Replies

Nonsense. Dangerous nonsense at that. To believe Man inherently good lays oneself open for victimzation, but to believe Man inherently evil is far worse. It's internally contradictory, an assumption of a license to pronounce moral condemnation while simultaneously declaring oneself to be condemnable! And of course, all moral condemnations include a license to destroy.

Is it not clear that, if there are moral absolutes in the world, which there surely are, then all gradations of human progress in the moral realm require an ability to perceive differences in moral stature? That such differences are impossible to separate from the idea of "better" and "worse" -- and that the privilege of judging remains with those on the "better" end?

What would any moral judgment be worth, if we were all inherently evil? Each of us could point to the permanent fault of being human as exculpation for all his deeds -- and no human being would possess the elevation to argue with him!

Is it not clear that one could not even aspire to moral improvement if one were inherently evil, any more than one could be subject to temptation if one were inherently good? That the joined need and ability to struggle against temptations to abuse one's fellows is testimony to a divided nature, a nature of parts, neither inherently good nor evil?

I reject all categorical classifications of Man. It does immense harm to attribute to our shared natures what should be marked down to the weakness of individual wills. That's quite as bad as any other form of collectivism, and lead to results just as catastrophic. Christianity, a faith which exhorts us to nurture our better natures and resist our worse ones, and to encourage the same in others by example, has no place for such a thing. It gives our opponents the raw material they need to portray us as hateful bigots and prigs, with neither charity nor mercy in our souls.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason:
http://www.palaceofreason.com

I generally enjoy reading your well reasoned posts, and this is one of them.

However, you are missing the main point. You are looking at this from much the same perspective as the secularist Liberal. You are looking at man and his "goodness" from man's view, not God's, and in light of man's wisdom, not God's Word.

The fact man continually corrupts God's view and purpose - even when genuinely trying to act on God's behest and in accordance with His Word - only lends increased credence to the principle of the genuine hopelessly depraved state of a natural man.

I reject all categorical classifications of Man. It does immense harm to attribute to our shared natures what should be marked down to the weakness of individual wills. That's quite as bad as any other form of collectivism, and lead to results just as catastrophic. Christianity, a faith which exhorts us to nurture our better natures and resist our worse ones, and to encourage the same in others by example, has no place for such a thing.

Sorry but you are wrong. Christianity states that all men are inherently evil. That's why we need a Saviour. For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

God Save America (Please)

Mankind is inherently evil.

The underlying truth of Christianity is that man is sinful, and in need of a Saviour. Jesus Christ died on the Cross for all men, and those who turn to Him in repentance will be adopted into His family, overcoming one's sinfulness.