me, but of so many others, based solely upon the idea that you alone are qualified to set those standards?

You are an unnecessarily unkind person who has done more on this site to insult, inflame and upset people than anyone else.

Dear Candide...thanx for that grammatical nitpick :) I'll try to remember that in future. I'll categorize your criticism in the box "Speaking the truth in love" and "Let us therefore stir one another up to love and good works" (good grammatical works :)

Dear Romany... I'm sensing a mild case of animosity there ? :)
don't get too worked up.. we simply disagree.. no need for a barrage of insults or stern rebukes.

Your position seems to depend a bit on what is meant by the 'doctrine' of Original sin.
As far as I understand it, it says "Humanities state of sin resulting from the fall of man"

Which to me is simply a re-statement of...not an extrapolation from Pauls writings.
So, perhaps if by original sin you are referring to a specific volume of Catholic Theology, which can be traced back (as a specific volume) to a particular person, in that sense I suppose what you said could be correct.

But this is one of those discussions where definitions are most important. To me.. "Original Sin" means a condition...not a theological treatize. That condition is clearly spelt out in Romans "All have sinned" (3:23) which of course is the culmination of the previous chapters.

But Paul summarizes the human condition most succinctly in Romans 5:12ff where he clearly spells out that in Adam...we all sinned.
That is the idea of 'original' sin.

You asked me to provide evidence of that doctrine in Romans...I've now done it, do you disagree?

PS. there is an interesting aspect of Romans 5:13b I wonder if folks can pick it up? :)

Wow, what amazing confusion.
Not being a dualist it seems like a poor substitute for real thinking, this relying on 2000 year old 'wisdom'. Seems like if you want your version of religion accepted you just need to bribe the right authority! (nothing changes, witness the press over the last 10 years)
If it worked I'd be all for it, but it doesn't.
Denying evolution is a laugh in this day and age. Its a bit like denying combustion, or gravity or electromagnetism.

Remember the original bonus from the Jesus cult was the act of loving despite tribal affilliations. These days we tend to see more of is the Runner-style "respect my authority!!", with the Bush style "God made me rich so suffer!" out of Christianity.
The only difference between superstition and religion is the authority factor. Superstitious people make me nervous...so sure, yet so ignorant. I wouldn't mind except for the *aggression* they bring in the name of love!
(Hence my little rants against Goddy folks)

Christian sources connect Augustine with Original Sin. I did not consult the “New Dictionary of Theology” when I wrote the article, but it contains the following on page 642:

“On the basis of Ps. 51:5, Augustine defined original sin as inherited sin; he considered that the fallen nature of Adam was transmitted biologically through sexual procreation.”

In its discussion of sin the “New Dictionary of Theology” mentioned Calvin, Barth, Luther and Thomas Aquinas but not Paul.

The New Dictionary of Theology is a publication of the International Bible Society. The IBS is an evangelical Protestant organisation that has been translating and distributing Bibles for 200 years.

Religions do not spring from nothing. They have histories of the adoption of various ideas and scriptures. When a Christian body adopts a doctrine or canonises scripture it becomes Christian regardless of its antecedents. A Jewish council at Yavneh canonised the Jewish Bible in 90 CE. Various Christian councils adopted a somewhat modified Jewish Bible into their scriptures and called it the Old Testament. At that point it became Christian scripture.

In like manner the idea of Original Sin had been around for a while in the pagan and Christian worlds. However, it was not until the Council at Carthage in 418 that Original Sin was adopted as Christian Doctrine. It is a matter of historical record that Augustine argued for its adoption, and Pelagius argued against its adoption.

I was inspired to write my essay when I read “It is clear that the concept of original sin is not confined to the so called “people of the book” (Jews, Christians and Muslims) ….” in “A Perspective on Evil”. The main point I wished to make is that Original Sin is Christian and not Jewish or Muslim.

Although Paul was a Jew and Augustine was a Manichee before they abandoned their faiths they both were knowledgeable in the tradition of Platonism. Augustine was a lecturer in philosophy before he became a Christian. Paul was a Roman citizen, and Platonic ideas were common in the Roman Empire.

Goodness Gibo, I take it that you consider global-warming a good thing given the content of your post. And the Earth is also flat I presume, with the Sun rotating around it??

Making the point that children need correcting so that is evidence of Creation and original sin is fallacious. Yes children need correcting as do the young of most animals - watch a cat or dog with a bunch of young ones, or a pride of lions. Does the fact that older animals correct the younger ones mean that they are full of original sin too? Or is it proof that we are indeed like animals and thus lessen the likelihood of creationism (as explained by the bible) being exactly true.

If in fact there is such a thing as Original Sin, then surely it cant come from the disobedience of Adam - he would have had to be sinful in the first place to be disobedient. That doesnt disprove the doctrine, but does refute the basis for it that has been put forward in other posts on this thread.

Adam got a bad rap. He was condemned for eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Before he had eaten of the fruit how would he have known it was wrong to disobey the words of God? It's like telling a cat not to get on the sofa.

God was unfair as he was in many places. Maybe there is a God. If there is I hope he is more reasonable than the unreasonable deity in the Bible.

You need to read the full Genesis account Country Gal.

Genesis 2:19 says that The Lord God formed all of the animals and the birds out of the ground then brought them to Adam to name (friendly contact between man and animals. No animals eating man/no animals fighting amongst themselves at this time).

Later in Genesis chapter 3 we see the "fall of mankind" and Adam expelled from the Garden and the "curse of the fall" going over to all of the animals because all of the animals were under mans' authority...(Genesis 3:14)

Paradise lost:(

All of this is Confirmed as TRUTH by The holy Spirit who lives in the born agian Christian.
I have never found a single thing out of place in The Holy Bible in 26years. Its great!

As for modern man?
Well...I really believe that most modern folks, despite their struggles with The Word, is it true/is it not?... really believe in the secret recesses of their hearts... that The Bible is true.

They just havent come to the point of making the right decision about sin... and the need for a Redeemer...i.e. Jesus Christ...to save them from it.

We should also consider...and its a fair and just consideration...that despite all of the theories in the world and all of the prominent men and women preaching against Gods Holy Bible...

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, WHATSOEVER, THAT THE HOLY BIBLE IS NOT TRUE.

The Genesis account is spot on!

I agree Gibbo, for many weeks now I have been challenging people to PROVE that Harry Potter is not a real person and that we a not surrounded by a world of magic, witches and wizards.
I challenge you to PROVE that my deeply held belief in Harry and his friends is not true.

Similarly a friend of mine is convinced the the world is surrounded by UFOs. Can you PROVE it is not?

Gibbo, you have a right in this country to be deluded about anything.

Don't expect people to waste their time trying to prove to morons that they are pathetic ignorant fools, devoid of independent thought. These people prove it every time they open their mouths.

David, I don't think you can argue that because one authority doesn't mention Paul, that you can therefore proceed on the basis it wasn't his idea. Wikipedia does mention Paul in its entry on original sin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin, and gives a reasonable, although occasionally uneven, run-down on the issue.

At the stage when Paul was writing Christians considered themselves as Jews, so I think one can conclude that it has a Jewish origin, even if it isn't mainstream Jewish.

I don't have a problem with the proposition that Paul owes a lot to Plato. It would have been strange if he didn't. But the idea of the community being punished for the sins of others, as well as the concept that man cannot be made perfect by his own actions alone, are both endemic in the Bible. Take the stories of the Flood and the Tower of Babel.

Early Christians also thought they were living in another time when the earth was to be destroyed because of the corruption of creation, and that after this event Christ would return in glory. This is intrinsic to the concept of original sin.

Also notice that Paul equates death with sin and almost tautologically declares that because we die we are sinners. This also has overtones of the story of Pandora.

BTW, I'm not one of those who suggests that the events in Genesis are anything but myths. These are imaginative ways of addressing intellectual concepts.

Gibo

People will continue to believe the evolution myth simply because they deny the obvious (the adamic nature in their lives). No honest scientist could hold to a theory like evolution with numerous holes in it. You are 100% correct in stating that no one has been able to disprove the bible. In fact the weight of scientific evidence favours the biblical account of creation far more than any other made up myth. The story of evolution continues to change while the account of creation remains obvious to anyone seeking truth.

When the first geological evidence came in showing that the earth was much older than was indicated by a strict interpretation of the bible one bishop explained the discrepency as follows: the earth was created at a time indicated in the bible - God merely planted the evidence to test people's faith. Bertrant Russell agreed with the Bishop with one slight modification. he suggested that the world had in fact been created five minutes ago and that all the data suggested a much earlier point in time was merely a test of our belief.

Paul was educated at the feet of the GIANT of Jewish scholarship Gamaliel.

ACTS 22:3
3"I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today

I hardly think Paul 'owes' anything to Plato nor had any need to use his ideas.

EVIL =vile
vile=veil [over good]
[we were 'sewn into skins' by gods hand ,alone]

none 'live' [evil/vile/veil] but by gods will alone ,
our living spirit is of god thus eternal

our skins VEIL our living incarnate holy spirit [materialised]INTO flesh ,[the skins ; we as adam before us was 'sewn INTO skins before us ]

as well recall the deciever [who's realm this is]who offered the christ to rule these [material] realm , but which jesus knowingly declined [thus he has no need to return to 'rule' over]

jesus died and was born [reborn] again [as we thus all will [like he proved] become born again [once our life term is expired]

he advises us the wheat and chaff [sheep and goats ] are sorted into his [our] fathers house THAT we are informed has 'many rooms'[the chaff get their room [the wheat get theirs etc

so how was satan sewn into the skin of a serphant? [he fell FROM HEAVEN],as we all must to 'get sewn into gods special skins' [and ebnter into this place of the orifgonal fall [sin]

ie its how sin /satan got here
[as did adam ]as did we

;sin [satan's'in' satans inn?]satan is in this realm]
he is said to have taught mosus [in the quran]
and was no doudt editing gods good words
even as mosus was scribing them into stone

[adultery means NOT to ADULTerate gods [good ] word.
there is one good [ie GOD]

we chose to serve the life GIVER
or the deciever [the life taker][vile/veil/evil/live]
will to be hearing the voice of your master
love god or vile
but its your own life choice [good /bad fruits]

Graham Y wrote:

Early Christians also thought they were living in another time when the earth was to be destroyed because of the corruption of creation, and that after this event Christ would return in glory. This is intrinsic to the concept of original sin.

Dear Graham,

I think you are right, and that might explain why original sin is not a Jewish concept.

Jews do not have the idea that creation is corrupt.

Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

The world is good. The idea that creation has been corrupted is more Platonism or a similar idea current in the classical world. It is not Jewish.

Thomas à Kempis wrote “The Imitation of Christ” five hundred years, but it expresses an idea that I think was in Christianity from its early beginnings. A Christian should imitate Christ. Since Christ was perfection such an attempt is bound to fail, and humans need to deal with their lack of perfectibility.

However, the idea that humans can be perfected is a dangerous one and has caused great harm.

Judaism has no saints or divine role models. Even Moses was flawed. He was punished for a fit of temper by not being allowed to enter the Promised Land.

Reb Zosya, a Hassid said, “When I stand before the Almighty he will not ask, “Why are you not like Moses?” but “Why are you not like Zosya?”

In other words don’t try to imitate God or any other model just use your capabilities to the best of your ability. It is unreasonable to think one can be perfected.

With the idea that Jesus was God incarnate rather than an extraordinary human Christianity became completely separate from Judaism.

The Christian statement, “We are all sinners.” carries the idea of original sin. Judaism contends we all contain a yetzer ha ra, a spirit of evil and a yetzer ha tov, a spirit of good. We are born free of sin, and the way we live our life determines what we are.

Polycarp wrote:

“I hardly think Paul 'owes' anything to Plato nor had any need to use his ideas.”

How do you know what Paul knew or what his influences were? Why shouldn’t an educated man use the ideas that were around him at the time? Maybe some don’t need to look outside their little box. As an intelligent questioning man I think Paul would have almost certainly used what was available. An educated intelligent Jew in that time and place would be aware of Greek philosophy. Whether Paul invented it or got it from some place original sin is a very un-Jewish idea. The idea that we are conceived in sin is in a way a denial of God to Jews. The Jewish belief is that God has put on earth food, sex and other good things. In rejection of them one is denying God since he has put these good things on earth for humans. Asceticism is found in many religions. It is almost non-existent in Judaism.

I think you make statements on the basis of your belief rather than having any evidence that would support your statement.

Mr/s under one god
Hey there 'ol buddy,
I think if you read the label on the bottle, the doctor would have insisted that you take at least one pill every day or the problem will return.

The problem has returned.

User Details : Priscillian

[quote]
» 23/10/2008 4:24:59 PM I agree Gibbo, for many weeks now I have been challenging people
[/quote]
gee thats supprising we have you with an adjenda [again]
so you are unable to rebut the words so insult the poster
can you stay ON TOPIC
and dis your insults

but it seems your form
[quote]
» 22/10/2008 11:32:54 AM David F Finally, somebody recognises me. Yes, they did burn me at the stake for heresy bu.....
..» 15/09/2008 6:04:36 PM I disagree with you Peter. I don't think A J was being abusive or ranting. He is maybe ver.....
» 15/09/2008 10:53:49 AM Dan, This time your crimes against logic are:- * Non sequitur - "it does not follow&.....
» 14/09/2008 5:30:01 PM Dan, This time you have used fallacy number 2. (i.e Argument from Authority) Common falla.....
» 13/09/2008 12:18:54 AM Dan, I haven't got too much to say about your post because I think we can all see where yo.....
[/quote]
yes we can all see where you are going .. pisscapalian the side affects from your drug usage are apparent ..
but hey its your problem
why do drunks allways insult 'others' about their drug use
while blind to their own igno-rants.

This thread seems to have deteriorated into a slanging match. And perhaps that is the lesson - just as Gulliver was amazed that people would go to war over which end of the egg to open so it never fails to astonish me how quickly a discussion that even has the whiff of religion will likewise end up as a fight to the death.
Evil whatever its origins appears to be part of the human condition and it would seem that any sensible arrangements for people living together will need to take that into acount. Whether it is two neighbours having a spat about something that, would seem to us bystandards as very trivial, or whether it is on line correspondents seeking to score points about issues that are probably too complex to be discussed in a mere 300 words. In both cases one needs to take precautions that it does not get out of hand.
In looking at the various discussions in the Forum I am constantly amazed at the ingenuity that people show to ensure that they obey the letter of etiquette whilst flouting the spirit of that same etiquette.
By all means let there be robust debate but I wonder how many people hesitate to contribute lest they too be subjected to abuse.

Of course people will argue that this is not evil but the way we handle disagreements can be fertile ground for the development of evil.

Mr/s one under god

Look 'ol buddy, good 'ol boy,
Runner already said this about me:- ".......you can murder the unborn and somehow justify it. It is also obvious that you can a justify every evil deed by employing a few Phd students to write a paper confirming your dogmas. Just look at the cronies who leapt to the defence of an artist exploiting young kids recently by photographing them nude"

So in one thread I have been called:- a murderer, an academic (that really really hurt), dogmatic, child exploiter, drug addict, drunk, having an adjenda(sic),a ranter etc. etc.. Previously I have been accused of having no morals or ethical basis for my life.
So, good 'ol buddy, your childish and often illiterate taunts have little effect on me and, in any case, shouldn't a Christian like you behave a little more in line with the teachings of Jesus..the god of love? How about a little cheek turning?

BAYGON, Of course everything you say is quite correct and I should stop calling people morons, ignorant and deluded even though they provide good evidence that these statements are true.
I did bring the topic of flaming on this thread up with the Online Opinion people but they have no trouble with people being called murderers etc. I just got a little carried away with my new found sense of political incorrectness.
Thank you for pointing out my excesses, I will try and improve my behaviour in the future.

I object to one under god bringing my name into the criticism of Priscillian. Priscillian has criticized material I posted with humour and without attacking me as a person.

I have no complaints against Priscillian and enjoyed Priscillian’s post. If we are not free to criticize each other’s ideas, style and manner of expression there isn’t much point in the forum.

Dear Polycarp,

Matthew 8:16 When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick.

Do you believe in demons?

If not then you would be disagreeing with the Bible.

sorry david [about the collateral damage?]

any how 'P' said quote ;>>'shouldn't a Christian like you behave a little more in line with the teachings of Jesus..the god of love? How about a little cheek turning?' <<

never said im a xtian [PLEASE dont assUme]

plus jesus ISNT god [see me see my father means the same as why you call me good [god is the only good]the son CANNOT BE the father.

jesus was REborn into spirit [as we ALL get reborn when we die]
jesus proved we are all born again

further he AS human [born of woman] said;' that ye see me do YOU will do greater'

so far your flaming trollinng is revealing itself to be systematicly and pettilly fraud

i turn the other cheek ,by ignoring the further flaws you may chose to reveal [hope you are gaining another perspective on vile/evil/veil/live][and how the foolish confound the wise[in their own eyes]

a revelation on evil must include the removal of a plank FROM our OWN eyes [before attempting to remove a speck from an others] who claiming the plank? could be him who rebuts comment with insult [worse insult 'wins'?]

cheers bro in time you may do more good [we can see some using EVEN the unborn to explain their deficencies away][i fail to see how laying guilt trips on woman [ie by condeming them [not the abortion] helps end this insanity that has seen 50 MILLION americans die scince 1970 ,its murder condoned by the state [but name calling is still of no use [a right cant be fixed by a wrong]

cheers

under one god
Please accept my abject apologies for assuming you were a Christian.
I can now see that I was mistaken is this assumption.

This is all of your post I could understand. Your use of grammar, strange spelling, liberal use of the square parentheses and unrelated snippets of eclectic theological terms render most of your attempt at communication unfathomable to me.

I do, however, wish you all the best in your theological endeavors and I assure you that I will offer no more commentary on them.

Thank you Mr Fisher.

I still remember my last trip to Sunday school and my complete rejection of the bewildering concept of original sin. Told my mother I wasn't going to attend Sunday school again.

Decades later I can count my trips to church on two hands.