Original Sin?

March 12th, 2014 at 7:05:31 PM permalink
aceofspades
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 49
Posts: 426
Quote: FrGamble
You are exactly wrong, I am saying he is the Son of God because He was the most influential person in human history, who countless people believe in and have a personal experience of and relationship with God through, with, and in Him. Miracles galore have been attributed to His name, power, and love. An institution He founded made up of sinful human beings has existed for some 2,000 years despite its own best attempts to discredit and destroy itself. We could go on and on as to other reasons why Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, Son of the Living God. It is you who want to stop the argument by trying to fool yourself into believing this is only a matter of opinion between us, each lacking or having equally valid proof and evidence on our side. I believe strongly in my evidence and I don't think you have anything but your own opinion and a desire to not talk about it truthfully.




It is opinion…it is you and others who attribute miracles and the like to him. Why would an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being need a son?
March 12th, 2014 at 7:08:18 PM permalink
aceofspades
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 49
Posts: 426
I am unsubscribing to this thread as there is no logic herein and no way to change anyone's minds - rational thought can never win an argument versus faith
Good night and good luck.
Fr Gamble - although we disagree, I respect you as a human being. Best wishes and positive variance.
March 12th, 2014 at 7:21:22 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 303
Posts: 10209
Quote: FrGamble
There really is a quite simply and logical answer to that question - the difference is Jesus actually was the Son of God.


So you believe.

I don't know how to say this without sounding offensive, so I assure you I mean no offense: can you put yourself in other people's frame of mind? try to see things as others see them?

If God and Jesus were real, then, yes, some of the events in the Bible would be, literally, awesome. I can see that if I try. Of course, I can say the same of the Greek gods in the Illiad, or in movies about them.

Quote:
You can actually rely on the most attested to work of the ancient world written only decades after Jesus died at a time where the oral tradition of history was by far the most important way of passing on true stories about events and people.


The oral tradition was very important and widely used. Mnemonic devices were often used.That's why Jews to this day sing when reading the Torah in a synagogue. And why so manu ancient stories are told as poems.

But it was used to pass on stories, not necessarily true stories.

Of course mopst people believed most stories, from Gilgamesh to the Illiad to the Oddissey to the Norse myths to the Bible and even beyond that. All you can say is they were all orally transmitted.

Quote:
You can also rely on thousands and thousands of people who saw Jesus' miracles who would have been quick to squash any rumors of false miracles that supposedly took place or were written down by a few people. Finally, you might want to rely on the millions upon millions of men and women throughout history and still today who believe in Jesus and have seen and felt His miraculous presence and love in their lives.


I've seen people swear to "miracles" by psychics, Mexican medicine-men (it's the term used), astrologers and many others. For that matter there are millions who believe in astrology, numerology, dianetics, etc. The number of adherents to an idea, I've said this before, indicates its popularity. Perhaps also its usefulness, real or illusory in peoples' lives. But not it's validity.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
March 12th, 2014 at 7:22:48 PM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 44
Posts: 4911
Quote: TheCesspit
When was the first book the new Testament written?


The First Letter of St. Paul to the Thessalonians was written circa 49 AD.
March 13th, 2014 at 7:30:33 AM permalink
Face
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 61
Posts: 3061
Quote: FrGamble

First of all to protect us from personal and incorrect interpretation of the Bible we have many safeguards in place that should be followed to avoid the hubris of one person saying, "this is obviously what the author intended..." based on nothing more than an ax to grind and a literal look at the translated words in English. Don't get me wrong we need to look at the literal words and also look at them in their original language, then we have to determine its genre or style in which it is written so as not to take allegory, fable, or poetry to be historical narrative. Next we have to examine the historical context in which the text was written and take into consideration the audience and the person of the author. You need to also look at the context of the passage itself, what comes right before and afterwards, what is its place in the book of the Bible? Is there any other passages from Scripture or the Church Fathers that talk about this same topic or quote this text? How traditionally has this text been interpreted by more knowledgeable and more historically contemporary scholars than us? What does the Magisterium or teaching office of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit to not only compile the books of the Bible but also to authentically interpret them have to say? I hope we can see that the proper interpretation of Scripture can be somewhat complicated and takes some humility and diligence to truly get at not only what the human author but the divine author wanted to communicate through the Word of God.


This bugs me.

The Bible is a book of truths, right? I know many books that are books of truths, we are surrounded by them. I have a service manual for a second generation Honda Civic here, and anything you find in the book exists and is where and how the book says it is. My girl's probabilities textbook is here, and yup, everything in it is true. It can be proven, it works out as good now as it did back in the days of Pythagoras (or whomever). I am surrounded by non-fiction literature, from biological pieces about wildlife of the Northeast to histories of military aircraft to medical text books. Some of the info is recent; the military text is only from the 70's on. The medical, the math? Well, that stretches back generations, into the way back.

To understand them, all one needs do is read. I can't think of a single book of truths that needs anything else. Read ~~> gain understanding. Why is it then that the "ultimate book of truths" requires so much rigamarole?

That's not to say it lacks worth. Aesop's fables are valuable as well. Despite the fact they are stories of fiction, the lessons therein are very real. But "book of truth"? Is there any other book of truth that requires all sorts of special interpretations?
Be bold and risk defeat, or be cautious and encourage it.
March 13th, 2014 at 7:42:57 AM permalink
Face
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 61
Posts: 3061
Quote: Nareed

I don't know how to say this without sounding offensive, so I assure you I mean no offense: can you put yourself in other people's frame of mind? try to see things as others see them?


Not to speak for FrG, but I don't think he can. I've tried to make him see, back when he and I first began speaking, and I think I failed. But, to be fair, can you do the same?

I know I cannot see religion the way he does. I can try, I have tried, and I'll surely try again. But I can't, and I suspect you can't either. It's more than mental, it's "a feel", and feels are hard (impossible) to force.

As an aside, I heard something spoken by Neil deGrasse Tyson that I think deserves consideration...

"As religion is now practiced and science is now practiced, the is no intersection between the two. That is for certain.

And it's not for want of trying. Over the centuries, many people, theologians as well as scientists, have tried to explore points of intersection. And anytime anyone has declared that harmony has risen up, it is the consequence of religion acquiescing scientific discovery.

In every single case."

Is there anything that can be said to combat that quote?
Be bold and risk defeat, or be cautious and encourage it.
March 13th, 2014 at 7:58:44 AM permalink
boymimbo
Member since: Mar 25, 2013
Threads: 5
Posts: 610
Quote: beachbumbabs
I find that Original Sin is a concept I've willfully ignored for decades. And, in thinking about it now, I find I reject the concept as you present it. I think sin is an act of commission, willful or inadvertent, and does not convey in merely being born. I think it was a concept developed by man, not by God, in that you start with a strike against you that must be forgiven, you have already placed a person in a position of supplication to a higher power. God is omnipotent, so He has nothing to prove. Man, on the other hand, in subjugating other men to religious doctrine, wishes to establish the debt. So I see it as a manipulation of the priest class of ancient times, to impose unearned guilt, then to create a path of righteousness to attempt to cleanse that guilt.

The story of Adam and Eve impressed me most as a young woman as an ancient and uneducated attempt to explain the pain and difficulty of childbirth in humans, and to place permanent blame on women over men for human suffering and shame, so that men could assert their God-Given right of superiority over women. Neither of those are particularly attractive concepts to me, though the first is by far the worst. I felt terrified through much of my childhood to think that when it came time for me to bear children, it would be bloody, painful, lengthy, and possibly fatal. I'm not sure I ever left that dread behind. And, as it happens, I did not have any children, and I wonder if that extremely negative presentation of it affected my life to the extent that I avoided it for that very reason.


Wow. I've never thought about it in that way.
March 13th, 2014 at 8:22:25 AM permalink
boymimbo
Member since: Mar 25, 2013
Threads: 5
Posts: 610
I'm Christian.

That said, I don't believe that there was a single Adam and Eve and I don't believe that people lived for 900+ years either before the Ark. With regards to Christianity, I always find myself asking why God sent down Jesus 4000 years after Adam and Eve, if God was perfect? Why do the people before Jesus have a certain path to Heaven, while those after Jesus' death had a different path?

Fascinating.

Anyway, that said, I don't believe in Original sin. Sin is in the eye of the beholder. Heck, Luther defines sin differently than the Catholics (in mind). By definition, for me, we are all born without sin, but our natural progression in development and thought leads us into traditional Biblical sin. We can't help ourselves.

For example, I commit adultery (according to Luther) about 100 or so times a day. But I've actually only commited the biblical act of adultery three times, and that was well after I separated (but not divorced) from my first wife, and I don't consider that adultery, though FrGamble would disagree with me.
March 13th, 2014 at 11:08:35 AM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 47
Posts: 4134
Quote: Nareed
Hell, no. But it makes for a good story.
Passing on history and geography lessons requires a good story since such knowledge would be passed around campfires with the young and old having to have their attention remaining on the story line.

With all our knowledge of vortexes we have no better instruction on how to escape one than in the Oddessy. No claim of reliance on the various gods was made. No institution sought to attach its coat tails to the myths. No con man had a vested interest in making the myths "holy".
March 13th, 2014 at 1:11:55 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 303
Posts: 10209
Quote: Face
But, to be fair, can you do the same?


I said as much in my post.

Fortunately I can turn it on and off at will, and I know I'm "suspending disbelief" when I do it. In fact, I don't think anyone can read as much SF as I do without having this knack.

Quote:
Is there anything that can be said to combat that quote?


Should there be?
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.