Original Sin?

May 23rd, 2014 at 3:37:00 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Quote: FrGamble

The missionaries had an easy time of converting so many people precisely because EVERYONE is familiar with the concept of sin all too well. .


This is an absolute fallacy. They did NOT have an
easy time at all, especially with men. Sin made
no sense to them, and a savior even less sense.
In China it was no picnic either.

"The beliefs were hard to swallow and strange to Chinese."

There, again, most converts were women, and as
soon as the missionaries moved on the people
went back to their old ways almost immediately.

Sin does not exist, it goes against what we see around
us every day.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
May 23rd, 2014 at 5:14:20 PM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
There is no other explination for your incorrect history (look at the success of missionaries still evident today in South America) and denial of sin than you and I must live in parallel universes.
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
May 23rd, 2014 at 6:00:17 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Quote: FrGamble
There is no other explination for your incorrect history (look at the success of missionaries still evident today in South America) and denial of sin than you and I must live in parallel universes.


My history in not incorrect. Some places
were easier than others to convert. In
China it was very difficult because the
Chinese don't think that way. To them
it was nonsense. The native Calif people
were just not very bright, if they couldn't
see it with their eyes, it was hard for them
to understand.

I've been asking for somebody to prove sin
exists since the late 60's, and so far nobody
has even tried. It's a useful concept if you
want to scare people, but it has very little validity.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
November 23rd, 2014 at 12:31:41 PM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
Quote: Face

But I was thinking more of human history rather than Christianity specifically. In the entire existence of religion and science, has there ever been one thing, just one, where religion has been found to be absolutely right and science absolutely wrong? It is my belief that religion is the Washington Generals vs science's Harlem Globetrotters, but I accept that I may be wrong.


I'm kind of going back a bit with this post, but something Face said awhile ago [quoted above] kind of stuck in my craw and I wanted to resurrect it (I like resurrections).

I recently was studying the Periodic Table, yeah I'm kind of a nerd, and it and its history are truly amazing and important. A Russian scientist named Dimitri Mendeleev had a huge role to play in the formation of the table as we know it today. In fact element 101 is now named after him. Back in the middle of the 19th century we obviously had not discovered all the elements we have today so putting together the list or table of them was a big puzzle. It seemed like some of the elements fit together in a perfect periodic way, but then others seemed to randomly interact. That was kind of the way it was and this was accepted, "hey man the world isn't orderly, it is random get over it." But Dimitri calling upon his faith in God couldn't get over it. He knew by faith that nature was going to fall into discernible patterns and he determined that the problem was we just hadn't discovered the right elements yet. Based on his faith in an orderly God who created the universe he suggested that there were a few missing elements and even identified their characteristics and gave them sandscript names for when they were discovered, which he believed would be only a matter of time. Interestingly, one of these missing elements was discovered during his lifetime and when the numbers didn't match his predictions, he declared them to be wrong!?! He was looked at as kind of crazy until he turned out to be correct. Anyway I just saw it as another example of someone's faith in God leading to a discovery that science had to catch up with, but eventually proved to be correct.

p.s. His childhood is amazing as well especially his mom.
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
November 23rd, 2014 at 1:06:08 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Quote: FrGamble
another example of someone's faith in God leading to a discovery that science had to catch up with, but eventually proved to be correct.


How about famous scientists who have no
faith at all, like Edison. He said: "I have never
seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious
ideas of heaven and hell, of future life for
individuals, or of a personal God."

Better yet, there's Stephen Hawking. He says:

"Science can explain the universe, and that we don't
need God to explain why there is something rather
than nothing or why the laws of nature are what they are."

And: "Theology is unnecessary. It's a fairy story for people afraid of the dark."

You're reverse engineering again. You see a person
of god who accomplishes something and immediately
credit his faith. What credit do you give Hawking and
Edison (and the long list of others I could name), did
they do it by blind luck? They did it with perseverance,
just like your guy did. God had nothing to do with it.

More Hawking:

"Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn't. I'm an atheist."
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
November 23rd, 2014 at 1:14:05 PM permalink
aceofspades
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 83
Posts: 2019
Why would "God" waste its time on creating an entire universe (and, apparently, whatever came before it and will come after it) so that humankind could worship it? Is "God" that insecure? bored?
November 23rd, 2014 at 2:27:40 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Quote: aceofspades
Why would "God" waste its time on creating an entire universe (and, apparently, whatever came before it and will come after it) so that humankind could worship it? Is "God" that insecure? bored?


An old question but still a good one. Man
has a giant ego, so he creates a god with
a giant ego, who rewards and punishes man
for worshiping him or not. It's a primitive
society idea when known science consisted
of how to make fire and that's about it.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
November 23rd, 2014 at 4:28:23 PM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
The whole point of my example of Mendeleev is that God did have something to do with his discovery. If he was an atheist he would have said, "the way nature works doesn't have to make sense or form patterns, after all it is a big cosmic accident anyway." Instead this great scientist saw that the absence of a pattern in the elemental nature of things was just a sign that science was lagging behind. God the creator has fine tuned things to make sense and be understandable and therefore he knew before science had the evidence that there were missing elements. When they were discovered they fit nicely into his chart and the patterns were seen.

As far as Edison and Hawking are concerned they are brilliant men and great scientists, but boy are they lousy philosophers and theologians. I think we have already covered that looking for scientific proof for things that are spiritual and beyond the realm of the observable material universe is silly. Also what convincing argument could science ever make for explaining why the universe exists? Science cannot explain why there is something rather than nothing and they never will. If I am wrong please show me, what is science's answer to why there is something rather than nothing?
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
November 23rd, 2014 at 4:32:58 PM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
Quote: aceofspades
Why would "God" waste its time on creating an entire universe (and, apparently, whatever came before it and will come after it) so that humankind could worship it? Is "God" that insecure? bored?


Why would you assume God was insecure or bored? Could it not be that God wanted to share the amazing gift of life, freedom, intellect, will, and the ability to love? A God who is truly love would not keep these things only to Himself but would desire to share them with others and to create people who share in His image and likeness. This is not insecurity or boredom, but pure unadulterated grace!
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
November 23rd, 2014 at 4:33:33 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Quote: FrGamble
but boy are they lousy philosophers and theologians.


They don't pretend to be either. That's like
saying your archbishop is a lousy plumber,
or your plumber would make a lousy
archbishop. All Edison and Hawking said is
they have no use for theology, why would
they. There is a point when you get beyond
it, you just have no desire to get there.

And that's fine, what you do makes you happy,
that's what counts. Follow your bliss, as Joseph
Campbell says.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.