Original Sin?

Quote: Dalex64

Ok, meat on Friday.

From https://www.ewtn.com/faith/lent/fast.htm/

Pennance is a devine command.
Not performing a devine command is sinful.
It was a devine command, and therefore sinful, to eat meat on fridays.
The rules have changed. The divine command was changed. What is considered sinful has changed. Morality has changed.
Men are making these changes. Men are deciding what is moral, and when.

Nothing has changed at all.

The divine command of penance is still being performed. You just don't need to abstain for meat on Friday as your penance outside of Lent. There are other ways to fulfill your penance and divine command than eating a fish sandwich. The rule of doing penance has not changed at all and certainly the divine command was not changed. The only thing that changed is letting people know that you can "substitute a penitential, or even charitable, practice of their own choosing." Really how penitential is it to eat a huge crabcake on Friday and pretend to be doing penance?

Quote: Evenbob

It's not a fallacy, and it's straight line reasoning,

Please draw the straight line between "kid with great musical talent" to "was a great musician in a former life".

Quote:

The word 'regrettable' is yours, not mine. You
cannot offend a being that doesn't exist, the
whole argument is meaningless. And boring.
Like talking about a unicorns horn. Waste of
time.

Actually regrettable was the word used in definition 1.1 by the Oxford dictionary you quoted. For the last time I'm not talking about offending God because you have said over and over that you think that is impossible because 1) there is no God and 2) even if there was a God He could never care enough about us to be hurt by anything we did, that would be the height of pride in your book. So can we please let that definition of sin go. I'm not trying to trick you or anything. I just think it is important for you to realize that human beings deal with and feel the weight of their own regrettable mistakes outside of any religious context or ideology. Just emotionally, psychologically, and even physically what is often called our sins (again no reference to God) effects us and calls out for healing. I hope you can see that or at least understand this point without reverting back to your tired refrain, "but sin is all about God!"

Quote:

'The word "apocrypha" means "of questionable authenticity." These are called non canonical books because when the canon of Scriptures (the sixty six books of the Old and New Testaments) was accepted by the early Christians, they recognized that these books (the apocrypha) contained spurious material and therefore were not inspired of God. Other names for these books are "hidden" or "deuterocanonical" books. These books are also called "pseudepigraphal", meaning "false writings", to designate them as spurious and unauthentic books of the late centuries B. C. and early centuries A. D. These books contain religious folklore and have never been considered inspired of God by biblical Christians from the earliest times of churches.... These books were not accepted by the Roman Catholic church until 1546 in the Council of Trent. Therefore for over 1300 years, since the inception of the Roman Church in the fourth Century, even they did not consider them inspired.' http://bible-truth.org/Apocrypha.html

You see this everywhere, the truth. Must seem
odd to you.

Sadly, I think you know what is coming. I myself am amazed that every single point in the above paragraph is wrong. I'm not talking just wrong from a Catholic perspective or opinion, but factually and historically wrong.
-the word "apocrypha" means "obscure" or "hidden"
-the early Christians used the Septuagint (LXX) which included the deuterocannonical aka apocryphal books
-"deuterocanonical" means 2nd canon, referring to the fact that these writing were written in Greek so while not accepted in the Hebrew canon were accepted in the second or Greek canon.
-they are not referred to as "false writings"
-early Christians have always considered these books inspired of God and this was never seriously doubted until the Martin Luther
-the canon of Scriptures was first formally identified in the Synod of Rome in 382 AD and confirmed in the Council of Hippo in 393 AD including the Deuterocanonical books in question.
-therefore the ending of your quote is completely backwards, the Roman Catholic Church, or let's just say the Christian Church because that was all there was at that time, considered these books inspired from at least the fourth century on and still does today.

You see now the truth.

Quote: FrGamble

Please draw the straight line between "kid with great musical talent" to "was a great musician in a former life".

You're kidding, right? The line doesn't get
any straighter. It also makes sense, which
religion never ever does.

Quote:

I hope you can see that or at least understand this point without reverting back to your tired refrain, "but sin is all about God!"

No matter how hard you try, or how you
try and twist the concept, sin and god
exist together as intellectual concepts.
You cannot separate them, it's like trying
to take the 'H' out of H2O and still expect
it to be water. To discuss sin, you must
discuss god. There is no god, so there is
no discussion. Surely you see that.

Quote:

every single point in the above paragraph is wrong.

I'm batting 1000%, then. I've gotten to the
point where if you say it's wrong, then of
course it's mostly right. What you mean is,
it's not what your cult has taught you. That's
fine, you have to live that way, not me.

Quote: Evenbob

You're kidding, right? The line doesn't get
any straighter. It also makes sense, which
religion never ever does.

Why does reincarnation make more sense than God gave him that gift, or he just naturally has an inclination to music, or the kid is an alien from a musical planet disguised as a human? A logical straight line argument moves by careful steps that can't be refuted. You are taking leaps and bounds. It is okay to do this but it would be helpful if you could explain better why you are taking such a leap of faith for reincarnation.

Quote:

No matter how hard you try, or how you
try and twist the concept, sin and god
exist together as intellectual concepts.

No, sin does not have to exist as an intellectual concept. There are other ways to look at sin that for some unknown reason you will not do. Sin can be simply defined as a regrettable mistake, fault, or omission. Surely that is not just an intellectual concept is it? Why do you think we cannot talk about sin without talking about God? I understand that one definition of sin is offending God, but it is not the only definition.

Quote:

To discuss sin, you must
discuss god. There is no god, so there is
no discussion. Surely you see that.

What I surely see is that you do not want to discuss sin and its existence outside of the religion and God. I respect that.

Quote:

I'm batting 1000%, then.

It is your sources that are at fault not you. Instead of lamenting, complaining, or getting snide why don't you respond to my corrections. Show they are wrong for example or God forbid agree that you were wrong and you are thankful to learn something new.

Quote: FrGamble

why you are taking such a leap of faith for reincarnation.

Science is now a leap of faith? I don't think so.

Quote:

No, sin does not have to exist as an intellectual concept.

But it does, and a religious concept at
that. You cannot separate sin from
religion, without god sin has no meaning.

Quote:

What I surely see is that you do not want to discuss sin

Discussing something that is nonexistent
is pointless. Aren't you tiring of trying
to turn sin into something it's not?

Quote:

It is your sources that are at fault not you.

I must have a world record for citing
wrong sources. Or they're right
and you're wrong, mostly. My money
is on the latter, nobody can get it
wrong like I have every single time.

Quote: Evenbob

You cannot separate sin from
religion, without god sin has no meaning.

Without God people don't make mistakes that they regret?

Quote:

nobody can get it
wrong like I have every single time.

If you keep using sources that are wrong and not willing to seriously consider these things I'm afraid you are destined to continue your streak. I could be wrong about some of these things, but in this case I am not. I'm sure if I was you would have pointed it out by now.

Quote: FrGamble

Without God people don't make mistakes that they regret?
.

They don't sin. I don't sin. You only
sin because you believe you do.
(but in reality you don't)

"Without God people don't make mistakes that they regret?"

Quote: Evenbob

They don't sin. I don't sin. You only
sin because you believe you do.
(but in reality you don't)

We don't call mistakes sin, we call them
mistakes. We don't obsess over them and
worry we've insulted a higher power. How
vain would that be. We just move on like
normal people.

In a movie last night a young guy is telling
the priest about an erotic dream he had. The
priest says 'if you've sinned in your mind,
you've sinned.' Good grief, how ridiculous.

Quote: Evenbob

We don't call mistakes sin, we call them
mistakes. We don't obsess over them and
worry we've insulted a higher power. How
vain would that be. We just move on like
normal people.

I got a sense that your use of mistake here is quite minor. With these minor mistakes we just move on like normal people. However, I think you will agree that there is a gradation in the mistakes we make. Some can be quite serious. We might call these more serious mistakes, regrettable or maybe even sinful (not in a religious sense mind you, just to emphasize they are different then something minor). These serious mistakes should still not be obsessed over, but they also should not just be ignored or moved past. They often involve others and the need for discussion, reparation, and reconciliation. We often need to recover a sense of confidence and be reminded of our goodness after we have made such regrettable actions. This is all healthy and a good thing. I know you will agree that we all make mistakes and I hope you will also see that some mistakes, which may be called sins in a secular sense to show their seriousness or you can choose any other word you wish, require more than just moving on.

Quote:

'if you've sinned in your mind,
you've sinned.' Good grief, how ridiculous.

Where is the beginning of all sinful actions?

Quote: FrGamble

I got a sense that your use of mistake here is quite minor.

You used the word first, not me. We call
really big mistakes 'crimes' and have a
judicial system to deal with those, all
countries do. To me, this is a useless
discussion. You're trying force your points
about the unicorns horn on people who
don't believe they exist. You can make
up a game about how your mistakes are
really an offense against a god, if that
boosts your ego. It's all vainglorious nonsense
to me.

Vainglorious is an interesting word. It dates
to the 14th century and means 'worthless
glory'. "Inordinate pride in oneself; excessive vanity."

Christians revel in announcing they are sinners
all the time. They thrash around in vaingloriosness,
bragging that they are sooooo important, their
tiniest thought or action has the enthralled attention
of a god. They're so wrapped up in their narcissism
that being around them for any length of time is
a trying experience. I recommend staying as far
away as possible.

Quote:

Where is the beginning of all sinful actions?

Because sin doesn't exist, there are no sinful
actions. It's like asking what country unicorns
are born in. The correct answer is always 'huh?'