I don't believe that you believe this Andy, I think we're seeing the fibbing Andy again (did he ever really go away?)  this time pretending that the argument that people keep on repeating is somehow difficult to believe.  It's bleedin' obvious that some things are not learned from others, but from experiences. When did the first human learn that fire burns you if you touch it?  It couldn't have been from other humans, because they had no experience of fire.  No, it will have been when he/she tried to pick some up!  Then he/she will have cottoned on pretty damn quick!

So glad that you seem to agree with me, Martin.  For all your bluster and abuse, who suggested that getting hurt by fire is a sin?  We aren't here talking, as you know full well, about everyday experience; we're talking about actions that hurt others.  Where did the ability to do such things come from if we are sinless by nature?

JJ mentioned a book by Simon Baron-Cohen earlier.  It is interesting that the 'Product Description' (on Amazon) states that SB-C

... has always wanted to isolate and understand the factors that cause people to treat others as if they were mere objects. In this book he proposes a radical shift, turning the focus away from evil and on to the central factor, empathy. Unlike the concept of evil, he argues, empathy has real explanatory power.

If this is an attempt to do away with the idea of evil, then it is an attempt to do away with a large element of religious thought through the centuries, long pre-dating Judaism, let alone Christianity and Islam.

Probably could be both (sin being poor choices or wrong doing - even though the world 'wrong' can easily be down to interpretation for some things). For example a child might do something wrong without actually realizing its wrong - say the child took a toy from another, just because they wanted it.

Thanks for that, Jan.  It is interesting that you pick up on a point made by Paul in one of his letters; that it is the law that delineates sin - can't remember the exact phraseology - Romans 4:15b; 7:7ff are but two references (and unlike you I have been outside in the garden for most of the afternoon planting and digging [or should that be digging and planting?] and am about to drop off!!)

I'm not sure that anyone doing some thing that they don't know to be wrong can be guilty of sin.  (See Romans ref. above).  Isn't this the background to the idea of age of understanding that exists in many forms of law?

Babies often cry when they see something strange and new and a bit abrupt like for example a rearing horse - mine did anyway - nobody taught them that fear when they were 3 months old.

Remember this being discussed during our Child Development lectures at college, and the tutor pointed out that almost without fail, the baby isn't responding to the new thing itself - but to the parent's own response to it.

These are the sorts of things that affect children's welfare - small things maybe in this case but some children endure awful, awful neglect and their response is one of fear, hurt, pain and chemical affects.

Agreed, JJ, but research also shows that some children respond 'positively' despite all these things, whilst others respond 'negatively'.  At the same time, some children from happy, 'well-balanced' families 'go off the rails', whilst others don't.  To blanket expalin children's welfare in the way you have is to miss out so much of reality.