Original Sin?

Quote: pew

I don't know what religion your describing but it ain't Christianity.

So it doesn't teach eternal rewards or
eternal punishment? Don't tell my
Baptist bro-in-law minister, he's been
preaching just that for 45 years.

Quote: buzzardknot

During the 2016 election, Francis criticized Trump’s call for a border wall between the US and Mexico, saying any person who supported such policies “is not Christian”.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/05/us-cardinal-raymond-burke-stokes-papal-tensions-by-meeting-nationalist-in-rome.

Looks like at least 100 million Americans are not Christians!

In that you can't possibly be both a Trumper and a true Christian, I would have to agree. Christianity preaches love and tolerance, which are antithetical to the Trumper mindset (to the extent that Trumpers have minds) and philosophy (ditto).

STINKY, you are truly amazing

Quote: Evenbob

So it doesn't teach eternal rewards or
eternal punishment? Don't tell my
Baptist bro-in-law minister, he's been
preaching just that for 45 years.

Eternal reward and punishment is not what I was referring to, rather your statement that it has to do with how you act or think. If your bro in law thinks it does he doesn't know the gospel and someone should tell him exactly that because he's doing a great dis-service to his congregation.

Quote: pew

Eternal reward and punishment is not what I was referring to, rather your statement that it has to do with how you act or think. If your bro in law thinks it does he doesn't know the gospel and someone should tell him exactly that because he's doing a great dis-service to his congregation.

Well said pew.

Bob, I never claimed that just because the idea that we naturally feel we should bear the consequences of our actions is the oldest of ideas it was true. I do however think it is something we inherently feel is just. This is what makes the newness of Christ's teaching so radical and exhilarating as Pew points out. The only thing I understand about your position is a desire to avoid the reality of death, another ancient idea. I don't understand though how you take such scant and inconclusive evidence and think you have to be correct, especially when with much more and substantial evidence you condemn me.

Quote: pew

he doesn't know the gospel and someone should tell him.

I would never presume to tell him anything,
he has a masters degree in theology. He
knows the gospels inside and backwards.
He was on the deans list in college and
valedictorian of his HS class. He's a smart
cookie.

So nobody goes to heaven or hell for their
deeds or thoughts in Christianity, then. Is
that the story you want to stick with?

Quote: FrGamble

I don't understand though how you take such scant and inconclusive evidence .

And you think you have any evidence at
all that god exists or Jesus was anything
except a reformed rabbi? You do not,
and you know you do not. We've been
discussing this for over two years and
you really want to go down that long
road again? What would be the point.

Quote: Evenbob

And you think you have any evidence at
all that god exists or Jesus was anything
except a reformed rabbi? You do not,
and you know you do not. We've been
discussing this for over two years and
you really want to go down that long
road again? What would be the point.

Maybe, just maybe, if we keep discussing it you will realize that logic, history, philosophy, science, anthropology, and psychology all provide some clear evidence that God exists and that Jesus is the Christ. It is certainly more evidence then you have to make a statement that there is no God, because you have no evidence or even a coherent argument. It is also much more than the inconclusive evidence you have about reincarnation. By the way, I do acknowledge that there is evidence for reincarnation in the form of the studies you have cited. I find it very far from being conclusive or credible, but I do see how you and the scientists performing such investigations can look at the evidence and say it points to reincarnation. I guess my burden of proof is just much higher than yours.

Quote: FrGamble

Maybe, just maybe, if we keep discussing it you will realize that logic, history, philosophy, science, anthropology, and psychology all provide some clear evidence that God exists and that Jesus is the Christ.

It provides the evidence if you have set
out with it in mind to show all those
things are true. That's the polar opposite
of how the scientific method works. Maybe
you want to find evidence that witches cast
spells and cause crop failures and still births.
If you look properly, you can prove that to
yourself all day long.

If you try to prove the Jesus myth is true using
the scientific method, you will very soon
hit a brick wall. For it to be true, you first have
to be convinced it is true. If you're an impartial
investigator, it's just a fanciful story that resembles
many myths from that period.

Quote:

I guess my burden of proof is just much higher than yours.

You can't use 'proof' and 'Christianity' in the same
sentence, they cancel each other out. You can't
even prove sin exists, let alone the need for a god
to save us from it.

Quote: Evenbob

It provides the evidence if you have set
out with it in mind to show all those
things are true. That's the polar opposite
of how the scientific method works.

Are you familiar with a hypothesis. A very important step in the scientific process is to take an educated guess as to why a certain thing happens and what will happen if this or that happens and why you think that. Then you proceed with the experiments and the collecting of evidence and data and objectively use the data to evaluate your hypothesis to see if your idea was confirmed or not. There are lots of things that confirm the hypothesis that there is a God (N.B. this is very different than proving something to be true). I have yet to see anything that even comes close to being a confirmation of the hypothesis that there is no God.

Quote:

You can't
even prove sin exists, let alone the need for a god
to save us from it.

You are using proof so recklessly and you do this all the time. Unless you are talking about logic, mathematics, or personal experiences I find it hard to use such a strong word. What in your life can you prove to another?

In regards to sin I have learned that in dealing with you there needs to be a clear distinction made between sin in a religious sense and sin in a universal human experience sense. You have said over and over that you don't think that any of our actions or thoughts can offend God and that is the only definition of sin you seem to accept. When asked why you think this is impossible you simply say there is no God. Ignoring the circularity of your argument I am happy to concede that you as an atheist do not think religious sin exists. Can we be done with this now?

Okay, so what about sin in a universal human experience sense. How would we define this? I would offer it is that notion in every individual that is reflected in every culture or religion or ideology that we all fall short of our own expectations not to mention those of the community. We all realize that even the things I myself want to do I fail at and those I don't want to do I still do at times. It is almost a cliché to say, "I'm only human." to explain away some mistake. We fall short of some mysterious high bar that we hold ourselves to and this experience is also sin. What do you think? Do you agree that this type of "secular sin" exists in every human person?