Replies

You make a lot of good points. Differences in definitions are causing arguments and name-calling here.

The Bible does say that all have sinned, and that our righteous acts are as filthy rags - indicating that our condition is hopeless without a Savior.

I do not believe it follows, however, that every word, thought, and deed is therefore "evil", in the more aggresive sense of word - Jack the Ripper and Jeffrey Dahmer (sp?) come to mind. The word "evil", though Biblical, conjures up images much more savage than we generally see around us. Perhaps the word is Biblical, but the images are not. It doesn't take a Christian to recognize and appreciate goodness, kindness, and mercy.

Let me toss out an analogy for everyone to attack: Original sin is like a hole in the ground. We're born in the hole, and no amount of climbing will get us out. All of our efforts are futile - as a matter of fact, we usually dig ourselves in even deeper. If you want to call that "inherently evil", fine. We need a Savior.

But the fact that we can't get ourselves out doesn't mean that we can't look up, or climb a bit before tumbling back down. Calling that "inherently good" is a stretch. Those efforts are in the right direction, except for the important point that they deny our only way out. Climbing the sides of the hole when God has thrown us a rope is wrong ... defiant, rebellious ... evil.

Man can do good, but relying on his goodness is a rejection of the Gospel - which can turn even our righteous acts into filthy rags.

So a given action can be "good" in and of itself, and yet "evil" when counted on as an alternative to Christ. In that sense we need not be incapable of good to be considered hopelessly "evil".

Thank you for your fine contribution, which I take as much addressed to "all" as to me.

There is great correspondence between my structure of belief and philosophical Christianity and those who are familiar with my posts will, I think, agree that I am among the most effective debaters against the so-called Theory of Evolution as well as for Christianity as the essential foundation of Western Civilization. We part ways, I think, when specific doctrine and dogma and the primacy of the institutional church come into play. But this in no way degrades or overcomes my deep respect for and agreement with philosophical Christianity.

I could go more into my structure of belief with the outcome that it might cause controversy here but that, I think, would be counter-productive. The "bottom line" for me is that Christianity is reponsible for Western Civilization, for very good and specific reasons, and I would not want to live in a non-Christian society, so I would emphasize those areas of correspondence to which I refer.