|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Total depravity article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Topic coordination||We're attempting to co-ordinate a few pages together, including Calvinism and Total depravity. Feel free to discuss this at Talk:Calvinism. Other pages include:|
|Total depravity was featured in a WikiWorld cartoon:
(click image to the right for full size version.)
Feminist Theology and Total Depravity
The sentence relating total depravity to a feminist theological understanding of the pervasive effects of oppression on women does not belong here. It may be true but the sins of any group against any other group, though analogously pervasive can never present the kind of theological obstacle that personal sinfulness does in approaching God. Without depreciating these considerations they`re in the wrong article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs)
- Whether or not you're correct, Jones is a respected theologian and the comments cited here are made specifically in the context of a discussion of total depravity. The point is that sin assaults people from the outside. I don't know whether she thinks that sins committed against women create an obstacle between them and God, but the point she's making is certainly germane to the subject of this article. --JFH (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
No disrespect intended to her credentials (or to your position that it belongs here!). I understand the point that sin assaults from the outside. My point is that it's loosely analogous rather than on topic. In the case of total depravity the sin we are discussing is our own, the depravity our own and the pervasive effects of sin are our own in ourselves. A respected theologian could claim that this is helpful in understanding for example, the effects of abuse by Christian leaders against children. My objection to its place in this article would be that this is the sin is of others against ourselves and introduces a new topic by way of a rough comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's a reinterpretation rather than an analogy. She considers sin against ourselves and the "social relations that define us" as an important part of the sin which total depravity entails. She doesn't just think it's helpful in understanding these issues, she's speaking theologically about sin and she thinks it entails things beyond the bad things we do. We can't restrict the article to a traditional view of sin. --JFH (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I want to react to this sentence,
"She considers sin against ourselves and the "social relations that define us" as an important part of _the sin which total depravity entails_."
I'm hoping that this is an ad-hoc adjustment of your position rather than a well-researched defense of the author's real viewpoint. Would any theologian be short-sighted enough to say that the sins of others against the individual contribute to the individual's depravity? The result would be that Jesus himself, in his manifold sufferings at the hands of sinners, reconstituted by his tragic social relations, would himself be deeply depraved (as a result of the sin of others).
Let`s discuss what she really says. If Serene Jones does believe that total depravity is inclusive of the sins of others against us (a non-traditional view of sin), I think a quote indicating this would be on topic. If she's interpreting total depravity or redefining it in any way, let's include this. If a few of Calvin's words about depravity have been helpful by way of associative thinking to understanding of what reads as her main topic (how sinfulness effects women) then let`s not lay groundwork for relevance that we can`t find in the author's work itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)