The Christian Vanguard

In Part II of my series on Original Sin, I quoted some people and documents as an interpretive guide for a better understanding of Original Sin. I want to unpack those quotations here in this post.

There are some that say in order to have knowledge, you must have certainty. This is false. Knowledge, classically defined, is three things: True Justified Belief.

This continues my series on Original Sin. In the previous post we looked at some of the biblical data on Original Sin. In this post, I want to look at some statements from Catholics to help us better understand what Original Sin is. I've heard some different statements of Original Sin and if one wants to object to it, it would be beneficial to understand what it is one is objecting to. 

In Christendom, the doctrine of Original Sin is not controversial. There have been notable Christians whom have denied it such as Pascal and presently Swinburne, but there hasn't been any significant group of Christians who deny it. To deny the doctrine is to easily fall into the Pelegian heresy. However, many of my friends are members of the International Church of Christ, and they deny Original Sin, and though they're not a significant portion of Christendom, they're significant to me simply because many of my friends are members, and so I want to dedicate a couple posts to the topic. In this first post, biblical data will be the focus.

Some feminists object to the use of the word "man" to expression mankind (maybe they too object to my use of the word "mankind". Maybe they prefer "humankind" or "personkind." I take it for granted we all know what I'm talking about when I say mankind, including the feminists, whom necessarily know what I'm communicating in order to object to it.) because it shows that men have some kind of superiority over women, or at least it is not gender neutral.

In the 1960's or so, we had the civil rights movement. This was the movement that secured civil rights to certain people, particularly black people. In the present day, some try to label the LGBT movement for the applicability of marriage to same-sex couples a civil rights fight as well. In the treatment of animals, those who want to secure certain rights to animals also try to fall under this category, but more commonly under the words "humane", to indicate fair treatment. In these three categories, we call them these names, civil rights fighters, humanitarians, and whatever else. But what we don't see is someone who fights for the rights of minorities a "minority-ist", a "black-ism" or even a "animaltarian." However, there are many people today who, purporting to defend equal rights for females, call themselves "feminist." Why is this unlike the others? Why don't these people pick up "civil rights act...