Remembering the Barefoot Doctors

[IJ]

I think this all makes sense more or less. It seems that the noninterventional no way to know of him God would never appear in a scientific theory. If he doesn't cause anything we can observe to happen, then there's no reason to suspect him as a cause of anything we're observing and figuring out. I just wouldn't blame scientists for not looking there if that's as he's to be defined.

As for those who see his hands at work all over, that gets a little sketchier. I can't figure out, as well, whether people who are fond of blaming natural disasters on those who won't kowtow to them seriously believe that (are genuine a$$holes) or just working their notoriety like Rush Limbaugh. Well, maybe he's a believer too.

[mhosea]

I heard about Pat Robertson's comments about Haiti. Par for the course, unfortunately. Very predictable.

Which reminds me (in a roundabout way), if you haven't seen them already, do yourself a favor and watch all of Colbert's old "This Week in God" segments from when he was on the Daily Show. They're on the Daily Show's web site. Some of them are brilliant.

[Bill Glasheen]

Robertson and Falwell are not to be associated with typical Christan teachings and thinking. I'm embarrassed to say that both operate out of the state of Virginia (VA Beach and Lynchburg respectively). But that doesn't make them "typical" for Christians in Virginia. Far from it.

- Bill

[mhosea]

I'm sure you're right, but I don't think Robertson is all that atypical for an evangelical or a fundamentalist. He has a great strength of conviction that all calamities are "acts of God" rather than statistically inevitable natural occurrences or what not. This is the view promoted by the Old Testament books (not to mention classical Greek mythology). That's what gets him in trouble every time something bad happens. He's just got to comment somehow on why he thinks God has done this terrible thing to men (or allowed it). Indeed, most Christians, no doubt influenced by scientific advances offering good explanations of what is happening and why, have come to reject such reasoning. However, if you restrict your attention to evangelicals and fundamentalists (never mind how those circles overlap), I think you will find that more than a few agree with Robertson on this point, even if they might also consider it impolitic to mention while the calamity is still in progress.

[Bill Glasheen]

Speaking of which... Duke research on religiosity vs. outcomes shows that belief in a vengeful god leads to poor medical outcomes, while belief in a loving God leads to better outcomes. In other words, there's such a thing as a negative placebo effect. Think that bad things happen to you because you deserve it, and you're likely to go the way of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Some folks cynical are waiting for Pat Robertson to have a perfectly horrible death so they can say it must have been something sinful he was doing in the closet.

- Bill

[IJ]

I'm not waiting for him to have a horrible death. That's just not nice. I'm waiting for a hurricane to fly right to his home and safely destroy the heck out of it. Explain that, mister jerkface. Course, might not be his fault, but rather his ancestors'. God is apparently crushing poor Haitians to death for a deal their ancestors made, so why not (and we worship this guy??).

As for Gomorrah, when that happened modern day, it wasn't sin, it wasn't negative coping, it was just biology. Tempt mother nature with rapid transmission, and many many thousands of promiscuous people and drug users died.

[f.Channell]

I didn't hear Pat Robertson on paying for ancestors sins but he would be wrong according to Ezekiel 18:20.

http://www.gotquestions.org/parents-sin.html

But one can argue if your parents sin (alcoholic for instance) you will have some issues to overcome, so I wouldn't say Ezekiel is 100% right IMHO.

F.

[IJ]

Um, how come everything I've ever heard from not just Robertson but any serious (nonsecular) Christian I've ever talked to about this says that we all bear original sin from the mistakes made back in the Garden? I've heard that women's childbirth pain is a reminder of their fall, that we inherited our sinful nature, and it's no small part of the faith that Christ wasn't just punished but tortured to death and this was necessary to offset the sins of people not yet born (nobody's perfect, but if the theme is you can't get to God without accepting he died for your sins, there must be some serious imperfections to account for). They take it to various levels of seriousness, but it's there. I mean, none of us get to try the garden again, we're all paying for that one from birth.

Worth pointing out there is the occasional verse, and then there is the mass and momentum of culture and tradition.

[mhosea]

Um, how come everything I've ever heard from not just Robertson but any serious (nonsecular) Christian I've ever talked to about this says that we all bear original sin from the mistakes made back in the Garden?

Yes, but the effect of original sin is unique and cannot be compared to what Robertson is talking about. It's best thought of as an inherited physical and character flaws, not inherited punishment. It's not so much that you suffer for the sin per se, but the fact of it affects what you are. There's also the principle of Romans 3:23 (all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God), so at the least the concept of a sinless person who has reached the age of decision (other than Jesus himself, who did not inherit original sin) is a pointless hypothetical--never happens. IIRC, the RCC holds that Mary also did not inherit original sin and also did not sin (at least prior to giving birth to Jesus).

In other words, original sin is the part of the creation+Eden myth that explains why we're not perfect, because obviously a perfect God would have made us perfect.

[Valkenar]

In other words, original sin is the part of the creation+Eden myth that explains why we're not perfect, because obviously a perfect God would have made us perfect.

Well I'm not sure it makes sense to argue the logic of the bible in this thread, but what you've said here *really* isn't logical. Adam and Eve were the only humans God directly created, right? Shouldn't they have been too perfect to commit that original sin, given your "perfect makes perfect" argument?

[Bill Glasheen]

I have second thoughts. Maybe God is malicious.

- Albert Einstein


This quote comes from Jamie Sayen's, Einstein in America (1985). Einstein said this to Vladimir Bargmann, with the meaning that God leads people to believe they understand things that they actually are far from understanding.

...an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the 'old one'. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.

- Albert Einstein


- Bill

[mhosea]

In other words, original sin is the part of the creation+Eden myth that explains why we're not perfect, because obviously a perfect God would have made us perfect.

Well I'm not sure it makes sense to argue the logic of the bible in this thread, but what you've said here *really* isn't logical. Adam and Eve were the only humans God directly created, right? Shouldn't they have been too perfect to commit that original sin, given your "perfect makes perfect" argument?

Yes, it does unravel a bit as you dig down, as absolutes do tend to. What does "perfect" mean anyway? What it means is bound by logic (no?), and the more complex the thing, the more being a certain "thing" at all implies properties that might be construed as imperfections, depending on your point of view. However, to eliminate these perceived imperfections may imply that this thing must be different than what it was intended to be. In other words, God could have made perfect pets, but what he intended to create was something more like friends. A friend must have a real choice. A choice that cannot be made because it is precluded by programming is not a real choice.

Of course your next argument is what kind of "real" choice do I have if I'm going to be thrown into hell otherwise--isn't that duress, and doesn't that undermine the choosing? Ironically, I'm playing devil's advocate here, and at this point I have to defer to somebody who really believes this stuff literally.

[IJ]

Ok, help me out on this:

We didn't inherit blame, just our flawed nature, from the Garden. Ok. But what we inherited wasn't the bad decision, just like we don't inherit bad decisions slaveholding ancestors made. What we actually inherited was a tendency to make free decisions; the sinning once didn't flaw us downstream. Original sin is Original Imperfect Obedience, actually. And that's what God gave us on purpose. Right?

In any case, if knowledge is sin count me down for knowledge gluttony and knowledge lust. I wish I had time for endless access to university education and medical fact. So shoot me, I'm bad.

[f.Channell]

Before science knowledge was found in Religion.
Although defined several ways, agnostic is not knowing.

F.

[mhosea]

What we actually inherited was a tendency to make free decisions; the sinning once didn't flaw us downstream. Original sin is Original Imperfect Obedience, actually. And that's what God gave us on purpose. Right?

Well the "tendency" would not be towards "free" decisions, rather towards disobedient choices. In the garden, the serpent's tempting was necessary, since they were free but weren't naturally inclined to be disobedient, even though they had that capability. Perfection here was being able to disobey but freely choosing not to. After the fall, however, the serpent is optional. That's one way of looking at it. Another way is that, to mix myths, the first sin was like opening Pandora's box, in a twisted, internal sort of way. Original Sin is a convoluted topic, as is the theory of Atonement. There's always Wikipedia.