When dealing with the doctrine of “original sin” it is important to understand what this doctrine does and does not mean. Simply put, it does mean that because of the sin of Adam and Eve (though, Biblically, the full weight of responsibility for this sin falls on Adam’s shoulders) sinful proclivities have entered into the hearts of men.
[…]What the doctrine of original sin does not mean is that we are all borne owing the debt of sins Adam incurred.
[…]“Original sin”, if understood in the sense that we are guilty of sin from birth logically leads to the untenable conclusion that all children go to hell (unless one holds to the unbiblical stretch known as covenantal theology) for sins they did not freely choose to commit.
Romans 3:23, which tells us that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God“, is not a prescriptive phrase, that we will by necessity sin, but rather a descriptive phrase about what we all freely choose to do. Given long enough, after reaching the age of accountability, we will come to know the difference between good and evil and we will freely choose to sin of our own accord.
The fact is that we are actually borne innocent and freely choose to sin thereby breaking ourselves and disqualifying ourselves from participating in a relationship with a holy God.
Do any of my readers have a different understanding of original sin than this one?
Another podcast featuring Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse. This one is a must-hear for men, especially men who feel threatened, unappreciated and fearful about the way that their importance is minimized by the culture.
A new study claims that two women are better for a child than a opposite-sex parents
The author of the study thinks that mothers and fathers are interchangeable
She doesn’t think that a biological mom and dad are better for children
The headlines claimed that two moms are better
The research seems to argue that heterosexual fathers are worse for children than mothers
The study claims that children benefit when there are no heterosexual men in the home
The study claims that gay men are better parents than heterosexual men
The study argues that gender roles are a bad thing
The goal of these scholars is to abolish distinctions and roles based on sex
Th study implies that heterosexual men can be marginalized and excluded from the family
This is made worse when courts are able to declare who is a parent and who isn’t
A caller to the show talks about how damaging fatherlessness is for male and female children, too. She refers to what we can see today in the inner city where fathers in the home have been replaced by checks from the government. Dr. Morse mentions that this is also occurring across all races among the lower income classes in the UK. She is concerned about the damage that can result if men lose their traditional role in society, and in the family.
Instead allow me a few quotes, from “How Does the Gender of Parents Matter?” to illustrate my point that fatherhood itself is at stake in the same sex parenting debate.
[…]“If contemporary mothering and fathering seem to be converging,… research shows that sizable average differences remain that consistently favor women, inside or outside of marriage.”
See what I mean? Men and women are identical, except women are better.
“Gender nonconformity” used to be considered a negative trait, something, which if found, provided an argument against same sex parenting. But listen to Stacey and Biblarz turn “gender flexibility” into a positive trait.
“12 year old boys in mother only families (whether lesbian or heterosexual) did not differ from sons raised by a mother and a father on masculinity scales but scored over a standard deviation higher on femininity scales. Thus growing up without a father did not impede masculine development but enabled boys to achieve greater gender flexibility.”
“If, as we expect, future research replicates the finding that fatherless parenting fosters greater gender flexibility in boys, this represents a potential benefit. Research implies that adults with androgynous gender traits may enjoy social psychological advantages over more gender traditional peers.”
[…]The bottom line is not really that mothers and fathers are interchangeable, but that masculinity is a bad thing.
Can you imagine if the left gained power and this “research” became the basis for laws? What if these views were pushed on impressionable children in the public schools? What if people who believed things like this were nominated to high positions (let’s call them czars, say)?
Eight pro-life students at the University of Calgary (UofC), faced with possible expulsion for their activism, gathered this morning to deliver a simple message to their university: “Do unto us whatever you desire, punish us however you wish; but our convictions shall not change, and we shall not alter our actions based on intimidation.”
These words were read by Cameron Wilson, vice president of UofC’s Campus Pro-Life (CPL), at a press conference this morning in front of the school library. Wilson is one of eight CPL members who were notified late last week that they have been charged with non-academic misconduct over their presentation of the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) on April 8-9.
The group has put up the GAP display, which compares abortion to past historical atrocities through the use of graphic images, on the University of Calgary grounds without incident eight times since 2006.
In 2009, the university charged six students with trespassing in relation to the display, but the crown prosecutor stayed these charges prior to a trial scheduled for November 2009. The university has threatened participating students with non-academic misconduct charges on the occasion of each display, but this is the first time they are following through with their threat.
[…]“If [UofC] were a private institution then they would have the right to censor whatever viewpoints they want,” explained John Carpay, a lawyer with the pro-free speech Canadian Constitution Foundation, who has represented the students since the fall of 2008. “But they get the majority of their funding from Alberta taxpayers, and so they don’t have a right to discriminate based on viewpoint.”
[…]Each student is required to appear at a hearing before UofC’s Vice-Provost in the next few weeks, to which they have been told they are not permitted to bring legal counsel. There the students could face penalties including probation or even expulsion. Once a decision is rendered, there are two levels of appeal within the university and then, if necessary, the case would go to the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench.
Unbelievable. In the most conservative city in Canada. Pro-life taxpayers in Alberta are paying an academic institution that censors and persecutes pro-lifers. Imagine. Parents subsidizing the persecution of their own children – subsidizing the violation of the human rights of their own children.
