You are literally arguing semantics. Just replace the word "sin" with "immoral action", since in the limit that morality is derived from divine law, they are identical.
I am not arguming semantics, you're attempting to hide behind them. There is a very big difference. People are flawed and make mistakes. We should be held accountable for the mistakes we make, not merely for being flawed. Again, we do not blame our children for the theft of others when we teach them not to steal. Your religion does that. We are all already guilty and at fault. You are being dishonest sir to suggest otherwise.
If your goal is to walk, falling is wrong. Of course you will fall when learning, but your goal should be to reduce the occurrences of falling as much as you can.
Falling is not wrong, it is a natural process of learning. Failure is the key to success. The people who succeed the most typically fail the most before success. If they did not fail they likely would not accomplish much.
Telling a child they are sinful, but can be saved, is no different than saying "You are probably going to fall a few times when learning to walk, but if you try hard, you will overcome these obstacles."
There is a HUGE difference that you're being dishonest in attempting to obscure. On one hand you're telling children that they are INHERANTLY BAD and are COMMANDED to get better upon pain of eternal damnation. On the other hand you accept that people are just a higher mammal, an animal, and that mistakes are not inherantly bad, just a part of who we are and that the best we can do it attempt to overcome them. In this sense, a child is not inherantly bad or guilty, they are just normal.
You are baptizing them so they don't have to feel guilty. That's the whole point. Your knowledge of scripture is abysmal.
They are still guilty, just "forgiven" for prior mistakes - mistakes that were never theirs to begin with. Those future mistakes will henceforth be made by them because they are still guilty beings and it is in their flawed nature ever since Original Sin (because those flaws did not exist as part of their nature until then) and they must constantly apologize/repent for being human. It is this idea of constant guilt. It's disgusting.
Why do you tell your child not to steal?
Because doing so adversely affects society and we are a social animal. If you upset the natural social order you partake in undermining our society which adversely affects the lives of everyone including yourself.
Its because other children steal, and fear that without reinforcement, yours my do the same. If were 100% confident your child did not have thievery in his nature, you would not need to tell him not to steal.
It is natural for all animals to acquire material goods for themselves. This often means that they will acquire them from others. It is also in our nature to be social animals, which means that our evolution has put us on a path of cooperation. This is a struggle that we as a species partake in. This desire is not wrong, it is natural. We teach our children not to steal because higher cognition allows us to understand that certain actions are better for our species than other actions. Cooperation is better for our species than constantly undermining our neighbors.
The difference is that you're trying to ascribe Universal Moral Law to this where none exists. Under your UML the desire to steal means we are sinful or wrong, and that' not the case at all. I am married, yet when I see a sexy woman I instinctively want to mate with her. I am not being immoral or wrong for having this desire. It is natural. However for society it is wrong to act on it because it undermines our advanced culture.
They are inherently guilty. Everyone has done something wrong at some point.
You are confusing two different things. They are NOT inherently guilty, they are only guilty of something they chose to do. You are presenting something without choice on the same level as something with choice. This is either deliberately dishonest of you or seriously misguided.
You are guilty of something immoral. I am guilty of something immoral. Everyone on this board is. Our children will also do immoral things. It is part of human nature to do immoral things.
Chosing to do something immoral is immoral. We are not inherently immoral. I am not immoral for things I have not done, only for the things I have done. Certainly most people are going to do something immoral at some point because we are animals who are attempting to live by a complex structure of society we have created for ourselves. In addition the world is not black and white and interpretations of immoral will vary.
A newborn who dies at birth never was immoral as it never committed an immoral act.
All the baptism does is recognize that, and say unless you want to be consumed by this immoral nature, you need to find the right path, and stay true to it.
No, baptism is nothing like that. Baptism is saying that a baby must be forgiven for being immoral. The baby has done nothing immoral and should not be judged as such. Suggesting a baby is immoral for merely being a human is to judge everything for being what it is, and that's just fucking nonsensical. I should go lecture a tree for being a tree, an ant for being an ant, or grass for being grass.
No we don't. We have a couple methods that work sort-of well in certain situations.
1. Scientific method explicitely is only useful for investigating natural occurrences.
We live in a natural Universe, so you just described everything. The Scientific Method - by your definition - is only useful for investigating the Universe, which everything in the Universe consists of.
2. Science is limited by technology. This is not trivial. We understand not even the smallest fraction of what there is to understand in the universe, because you have not developed the right tools to probe things.
Yes, and so what? This in no way means that we should abandon what has proven to be above and beyond the best method we have. This in no way validate the use of proven faulty and ignorant methods of explaining things in ways we feel like explaining them.
We just recently discovered the Higg's boson. We don't even know folding mechanism for 99% of the proteins in our own bodies. We discover new species every day. We still don't have cures for several of the most common human ailments.
You appear to suggest that we should already be able to know or do anything with science - yet hold NO ACCOUNTABILITY for religions ability to do pretty much anything. You betray your own bias.
There are millions of ideas once held by religion that have been overruled and replaced by scientific fact. Name me one scientific fact that has been overruled and replaced by religious dogma? You cannot, because it hasn't happened. This lame attempt by you to undermine the scientific process while granting a free pass to the consistant failure of faith is painfully obvious.
See, we are still struggling with mundane, entry level (in the grand scheme of things) problems, and you are surprised science and technology is poorly equipped to try to probe God (if such a thing is even possible)
There is no evidence that ANY God exists AT ALL. You're taking something that has NO EVIDENCE of existing at all and are asserting specific arguments for it and applying it to everyone. This is extremely dishonest and intellectually lazy. At least in science when you do not know something you admit you do not know and you investigate in attempt to learn. You do not create your own answers and walk around preaching as if you have found truth.
You are indebted, you are just too stupid to realize it.
You cannot say that because you have no facts to base this claim. It is merely a personal opinion that you carry, and you carry it completely devoid of any verifiable truth. What's worse is that you do not appear bothered by this in the slightest. At no point do you consider that you are harshly judging people and the human race based on.... nothing. Nothing other than something you feel like doing or feel like accepting. That makes you immoral and quite stupid.
