User talk:RobertC/Human nature
From Feast upon the Word (http://feastupontheword.org). Copyright, Feast upon the Word.
Hi Robert, I'm looking forward to seeing this developed some. re: "inevitable sin" it seem like the idea of inevitable sin is a contradiction in terms. I take inevitable to mean unavoidable. And I take it that if something truly is unavoidable it wouldn't be a sin.inm --Matthew Faulconer 05:35, 18 Jun 2006 (UTC)
- I think there is an important distinction between inevitable and unavoidable. In theory, you could put a baby on it's feet and it could walk without ever falling. So I don't think you can say that's it's unvoidable that a baby will fall (a baby could avoid falling, if only in theory), but it is inevitable (in the sense it's practically or statistically impossible). I know it's not for the most satisfying view, but it's the only way I can currently make sense of these issues. . . .
- As an additional note (more to myself than anyone else), I think this distinction can be illustrated in probability terms as follows: If I flip a coin a finite number of times, there is a positive probability that I will get all heads. Thus getting a tails is avoidable (not unavoidable) for any given number of coin flips. However, as the number of coin flips goes to infinity, the probability of getting all heads goes to zero. Thus, the probability limit of getting all heads for an infinite number of flips is said to be zero. In the terminology above, getting a tails is inevitable but not necessarily unavoidable. --RobertC 01:46, 19 Jun 2006 (UTC)
You wrote:
- The problem for the LDS theologian is to explain simultaneously our divine nature (and the fact that children have no need of baptism) and the (at least empirical) fact that we all sin.
I hadn't really read closely your point before. I think you make an interesting point. If we accept original sin then we all need the savior and we don't have the issue you bring up here--how can we explain the fact that we all sin. If you reject the idea of original sin then, if I understand your point, you have to deal with this question. --Matthew Faulconer 04:59, 20 Jun 2006 (UTC)
