Re: Original Sin (was Re: RATE)

From: Jim Armstrong (jarmstro@qwest.net)
Date: Mon Oct 06 2003 - 23:22:29 EDT

  • Next message: Don Winterstein: "Re: Original Sin (was Re: RATE)"

    For most of my life, I have thought that the specifics of origins of
    evil were of no particular relevance aside from perhaps contributing to
    a definition of sin.
    If the conventional definition of sin holds, then it seems to me that
    any importance we place on "My ancestor made me do it." serves only to
    detract from a full acknowledgement of my primary (exclusive?) role in
    creating my own need for redemption.
    So why then, aside from the philosophical perspectives, should original
    sin (and its specific details) be of any great value other than
    explanatory, let alone be worth the great defense of its specifics
    mounted by some?
    Acknowledging my competency in occasionally (?) missing important
    details, I nevertheless ask, "What have I missed?"
    JimA

    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 06 2003 - 23:22:41 EDT