If what you are talking about is that as a Christian I believe that I am a creation, ok, I do. endowed with innate sin? Well, I believe that no one is perfect and that I will make mistakes. OK, I agree there too. "instead of capable of unlimited goodness"? Why does it have to be a choice between the two? We are all capable of unlimited goodness, As a christian it is what I strive for. The fact that I believe I will be forgiven for my faults and mistakes is not (as it has been portrayed in this thread) a license to do whatever I want. And the fact that I am human and will make mistakes does not eliminate me from being capable of unlimited goodness.

   The point I am trying to make is this, you have made the comment about how Slag used terminology...here is the quote...

"The line I draw is not against any person's beliefs, but against the need to impose them. OVertly, the way Jehovah's Witnesses try to do, or covertly, which is done (in one way) by selecting terminology intended to be overpowering, freighted with towering meanings, but which for many of us are without experiential or discoverable referents. "

    There is a fine line between stating a fact and stating a belief. Stating a belief as a fact is imposing YOU beliefs on the people who you are talking to. So if I said to you that if someone doesn't believe in God, it is because he is limiting his responsibility because then he will have no one to answer to, what kind of reaction would I get? Whether I believe that is possible or not, to say that as a fact would be wrong. It doesn't eliminate it as a possibility, but it certainly can not be made a hard and fast rule. While I am certainly willing to believe that what you are saying is possible, it can not in fairness be considered a rule of thumb.

Frank