If humans are innately good...

[Spy Car]

and toddlers that cry are evil and sinful, and I don't tell my children that! I do believe that there is such a thing as original sin. Bill, I think better of you than that, but in this case, your presumptions about what that means and what parents like me actually teach their children are unfair.

 

You have been very open about the fact that you do not understand Christianity. From a lack of understanding comes fear, from fear comes prejudice, from prejudice comes persecution.

 

I think children raise to the level expected of them. So if they are told they are of an evil and sinful nature they tend to believe it.

 

I think such beliefs are damaging to children. Just like it's damaging to beat them with sticks. But are inhumane. I think I'm pretty darn open to people and try to respect cultural differences, but some of the things I read on this forum make my hair curl.

 

And raising children to believe they are evil natured is an anathema to me.

 

Respectfully,

 

Bill

[beansprouts]

I think children raise to the level expected of them. So if they are told they are of an evil and sinful nature they tend to believe it.

 

I think such beliefs are damaging to children. Just like it's damaging to beat them with sticks. But are inhumane. I think I'm pretty darn open to people and try to respect cultural differences, but some of the things I read on this forum make my hair curl.

 

And raising children to believe they are evil natured is an anathema to me.

 

Respectfully,

 

Bill

 

But you have no clue how we raise our kids. Have you been to our homes? Have you met our children? Have you seen us interact with them? Do you even know their names? You are making a judgement about a group of people based on one piece of knowledge which you do not completely understand.

[Spy Car]

But you have no clue how we raise our kids. Have you been to our homes? Have you met our children? Have you seen us interact with them? Do you even know their names? You are making a judgement about a group of people based on one piece of knowledge which you do not completely understand.

 

I'm not judging you Cindy, or if I am it's only with the highest regard. In every post I read of yours I've noted that you have a wonderful take on life. And I really like you!

 

Best I can tell, your children are very blessed to have you as their mother.

 

Bill

[Laura in VA]

But you have no clue how we raise our kids. Have you been to our homes? Have you met our children? Have you seen us interact with them? Do you even know their names? You are making a judgement about a group of people based on one piece of knowledge which you do not completely understand.

 

And this surprises you?

[beansprouts]

I'm not judging you Cindy, or if I am it's only with the highest regard. In every post I read of yours I've noted that you have a wonderful take on life. And I really like you!

 

Best I can tell, your children are very blessed to have you as their mother.

 

Bill

 

I am who I am because of Christ.

[MBH]

I am who I am because of Christ.

 

I love you Cindy. Thank you for standing up for Jesus.

 

I'm so glad Audrey and Bill joined this discussion. I've been waiting for them. I am going to throw a question out for Audrey first:

 

 

actually the whole idea of "sin" if you want to get right down to it... is the biggest load of poo I ever seen. And, I've seen some huge lagoons of poo out here in hog country.

 

I just believe people are better than that. Exceptions excluded, hence the need for laws to handle the exceptions.

 

Since you don't like the idea or the word "sin", what do you call it when people do bad things? What should we call it? If not sin? Or are you saying that there is no sin? Please clarify to me what you are saying. You have made some general statements against the Bible and Christians without any substance to back it up.

 

 

Now, to Bill:

 

 

Too many children being raised by parents who tell them they are sinful and evil natured from the womb?

 

Poisonous hog-wash.

 

Bill

 

Have you witnessed the above conversation?

You seem to know a lot of negative things about Christian parenting. How often do you see Christian parents tell their kids they are evil?

 

Just as Cindy mentioned, how do you know me?

 

Just like Audrey, you make general statements against Christians without much to back it up.

 

What exactly is bothering about the Bible?

 

What do you have against the Lord?

[Chris in VA]

My opinion, fwiw

 

It's not fair of Bill to say Christians tell their children they are evil, but it's not fair of Christians to NOT acknowledge that orthodox Christianity does indeed tell us that we are all fallen and evil. So, I would say Bill is right in a way, in that, if we are orthodox Christians telling our kids about our faith, while we may not say "You are evil" to our kids' faces, we ARE teaching them that "all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God."

 

Maybe someone needs to define "evil." Maybe we are getting stuck, in this conversation, on what we all think evil means. Is it intent-driven? Is it "not Good" with Good defined as "righteousness?"

 

As for the OP's question, I don't think we are good by nature, but I think we all have the capacity to do both good and evil. I think we need some laws because that's how a society figures out how to live with each other, when people don't want to do what's right for the group. The laws provide incentive to do what will keep the society functioning. Maybe we don't need so many laws all the time, but I do think we need laws.

 

And as far as young children being evil? Well, to me, some of it is definitely maturity. After all, who really thinks Jesus, as a young child, never had a bad moment, never needed any correction of any kind? I think he did not sin, so perhaps he was a pretty easy kid, but I do think he might have needed to be educated in the social niceties and in the "law" of his society. Not saying he ever stole a chariot or anything :D, just maybe there is a fine line between being developmentally appropriate and sin. I do think toddlers can cross the line. They may need to be told "No!," and that's not sin, but if they keep doing it with that gleam in their eyes (and you know very well that look), then that is sin. Do they keep doing it because of their fallen nature? I think so. Do we still love them? Of course! Just because you are not perfect doesn't mean...well, anything, really. I believe everyone needs a Savior. We all have a selfish nature.

 

And I also don't think the whole survival thing is completely accurate. Wouldn't that trait fall away if generation after generation didn't need to be selfish to get food, water, attention, etc.? Or isn't there enough time for that to be extinguished? Or perhaps it only takes one generation of scarcity to bring it back? I don't know.

 

Just thoughts.

[Hapax Legomena]

I think children raise to the level expected of them. So if they are told they are of an evil and sinful nature they tend to believe it.

I’m glad children believe the truth even if adults reject it.

I think such beliefs are damaging to children.

Why is the truth damaging? Jesus said, “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.”

Just like it's damaging to beat them with sticks.

The Bible warns us that if we spare the rod we spoil the child. Jesus believed the Bible. Why should I believe you rather than Jesus?

I think I'm pretty darn open to people and try to respect cultural differences,

On this issue you are rejecting several thousand years of truth and culture.

but some of the things I read on this forum make my hair curl.

 

Bill, I am glad you enjoy discussing this stuff regardless of the condition of your hair.

And raising children to believe they are evil natured is an anathema to me.

 

Jesus believed just the opposite of what you are saying. Was He misinformed or just lying?

[beansprouts]

Maybe someone needs to define "evil." Maybe we are getting stuck, in this conversation, on what we all think evil means. Is it intent-driven? Is it "not Good" with Good defined as "righteousness?"

 

 

How can we even define "good" and "evil" unless there is an authority outside ourselves?

[Joanne]

I believe societies and cultures need structure, rules, organization and, yes, laws to thrive. It's simply the reality with an aggregate of people.

 

I am terribly saddened and sometimes sickened when *baby*, *toddler*, or *childlike* behavior is used as a sign that humans are innately bad, misbehaved or evil.

 

It saddens me greatly that a mother could look at her child, see immature behavior and label it "evil"

 

Yes. :-(

 

I am a Christian; I believe we are born with the propensity to believe we can operate/get along/thrive without Him. This, to me, is sin. Thinking *I* am God; operating without Him.

 

I will never believe that a child's cry, a child's meltdown, a child's self centered wish is sin. Never. It's *childishness*. It's still developing impulse control. It's age and developmentally expected. It's the way God made us. Jesus, as human as he was divine, surely cried, surely reached for dangerous things, surely interacted with siblings in ways that frustrated Mary. It wasn't sin for Him and it's not sin for any other baby/toddler/child.

[Audrey]

I love you Cindy. Thank you for standing up for Jesus.

 

I'm so glad Audrey and Bill joined this discussion. I've been waiting for them. I am going to throw a question out for Audrey first:

 

 

 

 

Since you don't like the idea or the word "sin", what do you call it when people do bad things? What should we call it? If not sin? Or are you saying that there is no sin? Please clarify to me what you are saying. You have made some general statements against the Bible and Christians without any substance to back it up.

 

 

 

 

Well, first of all... I had no idea I was so popular with you that you'd lay in wait for me to post. :D

 

Basically, what you call "sin" I call "people doing bad things." What's so difficult to understand in that? It has nothing to do with bibles and Christians. I made no reference to THEM whatsoever in my post.

 

I don't believe in the concept of sin... that implies transgression against some deity. I don't believe in deities. Simple as that.

 

You, of course, are free to believe whatever you like as well.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Audrey

[Chris in VA]

I agree.

And Joann, you said it better than me.

[beansprouts]

Well since the subject has come up...

 

The Hebrews observe a "Bar Mitzvah" or "Bat Mitzvah" which means "One to whom the commandments apply" when the child is 12 or 13 years old. I tend to believe that a child younger than this has neither the understanding nor maturity to be held accountable for his actions.

 

ETA: I still teach my kids right from wrong.

Edited December 19, 2008 by beansprouts

[KidsHappen]

My friend has a picture of driving through Rome in the '70's or early '80's where there was NO sense of where to drive or right-of-way! It was terrifying just to look at. No way would I want to drive in that mess. And I've driven in some major US cities, so it wasn't the volume that scared me.

 

Wow! I was going to say the exact same thing. It is absolutely terrifying to ride in public transportation in some foreign countries. I most people do not drive in reckless and dangerous ways regardless of laws and that people who do are not inhibited by laws. I do agree that we need some laws but whereas we have literally thousands on the books in America, I think that we could probably get away with less than a hundred and function much better as a society in the process.

[Erica in PA]

Too many children being raised by parents who tell them they are sinful and evil natured from the womb?

 

Poisonous hog-wash.

 

Bill

 

This time of year getting to you, Bill? I've noticed you're particularly harsh toward Christians these days.

[coffeefreak]

I like your smilie!

 

I used to think babies were born sweet and innocent, that it was adults that corrupted children. You know, nature versus nurture and all that. Then I had a baby:lol: WHEW! Nothing like having kids to see the Bible illustrated in real life:lol:. My oldest fought me from day one. Even in the way she was fed! She hated laying down to breastfeed. I had to bottle feed her or she wouldn't eat! :blink: I would pump and then hand her the bottle, and only when she was propped up in her bouncer would she eat. I remember thinking, "Is this an indicator of stubbornness? NAH!" Boy was I wrong!:lol:

 

OKOKOKOK!:lol: I'm laughing because it's apparent a lot of you did not read my post or read more into my post than you should have. For the record, I do not think my daughter was "evil" because she refused to lay down and breast feed - JEESH! That's not what I said! Stubborn, yes, evil, no. AND, I, for one, do not tell my children they are born evil. I don't even think the word evil is used in our house at all. I have to agree with Bill here that children who are told they are bad turn out bad. But, there is a BIG difference between believing that we are born with a sin nature, and believing that your are born evil and bad. All a sin nature implies is that you are good, but you will sin. It's unavoidable. Good people do bad things and we learn to overcome it. We expect our children to do good things, and they do! Most of the time. :lol:

 

Actually, I've read all the posts since I've been offline, and I'm not sure where the thread got derailed? Wasn't the original question of whether we're born inherently good or bad posed in relation to government law and how they're imposed?

 

See Beans, I told you you were in for a 14 pg thread.

 

Blessings and respect to all. I would not have posted if I didn't know what I was getting into. But, please do not feel pity for my DD. FWIW, she was never forced to breastfeed, and when she asks why she wasn't, I simply tell her she didn't like it. This puzzles her because she assumed all babies like it, but I have explained no, they do not. Obviously a bad illustration to say the least.

[AnnetteB]

I think I was misunderstood earlier in this thread when I said that a toddler resisting his car seat restraints didn't seem like a struggle for survivial to me. I didn't use the word evil at all. I don't think that my little ones are motivated by survival instincts. Nor do I think that they are little sinners that have to be corrected constantly. They can be good and they can be naughty. It is their choice. Everything goes smoother around our home when everyone takes the high road. I don't expect my babies, toddlers, and youngsters to be accountable, but the training and modeling of right and wrong begins early and I know that my own motivation has nothing to do with survival instincts.

[bumbledeb]

I think problems arise over the word 'sin'. I believe it means a falling short of perfection. I think we can all agree that we are all born imperfect. In that sense we are born 'sinful'. But that doesn't mean the same as not being innately good.

 

None of my children have ever committed a sin. Not by my definition of the word, and I believe not by the Bible's either. They are imperfect and need the ransom as do we all, but not because they have sinned.

 

I try very hard to avoid giving my children the feeling that they are 'bad'. I grew up with that feeling and I know what a negative impact it can have. I teach them that they are good, that they are created and loved by God. I teach them that they are imperfect and make mistakes and that it is appropriate to apologize for their mistakes.

 

I think that scripturally there may be two definition of the word sin, one meaning the general 'falling short of the glory of God' and the other meaning serious wrongdoing, such as theft, murder, rape, etc. We are all born with imperfection, so falling short of the glory of God is inevitable but I don't believe we are born with a natural tendency to commit serious sins.

[Michelle in MO]

I think children raise to the level expected of them. So if they are told they are of an evil and sinful nature they tend to believe it.

 

I think such beliefs are damaging to children. Just like it's damaging to beat them with sticks. But are inhumane. I think I'm pretty darn open to people and try to respect cultural differences, but some of the things I read on this forum make my hair curl.

 

And raising children to believe they are evil natured is an anathema to me.

 

Respectfully,

 

Bill

 

that children rise to the level expected of them. In fact, this is something I posted a while back, on a thread that illustrates the point you're making here:

 

A very good friend of mine was the one who gave me this idea. She's the administrator of a school for boys who are juvenile delinquents.

 

Once there was a boy that we'll called "Mike" at her school. Mike was there because he had broken the law by some very deviant behavior. Once, during class, she praised him for something he did well, and said, "You're a good kid, Mike." He grabbed her arm and said, "What did you say?" She repeated, "You're a good kid, Mike." He later walked up to her desk and asked, "What's good about me?" She thought for a few minutes and then listed a few positive things she had seen in his behavior. The next day he asked her to write down the good things she had seen in him.

 

So, she began to keep a notebook. One page was labeled, "Good things we see in Mike". The other page was labeled, "What God says about Mike". On that page she would list an appropriate Bible verse. Every day she and the rest of the staff would try to write something on each side of the pages---something good about Mike, and a Bible verse on the other side. His behavior began to improve daily.

 

After some months of this, it was time for Mike to return to his home. My friend bought a large Christian poster and wrote on one half of the poster every positive thing they had seen in Mike in the previous months. On the other half of the poster she wrote all of the Scripture verses associated with these comments. She presented it to Mike before he left this school.

 

Mike kept in touch with her weekly for some time afterwards. One day, Mike's mother called my friend up and was crying, thanking my friend for what she did for her son, Mike, who had been so incorrigible that everyone had given up on him. Mike's psychiatrist was also amazed, and the medication Mike was one was reduced because of the great improvement in his behavior.

 

My friend doesn't know where Mike is today, because he eventually stopped calling, but this whole episode with Mike was a turning point in the way she functioned as a teacher and administrator. Now she trains all of the staff in this approach with the students, and even trains the staff to relate to each other in this way. This approval of positive behavior has made a lasting and very good change in this school. The school does not gloss over the bad behavior of its students (and some of it is very, very troubled and bad behavior); but they've been able to make more lasting changes in these boys with this approach.

 

And, this is the thread that Trivium Academy started a while back on ways to encourage our kids, i.e., "Catch them being good".

 

I also have to completely agree with Beansprouts: I don't think you've visited our homes or have seen how we actually teach and instruct our children. I don't see the gospel of Christ as bringing condemnation and "damage" to children; I believe teaching them about the love of Christ gives them hope and courage! From reading your comments, one would think that we must go around all day long telling our children, "Susie, you're a sinner! Just want you to remember that! Johnny, you're an evil-natured child!" Such is not the case---I've never heard a Christian parent do that. The Christian parents that I've seen try to model Christ's loving words and behavior towards their children.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Michelle in MO
additional thoughts

[OH Kim]

My opinion, fwiw

 

It's not fair of Bill to say Christians tell their children they are evil, but it's not fair of Christians to NOT acknowledge that orthodox Christianity does indeed tell us that we are all fallen and evil. So, I would say Bill is right in a way, in that, if we are orthodox Christians telling our kids about our faith, while we may not say "You are evil" to our kids' faces, we ARE teaching them that "all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God."

 

 

Just a note: Eastern Orthodox Christian believers don't believe that children are either born sinful or guilty of original sin.

 

That little "o" and a capital "O" are pretty important!

 

We do believe that all of us are born into a fallen universe that is tainted by sin, and that taints us as well.

 

/digression

 

I'm all for fewer laws.

[jejily]

I don't believe people are innately good. I do believe what others have said about our fallen state and sin nature. However, I don't believe that humans are bent toward evil as one poster put it. Yes, we do have that sin nature, but I believe man was also originally created with a propensity for good. I believe there is something in our nature that tends to seek out, to crave, that which is good.

 

In looking at the natural world, I see so much which leads man in the direction of God. God makes Himself known in so many ways--not just through reading His Word. The Bible says that the heavens declare his handiwork and some believe that God's plan for man's redemption is literally written in the stars, or at least that He devised a way for the story to be told through the stars and planets and their groupings and movements. I believe when God created man, He created within him the desire for good. However, He also created man with freedom of will and the power to choose good or evil.

 

:iagree: Beautifully put.

[OnTheBrink]

I also have to completely agree with Beansprouts: I don't think you've visited our homes or have seen how we actually teach and instruct our children. I don't see the gospel of Christ as bringing condemnation and "damage" to children; I believe teaching them about the love of Christ gives them hope and courage! From reading your comments, one would think that we must go around all day long telling our children, "Susie, you're a sinner! Just want you to remember that! Johnny, you're an evil-natured child!" Such is not the case---I've never heard a Christian parent do that. The Christian parents that I've seen try to model Christ's loving words and behavior towards their children.

 

Wonderfully put.

 

Most Christian parents want their children to come to Christ, to believe and be saved. You don't entice people to something by using condemnation. That's completely illogical. Salvation by fear is not true salvation. Christianity by condemnation is not true Christianity.

 

I'm curious, Bill. Have you every actually witnessed yourself a Christian parent telling their child that their temper tantrum is evil, or that their refusal to eat their brussels sprouts is a result of their sin? I sure haven't and I'm going to wager that I've been in the presence of Christian parenting far more often than you have.

[Hapax Legomena]

None of my children have ever committed a sin. Not by my definition of the word, and I believe not by the Bible's either.

Bumbledeb, we all love our kids and wish to think the best of them. If I were to meet your four darlings from Scotland I would probably enjoy them very much. From that standpoint your words make sense. However, we must let the Bible shape our views about truth and reality.

In this case you have suggested that your children have never committed a sin. In contrast, the Bible says, “There is none righteous, no not one” (Rom 3:10) and that “All have sinned” (Rom. 3:23).

John says, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8) and “If we say we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us” (1 John 1:10).

They are imperfect and need the ransom as do we all, but not because they have sinned.

Romans 5 compares the first Adam with the Second Adam, Jesus Christ. The first Adam was one man who committed one act having one result. He sinned resulting in condemnation for all. Similarly, Jesus Christ was the God-man who died in our place resulting in justification for all who put their trust in Him. The whole point of the passage is that there is a parallelism.

If we are not sinners, we have no need of a Savior and Jesus’ work on the cross was unnecessary. This truth is very important for us to understand, parents and children alike. Otherwise, we will raise children who think they have no need of a Savior. In that case, becoming an atheist or a witch is as good a choice as any other.

I think that scripturally there may be two definition of the word sin, one meaning the general 'falling short of the glory of God'

Some would say that sin is any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature.

John says that sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4). That lawlessness certainly manifests itself as we fall short of the glory of the glory of God.

and the other meaning serious wrongdoing, such as theft, murder, rape, etc.

Most children have not committed murder or done things that from a social standpoint should result in their incarceration. However, the Bible says that when we sin, we sin against God. It’s not just a matter of whether we have done something heinous enough for the local magistrate to put us in jail.

We are all born with imperfection, so falling short of the glory of God is inevitable

I agree. Your word “imperfection” is a gentler way of referring to “sin nature.”

I don't believe we are born with a natural tendency to commit serious sins.

If lawlessness is a central aspect of sin, then whether we commit big sins or small ones is only a matter of degree. The tendency to commit small sins is the same tendency that leads to committing larger ones. That is why Jesus spoke of the relationship between the two.

You have heard that the ancients were told, “You shall not commit murder” and “Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court!” But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court… (Matt 5:21,22). Similarly, He says that lust is related to adultery (Matt 5:27,28).

To use your earlier term, we have an imperfection that can lead us to commit larger sins if we don’t put our trust in the Lord and walk with Him. That is an important message for children to learn.

[Soph the vet]

I haven't really read the other replies. We are not innately good, we have a sin nature. We can be transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit (He who is in me is greater than he who is in the world). So we are either constrained from within (the Spirit) or without (the Law).

[Mama Lynx]

Go, Rose!

 

And, you do know, of course, that there are conservatives who are not Christian, who are guided to help the needy, too.

[Mama Lynx]

Switch the word "guns" for "laws" and I totally agree.

 

Oh, Zelda, have I ever said how glad I am that you came to this board?

[LisaNY]

Oh, Zelda, have I ever said how glad I am that you came to this board?

 

That makes two of us. :001_smile:

[LisaNY]

FWIW, I DO think people are innately good. Innately means that it is always within us, from the moment of birth.

 

 

 

If we did an experiment where we raised a child in an environment in which they were never exposed to anything bad, according to your "innately good" premise, they would always be good, right?

[percytruffle]

If we did an experiment where we raised a child in an environment in which they were never exposed to anything bad, according to your "innately good" premise, they would always be good, right?

 

Whenever I ponder this experiment, Lord of the Flies comes to mind...

 

I think we have a duo-fold nature: a mix of good and bad. As a Christian I believe we are made in the image of God (good), but that our time on earth is marred by imperfection (sin) which separates us from the perfect goodness of God. We need His laws to help us regulate our bad tendencies and any political law worth its salt is based in moral law. I also agree with others who have said that we are unduly burdened with a plethora of laws that seem unnecessary and seem to multiply themselves yearly.

[percytruffle]

We don't need so many laws.

 

You seem to have caught on, with this question, to what I found to be the most confusing issue in discussing modern American politics with my peers during the last election. Liberals say people are basically good but make a million laws to propel them into goodness. Conservatives say people are basically not, then want to give them tons of freedom, including the right to choose when, if and how to help their disadvantaged fellows. I understand that conservatives believe God will step in to guide it all, but I don't get why the liberals want people to be all restricted. Theoretically, if people are okay so long as they're not messed with, we should mess with them less, right?

 

It makes no sense to me either, which is why I have never affiliated myself with a political party. I would love to see us become a true multi-party society instead of having the bulk of the decision making power in the hands of a two-party system.

 

Rose, it's obvious that we live in NY, isn't it!?

 

Government is not know to check and correct itself. Just look at the old laws still on the books in each state that we all chuckle over when sent around in an e-mail. It is too big and too contolling. It feeds off of itself without end.

[CAMom]

I haven't finished reading the replies....

 

What is the definition of "good" and who gets to define it? It seems like a very relative term subject to change on the whim of any given culture at any given moment.

 

What one culture considers "good" another might consider "not good" or even "evil."

 

Anyone care to define "good?"

 

So, I actually see two problems with the premise...one is the definition we are working with.

 

The second is that, being a Christian, I don't believe that humans are innately good (after the fall of man). Only God is good. So, the presupposition "if humans are innately good" precludes a direct answer.

[Hapax Legomena]

You don't entice people to something by using condemnation. That's completely illogical.

Biblical truth is not one-dimensional. We are not forced to choose between communicating God’s love to our children and God’s condemnation on account of sin. When we emphasize one to the exclusion of the other, we present an unbalanced and unbiblical message. We should communicate both.

In the book of Romans Paul begins by explaining that all people are condemned, Jews and gentiles alike discussing condemnation (1:18- - 3:20). Only after he has communicated that message does he proceed to discuss salvation (3:20--5:21). If we don’t know we are condemned, we can’t understand our need to trust in a Savior who died for our sins.

Salvation by fear is not true salvation.

In order to be saved, we must believe the gospel, Jesus died for our sins and rose again (1 Cor 15). It matters not whether we came to believe that message because we were are afraid of death, because we were lonely or because we were awed by the power of God. If we have received Christ as Savior, we have eternal life.

Christianity by condemnation is not true Christianity.

I’m not sure what you mean by this statement. If you mean that Christians should not continually speak of condemnation without also displaying and speaking of the love of God, then I agree. However, if suggesting that it is in some way wrong to tell people they are condemned unless they trust in Christ as Savior, I disagree.

Christianity without a Savior is not true Christianity, and we don’t need a Savior if we are not condemned.

I'm curious, Bill. Have you every actually witnessed yourself a Christian parent telling their child that their temper tantrum is evil, or that their refusal to eat their brussels sprouts is a result of their sin? I sure haven't

Good point.

[Joanne]

Just wanted to note that their exists a segment of Christians who embrace a different perspective or approach to child rearing than is often represented on homeschooling boards.

 

My approach is pretty much encapsulated here:

 

http://www.fix.net/~rprewett/shadow.html

 

(With some modifications such as to the marital hierarchy)

[CAMom]

 

Christianity by condemnation is not true Christianity.

 

I’m not sure what you mean by this statement. If you mean that Christians should not continually speak of condemnation without also displaying and speaking of the love of God, then I agree. However, if suggesting that it is in some way wrong to tell people they are condemned unless they trust in Christ as Savior, I disagree.

 

Christianity without a Savior is not true Christianity, and we don’t need a Savior if we are not condemned.

 

 

 

:iagree:

 

And, of course the whole point of the message is Romans 8:1, "There is therefore, now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."

 

Frankly, Bill, I believe you are speaking from ignorance. I have never told my children they are "evil." Oh...except when they are keeping my Christmas gifts a secret and then I may say, "You guys are evil!":lol:

 

I have always explained to them that they are sinners in need of a Savior and that God loves them and provides that Savior to pronounce them clean in His sight. To simply proclaim them "evil" or sinners is to leave out the key to the faith--that there is a remedy for sin and that Christ is their propitiation.

 

Christianity is about the Gospel which is the good news! The bad news is the "disease" (being born sinners). The good news is the "cure" (the death and resurrection of Christ granting eternal life).

 

I know you don't believe it and I'm not here to convince you. But, your argument which leads to you declaring that Christian parents are indoctrinating their kids with "poisonous hogwash" is a straw man.

[Dayle in Guatemala]

It would depend on your definition of good. I wouldn't call humans "innately" good, I would say that we have a conscience that leads us to make good decisions at times. If you are Christian, you would look at God's definition of "good" the 10 Commandments. After looking at just a couple of those, I realize that I'm not good or even capable of goodness on my own. Thank God for grace, mercy, and salvation. That's what this season is all about for me, thanking God that he sent His son so I wouldn't have to be "good".

[coffeefreak]

Just wanted to note that their exists a segment of Christians who embrace a different perspective or approach to child rearing than is often represented on homeschooling boards.

 

My approach is pretty much encapsulated here:

 

http://www.fix.net/~rprewett/shadow.html

 

(With some modifications such as to the marital hierarchy)

 

That's a really good article Joanne. Thanks for sharing!

[Jennifer3141]

I believe most people are good. I believe a larger majority are stupid.

 

Jen

[Testimony]

"perhaps because your initial premise is false?"

 

:iagree:

 

:iagree:

 

Merry Christmas,

Karen

http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/testimony

[Melinda in VT]

I think humans are innately a mix of good and bad. There's a great quote from the novel Good Omens in which, speaking of one of the main characters (a demon), it says:

 

Oh, he did his best to make their short lives miserable, because that was his job, but nothing he could think up was half as bad as the stuff they thought up themselves. . . . Over the years Crowley had found it increasingly difficult to find anything demonic to do which showed up against the natural background of generalized nastiness.

 

And just when you'd think they were more malignant than ever Hell could be, they could occasionally show more grace than Heaven ever dreamed of. Often the same individual was involved.

 

And as near as I can tell, this mix of the horrible and the sublime occurs independent of one's religious beliefs. I can't see that one religion or the lack of it changes the composition at all.

[Kris]

I'm not Bill, but about 9 years ago I left a large, Christian homeschool group in Magnolia, TX mainly for this very reason. Listening to a large group(over 30) of moms actually reprimanding and disciplining their children by reminding them about their "sinful nature" gave me the willies. Once we had a meeting to find a way to fire the gay bus driver at the local elementary school, I realized these ladies were absolutely sick in the head and their kids were only going to grow up as ignorant and hurtful as their moms.

 

Okay -- I'm sure this is a stupid question. But it's going to bug me -- If they were homeschooling, what did a gay bus driver have to do with them?

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

If we did an experiment where we raised a child in an environment in which they were never exposed to anything bad, according to your "innately good" premise, they would always be good, right?

Well, according to the majority of fundamental christian responses, that experiment would be impossible because there is no "good" adult, so who would raise the child?

 

The OP's question will never be able to be debated fully with those who use the bible to support their premise against those who do not believe the bible is to be taken 100% literally. It will (and has) digress into one side "preaching" to the other side. Interjecting quotes to convince is only effective if both sides agree as to the authority of the source. It may surprise some of you to know that some who do not take the bible as an ultimate authority have actually studied it, so the quotes are not unknown, just not accepted as final authority.

Please also know that a person not accepting the bible as ultimate authority does reflect upon those people who do. I am not against you, I do not want to change you. I do not think you are "bad," nor do I want to stifle honest debate. Just letting you know that using the bible to support an argument may be ineffective.

<ducking head>

[coffeefreak]

Okay -- I'm sure this is a stupid question. But it's going to bug me -- If they were homeschooling, what did a gay bus driver have to do with them?

 

I was just thinking the same thing. We have quit the local homeschool organization for our state because they were dipping into other political issues besides homeschooling. It was making me so angry! I pay them to watchdog homeschool laws, that's it! They would try to justify their actions by saying it relates to Homeschooling, but they're lying! When they start going after other laws, they're just as bad as the government who tries to regulate everything.

 

Sorry, back to your regularly scheduled thread.:rant:

[OnTheBrink]

You don't entice people to something by using condemnation. That's completely illogical.

Biblical truth is not one-dimensional. We are not forced to choose between communicating God’s love to our children and God’s condemnation on account of sin. When we emphasize one to the exclusion of the other, we present an unbalanced and unbiblical message. We should communicate both.

 

Yes, which is why I said it's illogical to try to bring others to salvation by condemnation.

 

In the book of Romans Paul begins by explaining that all people are condemned, Jews and gentiles alike discussing condemnation (1:18- - 3:20). Only after he has communicated that message does he proceed to discuss salvation (3:20--5:21). If we don’t know we are condemned, we can’t understand our need to trust in a Savior who died for our sins.

 

Yes, my pastor just spent 2 years expounding on Romans. I'm familiar with it.

 

Salvation by fear is not true salvation.

 

In order to be saved, we must believe the gospel, Jesus died for our sins and rose again (1 Cor 15). It matters not whether we came to believe that message because we were are afraid of death, because we were lonely or because we were awed by the power of God. If we have received Christ as Savior, we have eternal life.

 

Coming to the Lord simply out of a fear of Hell is not salvation. There must be repentance of sin. Again, I'm quite familiar with the Gospel.

 

Christianity by condemnation is not true Christianity.

I’m not sure what you mean by this statement. If you mean that Christians should not continually speak of condemnation without also displaying and speaking of the love of God, then I agree. However, if suggesting that it is in some way wrong to tell people they are condemned unless they trust in Christ as Savior, I disagree.

 

I didn't suggest that at all.

 

 

Christianity without a Savior is not true Christianity, and we don’t need a Savior if we are not condemned.

 

You've taken my point and ran into the outfield with it. Preaching nothing but condemnation, hell and ****ation ala Fred Phelps, presents God as nothing but a vengeful judge, when there is far more to Him than that.

 

I'm curious, Bill. Have you every actually witnessed yourself a Christian parent telling their child that their temper tantrum is evil, or that their refusal to eat their brussels sprouts is a result of their sin? I sure haven't

Good point.

 

Thanks.

[lionfamily1999]

Well, according to the majority of fundamental christian responses, that experiment would be impossible because there is no "good" adult, so who would raise the child?

 

The OP's question will never be able to be debated fully with those who use the bible to support their premise against those who do not believe the bible is to be taken 100% literally. It will (and has) digress into one side "preaching" to the other side. Interjecting quotes to convince is only effective if both sides agree as to the authority of the source. It may surprise some of you to know that some who do not take the bible as an ultimate authority have actually studied it, so the quotes are not unknown, just not accepted as final authority.

Please also know that a person not accepting the bible as ultimate authority does reflect upon those people who do. I am not against you, I do not want to change you. I do not think you are "bad," nor do I want to stifle honest debate. Just letting you know that using the bible to support an argument may be ineffective.

<ducking head>

I quote Thomas Paine, but apparently the founders are out of the discussion...

[lionfamily1999]

If we did an experiment where we raised a child in an environment in which they were never exposed to anything bad, according to your "innately good" premise, they would always be good, right?

Innocent, they would be innocent. The reason kids don't go to hell is because they are innocent. Perhaps there is a difference between "good" and "innocent?"

 

The original sin was based on a desire of knowledge, the knowledge of good and evil. Once you become aware of the difference, you are held accountable for that knowledge. We are born with "original sin" that is based on a desire for knowledge. Once our children reach the point where they no longer go to their parents (see Adam and Eve going to God) and begin accepting outside resources (see the serpent), then they move to finding their own knowledge (tree of knowledge). At that point the 'original sin' becomes their sin.

 

We are innately good, or born innocent, but as we accrue knowledge we move away from this goodness and innocence. From there vice becomes an issue. That vice, and those that choose to revel in it, are the reason for laws. Not so much to protect us, as to protect our rights (in the USA, anyway).

[CAMom]

The OP's question will never be able to be debated fully with those who use the bible to support their premise against those who do not believe the bible is to be taken 100% literally. It will (and has) digress into one side "preaching" to the other side. Interjecting quotes to convince is only effective if both sides agree as to the authority of the source. It may surprise some of you to know that some who do not take the bible as an ultimate authority have actually studied it, so the quotes are not unknown, just not accepted as final authority.

Please also know that a person not accepting the bible as ultimate authority does reflect upon those people who do. I am not against you, I do not want to change you. I do not think you are "bad," nor do I want to stifle honest debate. Just letting you know that using the bible to support an argument may be ineffective.

<ducking head>

 

That's totally fine. We can leave the Bible out...but, the questions remains What is the definition of "good" and who gets to define it?

 

We can't have a discussion unless the terms are defined.

 

Would anyone like to define "good?"

[LisaNY]

Well, according to the majority of fundamental christian responses, that experiment would be impossible because there is no "good" adult, so who would raise the child?

 

The OP's question will never be able to be debated fully with those who use the bible to support their premise against those who do not believe the bible is to be taken 100% literally. It will (and has) digress into one side "preaching" to the other side. Interjecting quotes to convince is only effective if both sides agree as to the authority of the source. It may surprise some of you to know that some who do not take the bible as an ultimate authority have actually studied it, so the quotes are not unknown, just not accepted as final authority.

Please also know that a person not accepting the bible as ultimate authority does reflect upon those people who do. I am not against you, I do not want to change you. I do not think you are "bad," nor do I want to stifle honest debate. Just letting you know that using the bible to support an argument may be ineffective.

<ducking head>

 

Well, my question to Audrey is purely based on the logic of her premise.

If, for argument's sake, a person was raised in an environment where they were never exposed to anything bad, would they always be good?

(And, let's just say this child was raised by good people, be they real people, or robots. :o) It is irrelevant to my question.)

[lionfamily1999]

good = innocent

 

yes?

[CAMom]

good = innocent

 

yes?

 

Then, what is the definition of innocent? Never doing anything "wrong?" But then what's the definition of "wrong" and who defines that?

[coffeefreak]

"If each man, and all men, have learned self-restraint, then there will be need of but very little restraint on the part of the government; but if self-restraint does not exist in the body of citizens, it must be supplied from without. If men govern the animal that is in them, on which the soul sits astride, like the rider upon his steed, then they are governed. If they will not govern it, it must be governed for them. Government there must be, in some way, if men are going to live together. Society would break up in uproar; it would be like a den of tigers and lions; it would be but a bestial wallow of swine quarreling for their food, and quarreling for their warmth of a winter’s night, and quarreling evermore, if there were no government. To live together as men, and in such a way that men can exercise their higher prerogatives, the lower elements of the human organization must be governed. If men would govern these lower elements themselves, there would be no need of bringing in any other instrument of government; but if they will not do it, it must be done by some other agency.

 

Excerpt taken from, "The Moral Theory of Civil Liberty," by Henry Ward Beecher, June 4, 1869

 

 

Oh Yeah, sometimes I even amaze myself:patriot:

 

I thought I'd reiterate my quote from the federalist papers :) It kind of went unnoticed:D