No. You are conflating two types of sin the temporal with original. All human life is imbued with the stain of Original Sin, life begins at conception so the stain of Original sin begins at conception.
If a leprechaun and a unicorn go to Oktoberfest, who wears lederhoden and who wears a dirndl? The question itself is ridiculous. No child is born with “sin”. It’s like a child being born a felon. The answer above is utterly ludicrous.
The idea of “sin” is a fake concept. According to the bible eating shellfish is a sin as is going to church during menstruation.
Bertrand Russell said “sin is geographical”. And the geography is delusionalville.
Not you since you don’t understand a liberal philosophy. Nope, just spout out the conservative limited thought process mantra. Liberals inhabit reality and work within reality but dream of a better future where conservatives live in a fantasy land and do thier damndest to try and destroy reality whenever it impedes on thier narrow minded belief system. Examples are:
Unrestrained capitalism will solve all.
The Bible is the guide to all law and order.
Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
Trickle down economics works since the wealthy won’t bother to just put thier money away and let it grow but would rather spend it freely and without thought so that numerous jobs can be created from them overpaying on useless extravagant items that help destroy the planet.
Just some examples for you to ponder. As for the topic the question is actually if it is a child when in the womb. According to the catholic tradition of birth at conception then yes the child has sin right at conception or else they would be like Christ and free from sin. That is why all children not baptized right away go to hell. Yep, great christian logic at work.
“That is why all children not baptized right away go to hell. Yep, great christian logic at work.”
That may be catholic tradition…but I am not catholic. Which is why I indicated that the unborn are the most “innocent” among us.
The fact is they are children from conception. That is where life truly begins. Even removing all the religious aspects of it, surely your “liberal humanity” places a value on life…any life. If that is indeed the case, you cannot in good conscience condone the murder of these human beings just to preserve choice for the mother. It would seem to be compromising your beliefs to do so.
I agree that I don’t condone an abortion. However, I am also not so damn judgemental that I believe I know what is best for everyone else. I think if you were to try and assist in understanding the root causes of abortion rather than just screaming about the issue you might actually make a difference. However, where life begins is another topic entirely.
Plus, liberals seem to be the only ones valueing the troops sacrifice over in Iraq enough to pull them out.
“Liberals inhabit reality and work within reality but dream of a better future where conservatives live in a fantasy land and do thier damndest to try and destroy reality whenever it impedes on thier narrow minded belief system.”
It must appear so from where you sit since so many of you truly believe that. But what reality are liberals actually living in?
That a universal healtcare program run by the government, thats right OUR GOVERNMENT, would, a. work, and b. not result in a degredation of care? You all trot out all the “social aware” countries that already have universal healthcare, but when presented with reports and horror stories of long lines, long waiting periods, and quite often DEATH for lack of services that would be granted immediately over here, then suddently we are told “Well….we will certainly make it better….”. How? You offer no suggestions…no realistic way to sustaining the model. You also give no thought to what it driving medical advancement. You believe in your little hearts that good wishes will propel it on. This ain’t Fantasy Island! Mr. Roarke will not be your savior.
Then you have the little commies like DV running around saying that the government is entitled to all of your money when you die. Why? In what realistic world is the government entitled to all you own. I thought THAT was what we fought against the King for. He thought he had a right to all we earned. In DV’s, and presumably most of your, view, no incentive would be provided for someone to take a risk and create an opportunity. When I ask what will drive that in your world, I am told patriotism. Ok. Fantasy world once again.
Liberals think that we can deal with religious terrorists by having an open dialogue. People that spend every waking day plotting on how best to kill every man, woman, and child, conservative or liberal, in the U.S., are somehow supposed to be up to an open honest dialgue. What can we offer them short of offing ourselves for them? Fantasy world yet again.
Don’t talk to me of fantasy vs. reality. It is the left that needs a reality check.
“Calling a zygote a child is scientifically spurious.”
I was unaware that science has set a time on when life begins. Truth is, science can’t prove when it begins. The zygote is just a way of dehumanizing the child to help assuage one’s guilt should they terminate. Same thing with the instance on using the word “fetus”. Its a baby…from beginning to toddlerhood.
Wow! Now that’s the Rant-O-Hyperbole of the week! Way to go, Chris!
Fear and failure is all you bring, Chris. Your healthcare rant above is chock-full of lies and anomalies presented as the norm.
How about insurance co’s denying your CT Scan 6 times? And in doing so, holding up other necessary procedures that may save your life, or quality of? Would you consider this a “degradation of care”?
We can mobilize an entire country to out-produce the entire world 10 times over during WWII (even coming out of a depression and a mostly agricultural society), but we are completely incompetent when it comes to developing a successful single-payer health system. I find your lack of faith disturbing and the antithesis of true American values.
“Don’t talk to me of fantasy vs. reality. It is the left that needs a reality check.”
Well according to all the polls out there buddy, a vast majority of Americans believe that it’s you, and the other 30%ers, who need the reality check! Welcome to the minority! Sit down; stay a while…
Then you have the little commies like DV running around saying that the government is entitled to all of your money when you die.
Please find where I said that… Why? In what realistic world is the government entitled to all you own.
You don’t own it chris. You are dead. Let me know if you can take it with you. Good try though.
I thought THAT was what we fought against the King for.
We did, because the concentrate the wealth by being able to hand it off to their heirs who don’t do shit for it or become productive in that society.
In DV’s, and presumably most of your, view, no incentive would be provided for someone to take a risk and create an opportunity.
that was exactly the reason why people Like ADAM Smith (ever heard of him?) Said that wealth should be shared and it shouldn’t be taken to the grave or given as an inheritance. Because when it is controlled by a small number of people, the “have not’s” don’t work, because they fell there is no point at trying to get a piece of the pie when the pie is controlled by the rich. So sad chris, so sad.
but even if capitalism wasn’t a non christians motive there should be another reason. You are a Christian right? Shouldn’t people take a risk to make society better? For Free Will? To protect god’s creatures? Advance Society so that we can all live together? So that the Meek can inherit the world? Jesus flipped over those tables for a reason didn’t he?
You use your religion when it suits you, typical hypocrite.
Pretty much has so far. Could be why so many countries have adopted the model.
“I thought you to be a christian chris? Wouldn’t those people trying to help the “meek” try to find a cure?”
With what money? In your world, the government will have all the money. And since the government and religion are to be separate, where will the Christians get the money to drive the research?
“you would think as a Christian you would be trying to find ways to help the unfortunate, I’m shocked you aren’t.”
You assume I am not. But let that be for now, for I was not raised to trumpet any good works that I do. But I can tell you that getting the less fortunate hooked on the crack that is the public dole, does them no favors. Welfare systems should be designed to get people off of them as soon as possible, not set up to make it more advantageous to stay on it.
1. Every other western democracy has some from of state health care and they generally work well. I just got back from Germany and had this same conversation with Aussies, Germans, French, Dutch and Scots. We’re the only hold out. But again, we’re the USA!… We’re right and everyone else is wrong.
2. Science has proven religion wrong at every turn. And Science is cumulative so the stupidity will continue to be debunked. I wish I could live to see how fantastical stupid religious dogma will look in 500 years, but alas, I’ll be dead. I won’t be in heaven. I won’t be in hell. I won’t be in limbo or purgatory. I’ll be dead. And DV is right, I won’t need any money…
Republicans support life until after birth, not interested again until about 18, just in time to sign up for the draft or go to one of their wars! Between after birth and 18….they not interested. If they were, shouldnt they be supporting health care for the “children”! If indeed the “children” are the future, do they want a sick adult future?
The Catholic Church gets a bad enough rap, much of it deserved. But let’s get the church’s position on children who die without being baptized correct. It is not an automatic trip to hell, as stated above. To wit:
From “The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1261”: “As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,’ allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.” But the theory of Limbo, while it “never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium … remains … a possible theological hypothesis.”