"How can you call me depraved when I was never praved?" (Line from someone --Ernie Kovacs?)
I'll play.
I too fail to see much of a distinction between totally depraved and completely depraved, unless someone's trying to force one between "deliberately depraved," (doing nasty things for the pleasure of it) and "casually depraved," as in allowing nasty things as a consequence of other things.
An example might be pure sadism versus killing for food or other legitimate or necessary purposes. Certainly a lion killing a gazelle is pretty nasty, but there is no intent to deliver pain for the sake of delivering pain.
Otherwise, it just sounds like a debate as to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin... or maybe just arguing for the sake of arguing.
And Road King Larry, I second your notion as stated in Reply #27:
There's a difference between being good because of an internal code of ethics and being good because of the fear of punishment.
But perhaps the term "G-d's Grace" is just a way to refer to an internal code of ethics for some of us.
This is brushed on in the Roman Catholic Act of Contrition, which goes,
"Oh, my G-d, I am heartily sorry for all my sins because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of Hell, but most of all, because they offend Thee, my G-d, who art all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of thy grace, to confess my sins, to do penance, and to amend my ways, Amen."*
One of the rare instances where there's an indirect reference to what might be called an "externalized but internal code of ethics" if you will. :)
In other words, "the Grace of G-d."
Terry
*As I recall it from decades ago.
