Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!purdue!gatech!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!geneva.rutgers.edu!christian From: ka2czu@cbnewsh.att.com (robert.switzer) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: A Scary thought, but I bet I get flamed anyway...! Message-ID: Date: 31 Jul 89 01:36:20 GMT Sender: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 36 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu From article , by perryc@forceps.sun.com (Perry Cross): Status: RO >...stuff deleted > > Original sin is a destructive concept. We are born with a clean > slate, and its up to us to keep it clean. That the bible teaches > us different is an indication that its authors may have had > ulterior motives. The unsupported assertion that original sin is a destructive concept reveals the potential ulterior motives of those who reject it. >...stuff deleted > I know these ideas may be a bit radical, and I'm by no means > a theologian, but it would be nice if there was a more modern, > cohesive document that incorporated an eclectic philosophy in > a more challenging format. It seems, based on your posting, that the bible provides enough of a challenge. Although I'm sure there are counter examples, everyone I've talked to who complain about biblical principles, do so because it conflicts with their personal lifestyle. It may be, for example, that our theological description of what characterizes original sin is faulty. The bible doesn't define the technical term "original sin" the way we do. (and no, I haven't followed the discussion regarding this topic in this group...apologies to all) I do, however, see the principle of (my concept of) original sin operating in the lives of my children and the children of those around me. Shalom, Robert Switzer [As far as I know, the Bible doesn't use the term "original sin" at all. However it says various things that are summarized under that doctrine. --clh]