QuakerInfo.com Forum

[bjackson]

Paul says in Romans that where there is no law there is no sin so I agree that we are born without 'original sin'. We each re-enact the fall ourselves invariably. I agree that Pelagius is misunderstood and actually was a holy man. I can't understand why Barclay did not read him, believing other writers, and why on earth Fox did not correct him on this.

I also believe that the verse 'the Light which lightens every man that comes into the world' is referring to this, meaning that we are in the Light when we are born, being without sin, and stay so after our fall unless we are put back in that position through entire sanctification. So we lose that light, but Quakers traditionally have said it means that all men have the light. I do not agree. You cannot have the Light and sin.

It's me Brenda by the way, but I guess you will know

[Stella]

In my youngest years and before I had any of my 'own' I looked upon any baby as a heavenly being - little precious angels. Then when I had children of my own and after the great appreciation that love was forever with me was blasted off in the earliest of hours to adhere to the crying 'spells' of my precious newcomer - I awoke thinking the devil is here and it's moved in with me. so, it's a matter of pure opinion that a baby is born in sin or not. But, one thing is for sure - they will do something wrong sooner or later and it's usually sooner. So, new mothers and fathers take warning and continue to pray - really - without EVER ceasing.

And, it takes lots of love (constantly) to deal with sinners of all ages. I speak from experience. Thankfully God gives us the answers to overcome all (ignorance).

God bless them all. : )

[Diane]

It may be helpful to think on the difference between what the Jewish law meant by the term now translated into English as 'sin', and which has then been understood as if it meant something like 'evil'.

The original idea was not that we are born evil, but that we are born with an imperfect spiritual 'aim' - just as our previous friend has said. We need assistance, and training to develop our spiritual 'aim', rather as a child needs assistance when learning to walk.

THe idea that human nature is 'born imperfect' has certainly helped me greatly. It has helped me keep in mind that one should avoid any idea that some people are 'born' morally superior to others. It has stood for me as a powerful statement against to the present-day trend toward classifying individuals according to their personal genetic makeup or physical chemistry.

Equally, it has made clear that we cannot accept the idea of any group as innately elite in the spiritual sense. The idea that we are all born with imperfect 'aim' has reminded me that we are all equally in need of spiritual guidance, whether from reading religious texts, or seeking the light.

This same notion of our imperfection from birth has helped me over the years when troubled to see how often good people do bad things from reasons they believe worthy, and it has also served as a caution to me against any inclination to extend love to my fellow humans as if I were handing out 'merit points' according to some arrogant personal scale.

The story of Adam and Eve was meant, as I understand it, to be a metaphor for our universal common humanity, our universal frailty, our inescapable urge to know everything. It is also, I think, the first clear intimation in human society of a sense that all human beings are related by nature.

Certainly, I do not see that we can take the Biblical text to mean that children are born 'wicked' or stained as if they had committed an evil deed. Otherwise, why should Christ urge us to become like little children, )not like priests, or like censorious parents)?
_________________
"Friend, consider that you may be mistaken."

[CelticNorth]

The great divide on original sin may be the arguments set forth by Augustine of Hippo (St. Augustine, in the Catholic Church), and Pelagius- denouced as a heritic in the 5th Century for his rebuttle of Augustine. Original sin as we know it, and taught down through the ages as the "Christian" tradition, is the position espoused by Augustine. I'll join Pelagius as a heretic; Augustine is just a little to hell bent on seeing the human race as an innate failure of nature, void of Godliness and unredeemable- except by accepting Jesus Christ as one's personnal savior. He reeks of theological imperialism, which is why he is so beloved by the Catholic Church. Pelagius is more reasoned in his argument that it is perhaps irrelevant whether mankind is born with original sin- people make mistakes, learn and grow, and come full cirlce in acknowledging a common humanity in all of us, one that is often imperfect. Augustine, unfortunately, casts a very long shadow on all of Christian theology with his writings.