Are some Americans taking their cue from China?

[Cow Poke]

I got into a discussion with a YEC friend of mine who insisted Jesus's temptation by the devil was the equivalent of me tempting my kids with a chore and a broom for cleaning.

wow

And it's worthy to note that Jesus responded to the temptations by quoting scripture.

[CivilDiscourse]

wow

And it's worthy to note that Jesus responded to the temptations by quoting scripture.

I pointed out that the story loses all of its potency if the actual temptation isn't there.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Please provide an example of an actual sin that any of they say was committed by a baby in the womb.

Thanks

Please note that my remark pertained to the notion of original sin.

Augustine considered sin to be like some kind of infection that was passed on from parent to child via the "sin" of concupiscence and was endemic to the human race. For Augustine, a baby's mind was sinful.

The Christian site GotQuestions also notes that: [My emphasis]

The Calvinistic doctrine of original sin states that Adam’s sin has resulted not only in our having a sin nature, but also in our incurring guilt before God for which we deserve punishment. Being conceived with original sin upon us (Psalm 51:5) results in our inheriting a sin nature so wicked that Jeremiah 17:9 describes the human heart as “deceitful above all things and beyond cure.” [...]Both the Arminian and Calvinistic views teach original sin and see individuals as unable to overcome sin apart from the power of the Holy Spirit. Most all Calvinists also teach imputed sin; some Arminians deny imputation of sin, and others believe that Christ’s death has negated the effects of imputation.

The fact of original sin means that we cannot please God on our own. No matter how many “good deeds” we do, we still commit sin, and we still have the problem of a corrupt nature within. We must have Christ; we must be born again (John 3:3). God deals with the effects of original sin in our hearts through the process of sanctification. As John Piper puts it, “The problem of our moral defilement and habitual sinning is solved by his purifying us by the work of Spirit” (“Adam, Christ, and Justification: Part IV,” preached 8/20/2000).

Paul likewise tells us in Romans chapter five that "all have sinned".

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned

So once again, who is right on this thorny theological point?

You? Augustine? Calvin? Paul?

[Cow Poke]

Please note that my remark pertained to the notion of original sin.

Yes, something you're using to try to derail the thread.

Augustine considered sin to be like some kind of infection that was passed on from parent to child via the "sin" of concupiscence and was endemic to the human race. For Augustine, a baby's mind was sinful.

Yet lists NO sin that a baby in the womb has ever committed.

The Christian site GotQuestions also notes that: [My emphasis]

The Calvinistic doctrine of original sin states that Adam’s sin has resulted not only in our having a sin nature, but also in our incurring guilt before God for which we deserve punishment. Being conceived with original sin upon us (Psalm 51:5) results in our inheriting a sin nature so wicked that Jeremiah 17:9 describes the human heart as “deceitful above all things and beyond cure.” [...]Both the Arminian and Calvinistic views teach original sin and see individuals as unable to overcome sin apart from the power of the Holy Spirit. Most all Calvinists also teach imputed sin; some Arminians deny imputation of sin, and others believe that Christ’s death has negated the effects of imputation.

The fact of original sin means that we cannot please God on our own. No matter how many “good deeds” we do, we still commit sin, and we still have the problem of a corrupt nature within. We must have Christ; we must be born again (John 3:3). God deals with the effects of original sin in our hearts through the process of sanctification. As John Piper puts it, “The problem of our moral defilement and habitual sinning is solved by his purifying us by the work of Spirit” (“Adam, Christ, and Justification: Part IV,” preached 8/20/2000).

Sorry, I missed the part where there's any mention of any baby in the womb ever having committed a sin.

Paul likewise tells us in Romans chapter five that "all have sinned".

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned

So once again, who is right on this thorny theological point?

You REALLY believe Paul is speaking about unborn babies here?

You? Augustine? Calvin? Paul?

NONE of us are suggesting that unborn babies actually have committed a sin.

You keep missing that part.

[One Bad Pig]

Same way that being "tempted" to sin is not sin until you succumb to it.
The baby can have "a sin nature", but until that baby actually succumbs to that sin nature by doing an act of sin, he/she is innocent.

Perhaps H_A will prove us wrong by showing us where a baby in the womb has ever committed an actual sin.

(Innocently causing pain or discomfort to the mother doesn't count - even kicking! )

As Jesuswas passing by, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who has sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

[Cow Poke]

As Jesuswas passing by, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who has sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

Yup, referring to the common understanding at the time, and quickly dismissed that as NOT being the problem.

I got a kick out of guy who was trying to prove that Paul was wrong when he clamed we have all sinned, by referring to Jesus' response to the disciples -- “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” saying - SEE THERE? They never sinned! (H_A logic)

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Yes, something you're using to try to derail the thread.



Yet lists NO sin that a baby in the womb has ever committed.



Sorry, I missed the part where there's any mention of any baby in the womb ever having committed a sin.



You REALLY believe Paul is speaking about unborn babies here?



NONE of us are suggesting that unborn babies actually have committed a sin.

You keep missing that part.

You wrote that in utero foetuses/babies are:

TOTALLY INNOCENT human being

And:

An unborn baby has NEVER committed any crime or sin or error

I asked about original sin and according to several theologians sin is passed on from parent to offspring, babies are born sinful, children are conceived with original sin and we inherit a sin nature.

Hence several theologians would disagree with your claim that an unborn child is a "TOTALLY INNOCENT human being" .

So again, who is correct?

[One Bad Pig]

Yup. And, if the concept of original sin keeps tripping her up, at least FWIU, typically a newborn isn't regarded as sinless but as innocent.

Even the Roman Catholics distinguish that - an infant is not sinless (hence the need for baptism ASAP), but is innocent (having not yet attained the age of reason).

I should add that Orthodox Christians don't hold to the concept of original sin, so I've got no dog in this fight.

[Cow Poke]

You wrote that in utero foetuses/babies are:

TOTALLY INNOCENT human being

And:

An unborn baby has NEVER committed any crime or sin or error

So far, so good, but you're about to H_A it......

I asked about original sin and according to several theologians sin is passed on from parent to offspring, babies are born sinful, children are conceived with original sin and we inherit a sin nature.

Hence several theologians would disagree with your claim that an unborn child is a "TOTALLY INNOCENT human being" .

So again, who is correct?

Show me where ANY of those references indicate that a baby has committed any sin.
I have CLARIFIED that the unborn baby is INNOCENT of having committed ANY sin.
That still stands.

[Teallaura]

Emotional language does little to address this complex issue.

Translation: Hey, no fair pointing out the truth!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Translation: Hey, no fair pointing out the truth!

We know the medical procedures involved. Resorting to emotional language does nothing to advance your contentions.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So far, so good, but you're about to H_A it......



Show me where ANY of those references indicate that a baby has committed any sin.
I have CLARIFIED that the unborn baby is INNOCENT of having committed ANY sin.
That still stands.

You wrote that an in utero foetus is a:

TOTALLY INNOCENT human being

If, as some theologians have contended original sin is passed from parent to child like a disease, or that children are conceived with original sin, or that we inherit a sin nature, how do you explain your claim that the

unborn baby is INNOCENT of having committed ANY sin[ [?]

According to those various theologians this unborn human contains within it the original sin which was supposedly committed at the Fall. Therefore it can be neither free of sin nor innocent given that it carries/contains/inherits the original sin.

Unless you hold to a personal notion that original sin arrives at some later juncture in a human life.

[CivilDiscourse]

We know the medical procedures involved. Resorting to emotional language does nothing to advance your contentions.

"Would the queen wanted people to go hungry"?

I mean, it doesn't matter that your entire argument was devoid of knowledge, you were using emotional language.

Hypocrite.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

"Would the queen wanted people to go hungry"?

I mean, it doesn't matter that your entire argument was devoid of knowledge, you were using emotional language.

Hypocrite.

You really are not the brightest bulb in the box, are you?

[CivilDiscourse]

You really are not the brightest bulb in the box, are you?

You do tend to resort to insults when you've been shown a fool.