Evidence for God from Science

Then does not that mean that Adam was born guilty because of his sin nature, or was he not born with it? If he was not born with a sin nature then how can he be currupted?

Who is Adam. If there is No Adam, then who Is Jesus? Why does Adam have to be a real person? I prefer to think positive, men aren't corrupt, if they are pure. If Adam is simply a Metaphor for Everyman then the story makes a lot more sense than if it is about a real person who actually existed. Genesis barely factors into it for me, It is a nice story but greatly out-shined by the gospel. A man willing to Die because He loves everyone, is a lot better a story and kind of makes the question "creation or not", seem kind of irrelevant in my mind. I can quite contradictorily hold multiple positions all at the same time and be very comfortable with those varied propositions, Perhaps there is a god, maybe there isn't, maybe the universe is the mind of god, maybe we are all children of god and Jesus isn't something special after all. I would even speculate if I thought there was any point in making such meaningless/meaningful? Speculations.

If we just try we can wear the mask and be almost perfect. Eventually we can take off that mask and find that the face has grown to fill it and became beautiful.

Your post and your status of "Christian" are contradictory, if your post is indeed what you believe.

RickD wrote:

She was pregnant by the Holy Spirit so in a sense she was betrothed to the Holy Spirit. It would not be fitting (to say the least) to have her carry another man's offspring.

So, then according to Catholicism, Mary was an adulterer, then? If she was "betrothed" to the Holy Spirit, and then married Joseph, was polygamy legal then?

Her betrothal to Joseph was merely a societal witness protection program so-to-speak.

BoniPastoris wrote:Who is Adam. If there is No Adam, then who Is Jesus? Why does Adam have to be a real person?

Jesus and Paul thought he was real. Since they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, I think it would be wise to agree with them.

BoniPastoris wrote:I prefer to think positive, men aren't corrupt, if they are pure.

How does what you "prefer" have any bearing on objective truth?

BoniPastoris wrote:If Adam is simply a Metaphor for Everyman then the story makes a lot more sense than if it is about a real person who actually existed.

What rational objections do you have against Adam being a real person, and by what authority will you make such objections?

BoniPastoris wrote:Genesis barely factors into it for me, It is a nice story but greatly out-shined by the gospel.

Genesis IS gospel.

BoniPastoris wrote:A man willing to Die because He loves everyone, is a lot better a story and kind of makes the question "creation or not", seem kind of irrelevant in my mind.

Again, what does your consideration of what comprises of a "better" story have to do with objective truth?

BoniPastoris wrote:I can quite contradictorily hold multiple positions all at the same time and be very comfortable with those varied propositions.

Being comfortable with irrationality does not make it any less irrational.

BoniPastoris wrote:Perhaps there is a god, maybe there isn't, maybe the universe is the mind of god, maybe we are all children of god and Jesus isn't something special after all. I would even speculate if I thought there was any point in making such meaningless/meaningful? Speculations.

There is no doubt about it. There is a God, and you know that there is. You cannot even function without acknowledging that fact on some level.

BoniPastoris wrote:If we just try we can wear the mask and be almost perfect. Eventually we can take off that mask and find that the face has grown to fill it and became beautiful.

Good luck with that one. Like everyone else who has tried to perfect himself by works, you are doomed to failure. Unfortunately, by denying the gospel of Christ, this is all you have left.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:Your post and your status of "Christian" are contradictory, if your post is indeed what you believe.

Truth is relative to the will of something far beyond a single human being, Human beings are at the same time incredibly complex or quite simple. I would prefer to instead of thinking of myself as one person, to think that I am a Single cell of humanity. If all humans are focused as one will, then the impossible becomes possible. The question is why are they focused.

Oh and, if you find that contradictory then I am sorry for you. I call myself a Christian Because Jesus is my Lord, my friend, my brother, my drinking buddy. Because he is a man not a god. If you are unhappy with all of that then I am willing to budge. Perhaps "Friend of Jesus" would make a lot more sense, than "Christian."

I would love to know Who and What is god, is that something that you are not yourself trying to find the answer. Its a quest worthy of going on even if you can't see the end. To me God is a Emotion not a being and I let that Emotion fill me like a Fire that can never be put out a fire that burns for all reasons that are right. I do what feels right by me, I hope that is what is right by me is that which ought to be right.

So if I ought to not be called a Christian I will change it. I approach the problem intellectually, because that is my Essence. It is what I do and everyone should approach the problem in their own way until they have worked on a solution. I can talk down and up to preachers all day.

To Err is Human, forgiveness Divine.

BoniPastoris wrote:Truth is relative to the will of something far beyond a single human being, Human beings are at the same time incredibly complex or quite simple. I would prefer to instead of thinking of myself as one person, to think that I am a Single cell of humanity.

This statement itself is self-defeating, because it cannot be objectively true.

BoniPastoris wrote:If all humans are focused as one will, then the impossible becomes possible. The question is why are they focused.

Focused on what?

BoniPastoris wrote:Oh and, if you find that contradictory then I am sorry for you. I call myself a Christian Because Jesus is my Lord, my friend, my brother, my drinking buddy. Because he is a man not a god. If you are unhappy with all of that then I am willing to budge. Perhaps "Friend of Jesus" would make a lot more sense, than "Christian."

We have about 2,000 years worth of creeds and confessions that define what a Christian is. You may feel free to disagree with Christian doctrine, but you are not free to redefine it. You are, by definition, not a Christian. As far as being a "friend of Jesus", I'm not sure how his friend could call him a liar by claiming that he was not God.

BoniPastoris wrote:I would love to know Who and What is god, is that something that you are not yourself trying to find the answer. Its a quest worthy of going on even if you can't see the end. To me God is a Emotion not a being and I let that Emotion fill me like a Fire that can never be put out a fire that burns for all reasons that are right. I do what feels right by me, I hope that is what is right by me is that which ought to be right.

How would you begin such a quest to find God?

BoniPastoris wrote:So if I ought to not be called a Christian I will change it. I approach the problem intellectually, because that is my Essence. It is what I do and everyone should approach the problem in their own way until they have worked on a solution. I can talk down and up to preachers all day.

To Err is Human, forgiveness Divine.

I haven't seen anything remotely intellectual in your posts, just unjustified assertions.

puritan lad wrote: I haven't seen anything remotely intellectual in your posts, just unjustified assertions.

Thank you.

BoniPastoris wrote: I do what feels right by me, I hope that is what is right by me is that which ought to be right.

I think this is not a relativist position because it acknowledges a true right.
Depending on ones goals, what is right for someone is always based on a foundation. This foundation can contradict with other foundations. I feel it right to put ourselves to constantly seek what is ought to be right for everyone. We simply can’t live without a belief—explicit or assumed—that moral standards exist. I believe that a true moral standard does exist and can be determined through the bible but is not the ten commandments because they are not exhaustive(I think these commandments though depend on one to be in line with the true moral standard to be able to follow them).

I never heard of this power. Describe its nature, source, effects, and examples.

Unfortunately, dude, that's a lot of esoteric and not a lot of substance.

As was pointed out, the term "Christian" has been defined over the course of 2000 years to mean something, and your definition is not in keeping with this. You can call yourself whatever you want, I suppose, but at least be honest about it. "Friend of Jesus" doesn't mean much if your "Jesus" is completely different than the Christ.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:But he was not of the "seed of Adam". He was born of a woman, but did not inherit the sin nature of mankind because His Father is God.

What of the geneology of Jesus as being of the line of David?

-Nathan

musician wrote:

MarcusOfLycia wrote:But he was not of the "seed of Adam". He was born of a woman, but did not inherit the sin nature of mankind because His Father is God.

What of the geneology of Jesus as being of the line of David?

-Nathan

There are two genealogies of Christ in the NT, and they do not completely agree. There's a lot of different speculation about why that is (and you'd have to go into a lot of issues related to Jewish thinking in this area that is culturally very different than what we think of in terms of standard methods for putting those together today in our society.) The general speculation on it is that one traces through Joseph as the father apparent of Christ, despite his not being the physical father and the other is believed to be traced through Mary who also traced back to David as did Joseph.