Original Sin?

Quote: Nareed

You keep saying that, as if repetition will make it true.

I learn from watching you.

Quote:

If we knew morality innately, there'd be no need to teach children anything about how to behave.

This doesn't follow. Knowing something innately is not to know it precisely or even to have explicit knowledge.

Quote:

the Bible and other "holy" books wouldn't be filled with immoral rules, such as the keeping of slaves, the objectification of women, the hostility towards other religions, etc.

Our innate sense of what is morally true and good protects us from these false interpretations of the Bible. The only way you can get these crazy ideas is to read the Bible wanting to find certain proof texts and examples. You are constantly fighting against the vast majority of the Bible in trying to make it say what it simply does not.

Quote:

In particular as regards killing people in particular, human sacrifice wouldn't have been so prevalent in various societies if everyone innately knew it was wrong to kill. What kind of deity would demand human sacrifices, if it were something everyone innately knew to be immoral?

No kind of deity at all. Whatever it was demanding human sacrifice you can be sure it was not God. The only way these human sacrifices would work is by instilling great fear and mystery. The innate sense that it was wrong to kill someone took at lot to overcome. The victim was often silenced from crying out or objectified and dehumanized. Anything to get someone to override their heart telling them this is just not right. This kind of intense activity so obviously contrary to the moral law doesn't stay along too long.

Quote:

That's the payoff, isn't it? That's how you can hook people through unearned guilt.

This makes no sense, consider rephrasing or explaining.

Quote: FrGamble

There is no sin because there is no God and because there is no God there can't be sin.

YES! You got it. God and sin are connected at
the hip, one can't exist without the other.
God came first, then came sin. But there is
no god, so sin is just your imagination at
work. You can't offend a god that isn't
there. Your whole problem is you assume
god exists and it colors all your thinking.
I labor under so such delusion, so I can
see things clearly. I don't envy you at all,
always trying to make sense of things
with such a large handicap on your shoulders.

Quote:

Like reincarnation or that God doesn't exist.

Problem is, there is evidence for reincarnation,
and there is none for a god. Also, reincarnation
would explain much. Child prodigy's, for example.
A 3 year is writing music because he did so in
his previous life. It would explain ghosts, which
have been reported in every culture since the
dawn of time. It would explain many suicides.
People know instinctively they aren't really
killing their true self, they just want to start
over again.

Quote: FrGamble

Again are you suggesting the concept of doing something regrettable that upset their deity was a foreign idea? .

Pretty much. Indians didn't have a personal
god, it was a vague concept of a Great Spirit.
They had no word for the concept of sin.

Why are you changing the definition of sin
from offending god, to 'something regrettable'.
That makes it sound like you farted in an
elevator and regrettably upset god.



“Our religion seems foolish to you, but so does yours to me.” – Sitting Bull, 1889

"The Mohawks and other native tribes were incredulous and dazed by the childlike beliefs espoused by the Catholic missionaries who attempted to convert them to Christianity."

"For the most part, Native Americans were ambivalent towards the cultural and religious influences of the Europeans. Of course, this angered the European missionaries and discouraged a few."

"Denial" isn't just a river in Egypt.

Strongly reinforced is my idea that people pick and choose which lines of the bible are straight-up truth, and which lines are... misinterpreted.

Quote: Dalex64

Strongly reinforced is my idea that people pick and choose which lines of the bible are straight-up truth, and which lines are... misinterpreted.

That's nothing. The Catholics have added their
own books and declared them just as valid as
the rest of the Bible.

Quote: Evenbob

God and sin are connected at
the hip, one can't exist without the other.
God came first, then came sin. But there is
no god, so sin is just your imagination at
work.

So this is why you refuse to entertain discussing sin outside of a connection to God? You like your neat circular reasoning and are scared to venture outside of it.

Quote:

Problem is, there is evidence for reincarnation,
and there is none for a god.

why couldn't all the evidence you present for reincarnation also be used to show that there is a God?

Quote:

Child prodigy's, for example.
A 3 year is writing music because he did so in
his previous life...It would explain many suicides.
People know instinctively they aren't really
killing their true self, they just want to start
over again.

Putting aside the offensive and uncharitable view of suicide in both these cases of evidence you are doing the textbook example of begging the question. A music prodigy is evidence of reincarnation because in a previous life he played music. These fallacies are related to circular reasoning, see above.

Quote: Evenbob

Pretty much.

What does this mean? It is my contention that Native Americans like every culture in the world, including those who don't even believe in God, have a sense of atonement for wrongdoing between their God (if they have one) and/or between members of the community and/or reconciling their mistake inside themselves as well.

This is why you are limiting yourself to defining sin as only regrettable actions that offend God. That covers a lot of bases that just about every culture agrees with, but what about secular atheists. They too make mistakes that are regrettable, serious ones we are talking about, and need to have a sense of forgiveness and reconciliation if not with God, with themselves and others.

By the way would you mind providing sources for these quotes you are throwing around?

Quote: Evenbob

That's nothing. The Catholics have added their
own books and declared them just as valid as
the rest of the Bible.

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Christianity and the History of the Bible will know that the Bible was put together by the Catholic Church long before Protestants came unto the scene. What you mean to say is that Catholics did not cut from the Bible some of the books the Protestant reformers wanted to declare invalid.

Quote:

“Wives, be subject to your husband, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them. Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged. Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord.” Colossians 3:18-22

FrGamble, Is this quote out of context? Would you care to explain its meaning to me? Is the line before it "Listen! Jesus did not say something like this:"

Your other statement, that we should follow the spirit of the words of the bible, or the meaning of the words, or the teaching of christ, does that need to be followed by "but don't go looking at the actual words, expecially when they are contradicting what we tell you the words of the bible mean."

I know I am getting mean spirited and sarcastic. I'm getting frustrated by, I don't even know how to describe it - a little close-mindedness, blinders, blind-faith, selective reading, something.

The most frustrating part is -
We are told what the rules are
We are told that the bible has taught us these rules
The bible has other rules, but we aren't supposed to follow those ones
Who decided, and how did they decide, which rules in the new testament we are supposed to follow, and which ones we are not?
Why has the list of rules that we are supposed to follow changed over time?

I've been focusing on slavery. That quote there I found, following up on Nareed mentioning the rules regarding women in the bible. One of those r

If slavery is so wrong, why is it only the Isrealites should be set free? Were they planning on handling everyone one group at a time, but just didn't get to it by the publication deadline?

I am also trying to focus on the new testament, and catholics and christianity in particular, so we can all talk from our positions of experience and comfort.

Dalex I understand and share your frustration with those who have a blind-faith Sola Scriptura understanding of the Bible. That seems to be your fundamental problem. You and many others think Christians believe that the Bible stands for Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth. It is not some type of rule book to be taken literally in every instance. How could you imagine a text thousands of years old could lay out to the letter the instructions we would need today? It is a sacred text, inspired by the Holy Spirit to reveal to us what we need for our salvation. It is not a how to book, it is not a science textbook, it is not even technically a history book through it often deals with historical facts. It is a collection of books really, put together by the Catholic Church so that with the Traditions of the Church and its official teachings it can teach us about God and our salvation. Trying to separate the Bible from its source leads to many of the problems and misinterpretations because people can take any text and make it what they want it to say, not what God through the Church wants it to say.

It reminds me of a discussion Nareed and I were having about the Shawshank Redemption a while ago. I said that Andy got the beer for his bubs just because he wanted to feel normal again and not for any advantage of his, it was sacrificial. Nareed disagreed. When I pointed out that the narrator, serving as the divine voice of the movie, makes it clear that I was correct she responded that she was free to think about it anyway she wanted and she disagreed with the author. That is of course her pejorative, but if you are not going to trust the author of the book let's own the fact that you are making up your own interpretation.

Quote: Dalex

The most frustrating part is -
Who decided, and how did they decide, which rules in the new testament we are supposed to follow, and which ones we are not?
Why has the list of rules that we are supposed to follow changed over time?

The Church decided and they decided through prayer and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I don't know what list of rules you are talking about that changed?

Changed rule: when to cover your head
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_headcovering/

Changed rule: how to treat your slaves. Rule now: free your slaves.

When it is ok to kill - see various church sanctioned "convert or die" examples in history.

The list of rules that the church says you must follow changes.

Quote: Dalex64

Changed rule: when to cover your head
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_headcovering/

really? We also changed to allow the eating of meat on Fridays too.

Quote:

Changed rule: how to treat your slaves. Rule now: free your slaves.

You should probably read St. Paul's Letter to Philemon again, it is about freeing slaves. Of course there are also those in prison, a type of ancient slavery in that case the rules to treatment are important, same thing for those who were indentured servants or working off a debt, all called slaves at that time. If you are trying to say that because the Bible has rules about the treatment of ancient slaves it is a type of pro-slavery book you are changing the rules of logic and the meaning of the texts and the idea of slavery at that time.

Quote:

When it is ok to kill - see various church sanctioned "convert or die" examples in history.

Never happened. The Church has never officially sanctioned any type of convert or die activity. The crusades were protecting Christians and Holy places, the Inquisition was only concerned with those who professed to be Catholic. We have consistently taught forever that forced conversions are no conversions at all.