The Children

Very well, Dawkins, until where I can understand, these certezas me seem necessary for a reasonable chaining of the quarrel? if we want to surpass ' ' timidez' ' of the literal interpretation, without if losing in ' ' liberalidade' ' that it makes impracticable the symbolic interpretation. I believe, therefore, that to recommence itself for the guilt? having these certezas in mind, we can walk with security in the search of a better science of the events, in the salvation and the creation – before and after the sin. when treating, here, of the guilt, we have that to leave of side the guilt that elapses of the damages effectively caused to the next one – in the prospectivo exercise of the adult life; this guilt, despite really it is related to the sin and it has the counterpoint of the conviction, would be better studied in another chance – therefore, beyond the individual relation with God, if it will have to include, also, aspects of collective reach or social, that, at the moment, run away from our interest. The concern that we have, now, will be with the idea that in attributes individual guilt to them, in relation the God and as soon as we are born, for the inheritance of a sin ' ' original' ' committed, in the past, for an ancestral common human being. (3) the guilt in Adam I do not agree that the Writing says that I have that to inherit some guilt for the lack of Adam or, in relation the God, has that to be guilty, also, for the sins that I commit. if do not have that to inherit, nor we and nor the children – born or for being born, any guilt for the lack of Adam, who importance would have it in the history of the humanity? In the letter to the Romans if it says that, by means of one only man, the sin entered in the world and, for the sin, the death, and thus the death passed to all the men, because all had sinned.

Comments are closed.