tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post2327927004390129937..comments2024-03-28T20:21:44.352-07:00Comments on Through These Woods: All those "ALL"s...Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-81044515286590001112011-07-24T09:31:25.289-07:002011-07-24T09:31:25.289-07:00Dan,It is not you. It is feodor, who spends too m...Dan,<br><br>It is not you. It is feodor, who spends too much time trying to sound intellectual that in being "precise" and clear. When he is clear, he exposes himself as foolish. Frankly, here, I can't tell if he's agreeing with me or not.Marshall Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-10562746115317148062011-07-14T16:37:04.481-07:002011-07-14T16:37:04.481-07:00Sorry, Dan, Geoffrey has an old loss to revenge. B...Sorry, Dan, Geoffrey has an old loss to revenge. But is it just me or has Geoffrey seemed somehow less than himself of late? Take for instance these seemingly contradictory passages of his:<br><br>"We may write this off today as biological necessity, but even Freud understood these realities as part of the human predicament (sorry, Alan. . .)"<br><br>vs.<br><br>"While there is little to nothing of merit in the views Freud propounded..."<br><br>And yet Geoffrey accuses me of contradiction: since I wrote on his blob a couple of months ago:<br><br>"On the whole Freud's science has held up just as well as Darwin's. They were both wrong about a number of things and a number of specifics, even a few significant things. But their major findings prevail. In Freud's case, his discovery of the modern notion of the unconscious. Of the activity of the unconscious in dreams. And, yes, the role of aggression in sex, by which he anticipated the discovery of testosterone among other factors."<br><br>[It was my mention of testosterone that silenced the unthinking objections of Geoff and Alan (a professional chemist) that Freud had it all wrong in relating sex and aggression.]<br><br>Only to have Geoffrey follow with this, which seems to me to be in a complete spirit of agreement with what I originally said:<br><br>"To say that Freud is a necessary person through whom anyone serious about understanding human beings and society must work is only the first sentence. The second sentence, of course, is to recognize that so much of his work has been revised - often by Freud himself as he changed his mind..."<br>_________<br><br>The bottom line for you, Dan - and the definitive answer to Geoffrey's whinging - is that Freud indeed made an analogy between his findings of the developing infantile ego wrestling with the birth experience and a prevalent Victorian resistance to "selfish" - thus sinful - infant existence. But let's thank God that Freud's intent was to take the ascription of guilt away from the baby. It was, rather, nature: the nature of the infant's psychology... thus, guiltless.<br><br>Partly as a result of Freud's de-mythologizing of infantile guilt, we are blessed today with doulas, the noble and humanely scientific profession of nurse midwifery, and also, though scary to me, the opportunity for water births. All these are dedicated to honoring both the painful but holistic experience of the mother and the painful, rupturing but necessary experience of the born child.<br><br>Now, let's hope Geoffrey soon returns to his sharp-minded norm.Feodorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-81471138811391801512011-07-14T16:34:30.958-07:002011-07-14T16:34:30.958-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.This comment has been removed by the author.Feodorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-67468350125665718932011-07-14T13:56:46.937-07:002011-07-14T13:56:46.937-07:00Feodor - it was your beloved Dr. Freud who restate...Feodor - it was your beloved Dr. Freud who restated the case for original sin, in a different, wholly secular, developmental context. Rather than the innocent wittle babykins all sweet and cuddwy just wanting his milk, Freud saw a creature of the most basic ego, the most violent demands, traumatized by the eradication of the sense of omnipotence that came with floating weightless in the fluid of the womb, not knowing want because all its needs were met before they became needs. With birth, according to our Viennese savant, comes not just separation, but deprivation, and the entwined fear and rage at this new thing. Freud saw our psychological development as little more than an outworking of coming to terms with this initial trauma. Since it is universal - every child is born, obviously - it is, indeed, analogous to original sin.<br><br>While there is little to nothing of merit in the views Freud propounded - being born makes me want to kill my father and have sex with my mother? really? - to take the view you do seems to indicate you hold Sigmund in far less esteem than you have previously stated.<br><br>I say "almost nothing of merit" because on one, very significant point Freud was exactly right - babies are transparently ego unbound. The world revolves around satisfying their needs. The first couple years of human life is a constant struggle between parents setting limits to the satisfaction of those needs that soon become wants, and the on-going attempt to make such satisfaction the basis of the parent-child relationship in which the child is the dominant partner.<br><br>Now, one can, I suppose, write this off as little more than developmental biology. As I'm not a fan of reductionisms, and as the teaching of original sin, as I understand it, in no way lessens the mystery of the Incarnation even as it seems to offer a suggested reason for it, makes far more sense of the evidence than a simplistic biologism, I'm not quite sure why you think it simple-minded to support the doctrine, or the need for Incarnation, or the glory of the new relationship founded in the resurrection/ascencion (with which I whole-heartedly agree; which is why the whole "universalist? not univeralist?" question also seems nonsensical to me).Geoffrey Kruse-Saffordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11242660591954094499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-88550883992519606442011-07-14T08:03:38.396-07:002011-07-14T08:03:38.396-07:00Thanks for the thoughts, George.Feodor said...This...Thanks for the thoughts, George.<br><br>Feodor said...<br><br><i>This is selfish? No. How can so many of you guys, having worked through and expanded your sensibility to grace, say such crazy things? </i><br><br>And I'll have to admit that I don't know what you're speaking of, Feodor. What "crazy things" do you think I/we have said?<br><br>WHAT is selfish?<br><br>I'm just unclear who it is you're speaking to and what it is you're saying.<br><br>I will say that I agree with you where you say...<br><br><i>We are fallen, mortal, imperfect in will and love. So are babies. But imperfection is far from guilt, from loss of innocence. That babies thirst, that they hunger, that they cannot conceive of, much less communicate, what causes discomfort, and so cry out - all is simply the way we are wonderfully and fearfully made to develop in the glory of God.</i><br><br>On that, I agree. Your other comments, I'm just not sure what you're saying.<br><br>My apologies for my obtusities.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-87349520384082626892011-07-13T14:08:25.511-07:002011-07-13T14:08:25.511-07:00Aside from my surprise that all of you would so ea...Aside from my surprise that all of you would so easily join together in identifying fallenness with guiltiness, I am not surprised that Marshall - by his indirect, unknowing ways - succinctly describes the role of Jesus which remains after Protestantism strips the Gospel message of glorious and mystical values of the Incarnation and the Ascension of a full human being. Marshall:<br><br>"He simply allows for everyone to be saved, but not that everyone will be saved. The offer is out there and no one will be barred from taking advantage of it, but not all will."<br><br>How does this, in Christian theology, change anything, add any greater love, from our Old Testament? In his view, as, I believe, must be the case in protestant theologies that have not learned to integrate the glories of what was lost, Jesus is seen as only a slightly better car salesman than the Father.<br><br>Totally missing here is an appreciation that the gospel message of God being born in human flesh between piss and shit, announced by the angels and crying for milk, walking dirty peasant roads, living faithfully even when angry, sarcastic, dismissive but steadfastly desiring to manifest God's love, and finally dying an innocent execution, descending to preach to the spirits in prison (purgatory implied? and what exactly would "Abraham's bosom" be except a notion of purgatory?), and rising, conquering death itself, and ascending -as an incarnate being - to heaven, thereby glorifying all of humankind by our kinship.<br><br>What is the sting of death? And if death is the wage of sin, where is the sting of sin?<br><br>We are fallen, mortal, imperfect in will and love. So are babies. But imperfection is far from guilt, from loss of innocence. That babies thirst, that they hunger, that they cannot conceive of, much less communicate, what causes discomfort, and so cry out - all is simply the way we are wonderfully and fearfully made to develop in the glory of God.<br><br>This is selfish? No. How can so many of you guys, having worked through and expanded your sensibility to grace, say such crazy things?Feodorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02216659885831979653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-3357816259429408812011-07-13T12:58:34.312-07:002011-07-13T12:58:34.312-07:00Dan,I don't deny that people can exercise free...Dan,<br>I don't deny that people can exercise free will. I also don't think salvation is like a gift wrapped in fancy paper that is handed to you and you have a choice to open it or give it back to Jesus. Salvation, to a universalist, is more like a surprise party that Jesus has planned for you, and regardless of how many protests you make telling him you want nothing to do with it, He is going to throw you the party nonetheless.<br>That is the thrust of my post, that just as we have free will to try and live the best sin-free life in spite of Adam's transgression (though are doomed to failure in many respects), so too, do we have the will to turn our back on the grace of God- only to be embraced in spite of our foolishness and pride.<br>I just don't know why <b>you</b> think you are so damned important that you feel like you could choose to circumvent the will of Jesus. If He wants you at the party, He is going to get you there somehow. <br>The bible is pretty clear that there are consequences for sin, but there is little basis to assume that this is "eternal", filled with "hellfire", or that all people will not be drawn into the fold in the larger scope.<br>I appreciate you taking the time to discuss why you are skeptical, and you ought to be unless someone can answer every lingering question.George W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/14508653029767613480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-46560473862634651832011-07-09T06:47:25.604-07:002011-07-09T06:47:25.604-07:00Thanks for the thoughts, George. I should have poi...Thanks for the thoughts, George. I should have pointed out in my post that it was reading your post on this and other passages that made me post here. My apologies for that oversight.<br><br>I remain unconvinced in a totally literal interpretation of the passage and of "all," because I believe in human free will and that folk can choose to say yes or no to God's grace. But there is certainly a case to be made.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-59110059157656037292011-07-06T10:52:37.491-07:002011-07-06T10:52:37.491-07:00As the token atheist here, but one who has a prett...As the token atheist here, but one who has a pretty firm grip on this topic, I find it telling that no-one here has decided to really answer Dan's original question.<br>Universalism was a foundational teaching of the early church, Origen being the first "Church Father" who comes to mind on the issue. It was not even considered a "heresy" until much later in church history.<br>There is much reason to believe that a plain reading of the scriptures is consistent with universalism. <br>I have no dogs in the theistic fight, though I guess an atheist would <b>necessarily</b> want universalism to be true <b>if he were wrong</b> about the veracity of <b>Christianity</b>. I will also, for full disclosure, admit that I list my "religion" on Facebook as "The less special half of 1 Timothy 4:10". So I am not a non-biased third party here.<br><br>I think that "all" means "all", and that the analogy that Paul uses in Romans 5 is entirely pointless outside of either a renunciation of "total depravity" and/or traditional original sin <b>or</b> a belief in universal salvation. I wrote a post about it, and invite anyone to show me the error of my understanding.<br><br>As an aside, I edited a book on universalism entitled "Raising Hell" by Julie Ferwerda. The book is entirely free at the moment, and I'd be happy to send a PDF copy or provide a link to anyone interested.George W.http://www.blogger.com/profile/14508653029767613480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-14466643746390706882011-06-30T12:11:51.060-07:002011-06-30T12:11:51.060-07:00Dan,I can only agree if those verses are taken out...Dan,<br><br>I can only agree if those verses are taken out of context. Then perhaps one might feel that way. The first Romans piece provides more context in that it speaks of those who receive. What follows after that must be isolated in order to ignore that.<br><br>The second Romans piece says "so that God <i>may</i> have mercy on them all", not that he <i>will</i>.<br><br>The other excerpts provide less context, but I suggest a full reading would result in the same thing.Marshall Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-87223659003286147732011-06-30T10:57:24.623-07:002011-06-30T10:57:24.623-07:00The Mission Statement of the United Methodist Chur...The Mission Statement of the United Methodist Church, adopted at the last General Conference, is, "Making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world." There has been a reawakening within mainline and evangelical denominations for a refocus on what we are Christians <i>for</i> in recent years (the UMC, technically, is an evangelical denomination, and Wesley is far more in the classical evangelical tradition than, say, Reformed or Anglican churches). The focus on discipleship, since the mid- to late-1980's, had led to the whole, "What's it all about?" questioning, which led, in 2008, to the addition to our mission statement.<br><br>My wife's favorite verse is in 1 Peter, where the author says that God is patient, wanting all to come to salvation. All I have written so far in no way denies the possibility that all of us may well stand before the throne of God and not be ashamed thanks to Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. As I wrote in my first comment, the whole question, "Universalist?" makes the error of assuming we can know anything about the works of God in Christ through the Spirit. Since the point of the story is that we are called by God to relationship with God for God's purposes in the world, whether or not all or some or even just one person in all human history is truly saved by grace through faith seems to me to be missing the point.<br><br>Again quoting Karl Barth (the guy wrote way too much, but at least he left behind some interesting quips), "We must never claim to know. We must always live as if we knew." There is far more important things for us to be about than wondering whether or not we got the Divine Hall Pass.Geoffrey Kruse-Saffordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11242660591954094499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-91058352524628316182011-06-30T09:15:14.768-07:002011-06-30T09:15:14.768-07:00Yeah, now your reminding me why I left the Baptist...Yeah, now your reminding me why I left the Baptist Church. There is a Mennonite Church way across town. Too far.Martyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02908921670853665703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-69572475648688900912011-06-30T08:44:04.980-07:002011-06-30T08:44:04.980-07:00Well, of course, most Baptist churches these days ...Well, of course, most Baptist churches these days would probably be more likely to disagree with me and mine (and you) than not, including on this matter. But perhaps a Mennonite church...?<br><br>Of course, your church sounds pretty groovy, too.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-35527782511946596822011-06-30T08:39:02.701-07:002011-06-30T08:39:02.701-07:00Stop it Dan. You're making me want to go back...Stop it Dan. You're making me want to go back to being Baptist. I probably would if there was a Baptist Church like yours in my area.Martyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02908921670853665703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-9663553724017302192011-06-30T08:20:03.910-07:002011-06-30T08:20:03.910-07:00You might be on to something with the Baptist thin...You might be on to something with the Baptist thing, Marty. I know that, at least with anabaptists, it tends just not to be that big a deal.<br><br>Mennonite thinker Robert Friedmann, writing on the anabaptists on this topic, put it this way...<br><br><i>While for the Reformers the question of personal, individual salvation (from the taint of original sin and punishment for it) stood in the foreground... the Anabaptists were primarily interested in the idea of Nachfolge (following Christ) which is based on an implied "theology of the kingdom of God."<br><br>Of course, the Anabaptists too were sure that this idea means, in the last analysis, "salvation"..., but salvation as taught by Luther was certainly not their primary concern. Their concern was rather obedience to the Word of God which excluded from the outset too much thinking concerning one's own fate. <br><br>Only by obedience can one become a "disciple" and thus be active towards the promotion of the kingdom of God. Original sin exists, of course, but must not necessarily prevent man from such a way of Nachfolge, if man only fights in his own depth all the opposing forces.<br><br>Here we see immediately the great difference between them and the Reformers: there is no inescapable pessimism concerning man's capacity to obey God's commandments (including those of the Sermon on the Mount). The reason for this is that Anabaptism begins with the very idea of inner rebirth and a new and dedicated life, while Protestantism in general is inclined to despair of such an ability in man.</i><br><br>Anabaptism sometimes sounds (especially to outsiders) works-oriented, but it IS all about grace and works are just the outflow and evidence of that grace.<br><br>In the end, we agree with original sin in broad brush strokes (ie, we all have a sinful nature), but just aren't that worried about it as a critical teaching of Jesus. And, as with "original sin," so, too with atonement, virgin birth, etc, that some traditions appear to spend more time thinking on.<br><br>We're very much a Sermon on the Mount, Jesus- and James-embracing group of believers.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-87236118126340702102011-06-30T08:04:25.081-07:002011-06-30T08:04:25.081-07:00This is a very interesting conversation. Dan, I te...This is a very interesting conversation. <br><br>Dan, I tend to agree more with you on the innocence of babies. Could it be because we come from a Baptist background? From reading what Alan and Geoffrey write, I can now understand why Presbyterians, Methodists, and others baptize infants. I never really understood it until this comment thread. I went to the UMC website and found that one receives grace through baptism. For Lutherans the baptism saves (my husband is Lutheran). I don't agree with either one. It's just tap water after all. Such odd concepts to me, but it isn't a doctrine that would make me leave the UMC and go back to being Baptist. <br><br>Those verses are there, nonetheless, and they do say ALL. Don't you wish sometimes you could channel Jesus and Paul and ask them exactly what they meant?Martyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02908921670853665703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-31190434277498387472011-06-30T06:39:01.219-07:002011-06-30T06:39:01.219-07:00Marshall...These verses don't suggest at all t...Marshall...<br><br><i>These verses don't suggest at all that everyone WILL be saved, but that the actions of Christ were perpetrated so that everyone COULD be saved.</i><br><br>I generally agree with you here, with your conclusion, anyway. But my point is, that is not what this verse is literally saying. It's literally saying "ALL will be justified," is what it literally says. Or, put another way, it does not say "justification and life for all... IF THEY ACCEPT AND DON'T REJECT IT," which is what you and I sort of believe. But what we believe is not found in that passage, just literally "ALL."<br><br>For what it's worth.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-8583451777054278822011-06-30T06:35:52.490-07:002011-06-30T06:35:52.490-07:00Geoffrey...Sin isn't what we do. It's what...Geoffrey...<br><br><i>Sin isn't what we do. It's what we are.</i><br><br>And I guess if that is how you are defining sin, then that's one place we disagree. Sin IS what we do. SinNERS is what we are, once we have chosen, which does happen early on, but "Sin" is not what we are. We ARE God's holy, beautiful, flawed, fallen, beloved people, created to do good works in Christ.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-4784880917381254472011-06-30T06:33:29.629-07:002011-06-30T06:33:29.629-07:00Geoffrey... Either take original sin seriously, or...Geoffrey...<br><br><i> Either take original sin seriously, or don't Dan. If you do as you say you do, then the child is a sinful creature, separated from eternal salvation.</i><br><br>I DO take original sin seriously, Geoffrey. Or, since it's not a biblical term, I'd say that I take the tenet that we ALL have a sinful nature as a very real thing. <br><br>AND I take the notion of being created in the image of God to do good works in Christ seriously, too.<br><br>Where we appear to be parting ways is that I'm suggesting being a "sinner" or being "guilty," or "not innocent," these all indicate that we have DONE something - a sinner is one who SINS - who rejects God's ways and stands in defiance of the right. Someone is GUILTY when they have DONE SOMETHING. Someone is innocent if they are free from guilt or sin.<br><br>And all of that to say that a newborn babe IS free from guilt or sin - in the sense that they have DONE NOTHING. In the sense that a "SIN" is something we do, a babe is sinless. They have a sin nature and WILL sin once they reach that capability, but a newborn has NOT sinned, is NOT guilty of anything.<br><br>The Bible is clear that children don't "inherit" the guilt of their parents, but that each person is held accountable for their own actions. A babe is innocent, again, by definition.<br><br>If you disagree with that, well, then we just disagree and you must be using some definition other than the standard English one, as far as I can see.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-61989035916934837092011-06-30T01:45:33.956-07:002011-06-30T01:45:33.956-07:00Dan,The distinction I draw, and that is not meant ...Dan,<br><br>The distinction I draw, and that is not meant to be addressed by those verses, is that what Jesus has done for all is true, but that doesn't provide for all being saved. That is, He simply allows for everyone to be saved, but not that everyone will be saved. The offer is out there and no one will be barred from taking advantage of it, but not all will. <br><br>These verses don't suggest at all that everyone WILL be saved, but that the actions of Christ were perpetrated so that everyone COULD be saved. I'm not trying to sound as redundant as it may seem, but only hope to be clear.Marshall Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-4873200945611430742011-06-29T15:13:27.611-07:002011-06-29T15:13:27.611-07:00As to whether in some contingent sense the conquer...As to whether in some contingent sense the conquering Israelite army indulged in the murder of "innocent" children, my own sense is that, in their own eyes they did not think so, for the reasons I stated.<br><br>I am certainly not suggesting that the annihilation of the entire population of a conquered foe is a moral good. Actually, I find it abhorrent. I do not, however, indulge in fantasies of "innocence" or "responsible" rooted in a contemporary idiom and ideology that was completely foreign to the writers of the time.<br><br>It is one thing to say that killing or otherwise eradicating a conquered people is morally vicious. One need not fall back on, "Oh, the poor innocent children!" to do so, and it only creates a distraction where clarity is needed.Geoffrey Kruse-Saffordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11242660591954094499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-43095629582457247602011-06-29T15:05:54.925-07:002011-06-29T15:05:54.925-07:00Sin isn't what we do. It's what we are.We...Sin isn't what we do. It's what we are.<br><br>We cannot escape how ugly that is, not in ourselves, not in anyone else.<br><br>Not even the face of a newborn infant.<br><br>That is why Christ came. That is why we need grace.Geoffrey Kruse-Saffordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11242660591954094499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-30150589670524690522011-06-29T14:59:40.266-07:002011-06-29T14:59:40.266-07:00In what possible way is a newborn infant not innoc...In what possible way is a newborn infant not innocent? Either take original sin seriously, or don't Dan. If you do as you say you do, then the child is a sinful creature, separated from eternal salvation. You can always do what medieval Catholics did and invent limbo.<br><br>Since I refuse to accept the idea that newborn babies "are" innocent, not just in a theological sense, but in any way, I'm not sure why you're arguing with me. I love my daughters, but having spent the past 14 years as a Dad, my experience is that children are egotistical, demanding, manipulative (all that crying because they're hungry teaches them to cry when they want pretty much anything), and sometimes downright vicious.<br><br>A newborn baby is no less sinful than Josef Stalin. Chew on that.Geoffrey Kruse-Saffordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11242660591954094499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-81212718702546384482011-06-29T13:57:59.358-07:002011-06-29T13:57:59.358-07:00Come now, Geoffrey. If nothing else, look at the 1...Come now, Geoffrey. If nothing else, look at the 1 minute old infant. THAT is innocence defined. There is nothing NOT innocent in a newborn.<br><br>I have children, I was a teacher, I have worked with children in many contexts. I am aware that children are not perfect. But for my purposes here, I'm speaking of a newborn, which is wholly innocent.<br><br>From MW:<br><br>Innocent: 1. a. free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil : blameless (an innocent child)<br><br>b : harmless in effect or intention (searching for a hidden motive in even the most innocent conversation — Leonard Wibberley); also : candid (gave me an innocent gaze) <br><br>c : free from legal guilt or fault; also : lawful (a wholly innocent transaction)<br><br>2. a : lacking or reflecting a lack of sophistication, guile, or self-consciousness : artless, ingenuous <br><br>In THESE standard English use of the word, a baby IS innocent. There is no myth there. <br><br>In what possible sense is a baby NOT innocent?Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-51709205145991171252011-06-29T13:45:30.720-07:002011-06-29T13:45:30.720-07:00And, no, I do not accept childhood "innocence...And, no, I do not accept childhood "innocence". Spend five minutes listening to children speak to and about one another. Spend a few minutes consoling your tween daughter because of the behavior of her peers toward her and others. Spend five minutes watching a six- or seven-year-old watching in fascination as a spider attacks a fly in her web, or a cat hunts, kills, then devours a bird.<br><br>Childhood innocence is a modern myth, best disposed of.Geoffrey Kruse-Saffordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11242660591954094499noreply@blogger.com