Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1905-1919, 1917-08-12
INNATE DEPRAVITY.

|
are guided by the supposition that the
natura. condition Of mankind X to SIN
and that therefore those things which
work to restrain this natural trend
are the things which work for right
eousness. In their opinion the only
safeguard for purity tx to shield It
from knowledge Of impurity, the only
precaution for rectitude Is TO hide aii
| signs of iniquity This is a good deal
on the principle Of the ostrich whose
instinct persuades him that when MS
| head Is hidden he is safe. The ostrich
| is no more at fault In his reasoning
| than are those human beings VINO
would save the youth Of the land from
! sin by keeping the processes of sin
secret from them. II argues thai be-
cause the evil is not apparent there
! fore il cannot harm. All of this Is "a
mistake. with the first disobedience
Of Adam the principle OF sin began
! it's career Of influences in the affairs
of humankind, and since that time no
/ being has been able to so place him
self as TO be immune from its attacks.
| The only argument In favor OF innate
sinfulnoss, speaking I'm general sense.
| is that our greatest temptations come
! from within, rather than from without.
/ II has been doduccd from this that sin
| originates i'm the human heart. Yet
there is plenty Of proof 20 show thrt
| the immature human viii not pur-
| poscly sin without aomc incentive is
| placed before him. Instead of orisi-
mating the wrong he Is only unprc-
pared to combat the wrong Influence.
This brings us back to the PROPOSE
ton that ignorance Of sin does not
conduce to righteousness. Little chill
dren DO not sin, because they do not
know what sin is. Yet to all intents
and purposes they do the very things
that would bo sinful were it accom-
| panied by knowledge OF right and
wrong And even then, the worst
| but are done in imitation of the acts
of some older person. sin Is sus-
gestod to them. not originated by
| them. The principle Of sin Is so all
permoating, however, that no person
can escape the range of its influence.
The surost guide to righteousness,
then, must be a knowledge of what -
wrong and the will to choose the right.
An absolutely ignorant man cannot
| be held to moral responsibility foi
Il h..
do. simply for the reason that motive
is absent. and without motive there
Is no moral sin. Shame came to mat
kind only with the knowledge that he
had sinned. and every exhibition or
shame Is but a legacy of that first act
which revealed the difference between
good and evil.
1t is argued that all of us should
be covered with confusion in the pres
ence OF our fellows because of the
knowledge of our own shortcomings.
As far as this consciousness relates 10
injuries done to the rights of others
shame is the proper thing as an ac-
compartment of repentance. But un-
wrong. where should there be any
room for shame? 1t must he romem-
bered that there are widely different
views Of moral responsibility ana no
one can feel shame for those things
he does not know are wrong. There
is where comes in the innocence of
childhood which We admire so rfuch.
The ignorantly innocent can do many
| things without shame that would be
iniquitous with others. And there is
absolutely no distinct line of propriety
among the rrownup folks, everything
depending on birth environment and
the custom to which he has been
brought up. This is the reason why
so many people are misiudged-we
condemn them according to our own
code of morals, forgetting that they
may have % different code that may
be as good or better in the sight of
God than our own.
The eternal principles of right and
wrong are not hard to understand,
but it is their application to times,
places and customs that puzzles us.
The same thing that would be proper
In one part of the world might be
absolutely wrong in another not be
cause the principles themselves are
ldifferentn but because the applica-
ton is different Not only is the diff
ference guided by circumstances of
environment and education, but even
among the men and women we meet
from day to day, in their inmost
souls they have varying convictions
of how to apply the principle Rules
OF propriety are only the codification
OF the sense of certain community
or circle OF people, and should never
he confused with moral laws. What
to you may be perfectly proper and