If we were created in God's image and all born sinners... what does that say about God?

[twa]

[/color]

Well then why would humans be created with such drastic differences in their "orignal sin" level....so to speak?

Err, there were only two created under my beliefs...unless ya consider parents creators(which totally ignores the science of the egg and sperm)

Why are there such drastic differences in people period?....we got all kinds and most is directly traceable to genetics/biochemical structure.

Is original sin the origin of the genetic entropy factor or random mutation in humans?

http://store.nwcreation.net/geenmyofge.html

A geneticist from a major university, Dr. John Sanford examines the validity of evolution’s Primary Axiom—that man is merely the result of random mutations plus natural selection. This revolutionary book details compelling new genetic evidence that the human genome is deteriorating, and has always been deteriorating due to accumulations of mutations. The more scientists discover about the human genome, the less plausible Darwinism is. Dr. Sanford systematically lays out the scientific case against mutations resulting in the origin of species. A must read for every biologist or person interested in biology.

[No Excuses]

Dr. John Sanford? You're better than that twa. .

[twa]

Dr. John Sanford? You're better than that twa. .

Is he not a credentialed scientist?.....Should I ignore him and instead listen to a student of the Bible?

Has his decades of learning and teaching made him mad?

Ya'll are a fickle crowd :pfft:

[PeterMP]

Err, there were only two created under my beliefs...unless ya consider parents creators(which totally ignores the science of the egg and sperm)

Why are there such drastic differences in people period?....we got all kinds and most is directly traceable to genetics/biochemical structure.

Is original sin the origin of the genetic entropy factor or random mutation in humans?

http://store.nwcreation.net/geenmyofge.html

A geneticist from a major university, Dr. John Sanford examines the validity of evolution’s Primary Axiom—that man is merely the result of random mutations plus natural selection. This revolutionary book details compelling new genetic evidence that the human genome is deteriorating, and has always been deteriorating due to accumulations of mutations. The more scientists discover about the human genome, the less plausible Darwinism is. Dr. Sanford systematically lays out the scientific case against mutations resulting in the origin of species. A must read for every biologist or person interested in biology.

The concept of genetic entropy is a garbage term like microevolution

Random mutations are the result of the interplay of the laws of thermodynamics, including entropy- at their heart.

[twa]

The concept of genetic entropy is a garbage term like microevolution

Random mutations are the result of the interplay of the laws of thermodynamics, including entropy- at their heart.

So since original sin couldn't start the laws of thermodynamics,were Adam and Eve exempt/shielded?

[No Excuses]

Is he not a credentialed scientist?.....Should I ignore him and instead listen to a student of the Bible?

Has his decades of learning and teaching made him mad?

Ya'll are a fickle crowd :pfft:

He is completely wrong when he argues that beneficial mutations are not selected for.

You should use credentialed scientists who know what they are talking about. :pfft: (Not advocating you use a student of the Bible either, I'm not religious)

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030170

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v419/n6909/full/nature01140.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v413/n6855/full/413514a0.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC19901/

[Kosher Ham]

Believing in a virgin mother (without the science to make it possible) should make any person question their beliefs. Now, then, next week, whenever.

Someone did explain to me once a theory about the word "virgin" not having the same meaning as many of us would explain the meaning today.

Unfortunately most people I talk to wholly believe she was indeed a virgin by today's meaning.

[twa]

Believing in a virgin mother (without the science to make it possible) should make any person question their beliefs. Now, then, next week, whenever.

Science makes miracles possible?.......Are you scamming me?

Wouldn't science enabling it make it not miraculous? :confused:

Can we just sacrifice a virgin after bleeding her with leeches and call it a day?

[CrabR]

Because God is also Justice, your "God is love" and nothing else thinking just ignores so much of who God truly is, in favor of what you want God to be.

I dont think i could stone a old man for picking up sticks on the sabbath, guess My idea of love and Justice is different than yours

Num 15 32 While the Israelites were in the wilderness, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.” 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.

The whole concept of Hell shows he is neither love nor Justice

[Kosher Ham]

Science makes miracles possible?.......Are you scamming me?

Wouldn't science enabling it make it not miraculous? :confused:

Can we just sacrifice a virgin after bleeding her with leeches and call it a day?

*chuckles*

It's not a scam. We can actually replace peoples bad hearts these days. That is amazing indeed.

Why waste a virgin ? Does it have to be a female virgin, or can it be one of the virgin guys that post here ? Let's negotiate terms.

[btfoom]

A somewhat sincere, but mostly troublemaking thought for a Sunday morning. If we were all created in God's image, if God created us and yet we are all born wicked... well, does that mean God is good or a bit well...

Certainly, when we are speaking of being created in his image that speaks to the soul and not our physical appearance.... beauty is only skin deep, after all. I'm not sure what I'm looking with thought, but it intrigued me and so I put it out there. I don't truly mean to offend and I apologize if I do, but it's one of the beliefs that always has baffled me a bit.

(For what it's worth, I personally don't believe we are all born sinners. I think sin is a result of nurture versus nature in most cases)

It says nothing about God, it says lots about your lack of understanding of the Bible.

[techboy]

Believing in a virgin mother (without the science to make it possible) should make any person question their beliefs. Now, then, next week, whenever.

I'd agree with the idea of questioning every belief, but why should we single out the virgin birth? Just because it's a miracle?

Is it because we can allow for the existence of God, but although He could create the universe and everything in it, he couldn't make a woman become pregnant without her having had sex?

Or is it because we must reject any story of the supernatural out of hand, by definition?

Something else?

I dont think i could stone a old man for picking up sticks on the sabbath, guess My idea of love and Justice is different than yours

That individual quote seems shocking, but it needs to be put in the correct historical and literary context. Death Penalty for Picking up Sticks?! is a good overview. I'd recommend the whole article, but here are the highlights:

One. This occurs during the 40 years in which Israel was living and moving around in the wilderness. All of the regulations about the importance of the Sabbath had been given. There was no lack of clarity on the part of anyone about this:

Two. The response of the rest of Israel (who brings the offender to Moses and the elders) indicates that everybody else KNEW this was wrong:

Three. The word used for 'gathering' (mekoshesh) is only used here, in Exodus 5:7 (gathering straw for the work of making bricks), in 1 Kings 17 (of the widow gathering sticks to make a fire), and metaphorically as gathering people together 'in a heap' (Zeph 2.1). This is a 'work' word--the activity would have been illegal under the fundamental Sabbath covenant law. The only real question would have been HOW the death penalty should be administered (e.g., by God, by the community, by the elders, by community stoning, execution by sword by the leadership, execution by Levites, etc):

Four. God had already shown mercy once about this issue (working on the Sabbath), at the very beginning of that period--before this stick-gathering event happened. Some Israelites (probably very many--as implied by Ezek 20) violated the ban but God spared their lives, and repeated His warning. All Israel knew that subsequent infractions would be judged according to God's repeated instructions.

This historical background noted above already reveals that this incident is more than just a minor or harmless infraction of the law. And when we now look at the literary context of the passage, the extremity of this man's act becomes obvious.

The immediate literary context is the description of the 'high-handed' (defiant) sin:

Some scholars also point out that this defiant act also put the entire community at risk, just as the action of Achan in Joshua 7 caused damage to the wider community. The community was responsible --as a whole--for compliance with the Covenant. Defiance against God and repudiation of the Covenant laws was also defiance against the community, repudiation of its value, and disregard for its welfare! The community was at risk whenever individuals within the community were openly or secretly anti-community.

One has to realize that the Mosaic law had an immense amount of practical mercy and grace in it. There were constant 'accidental slip-ups' and a steady stream of practical problems (e.g. a second Passover date for those who were accidentally unclean) in which God was gracious and understanding. Anytime a legitimate and genuine need for an exception arose, God was 'first on the scene' to make allowances for it (one thinks of Hezekiah's prayer in 2 Chron 30:18ff; and David's eating of the Shewbread in 1 Samuel 21--referred to by Jesus). If the heart was right, God's good-heart was aggressive in kindness, in the OT/Tanaach as well as in the times of Jesus:

Now, having hit the highlights, let's look at the passage in fuller literary context (NET Bible):

Deliberate Sin

15:30 “‘But the person 30 who acts defiantly, 31 whether native-born or a resident foreigner, insults 32 the Lord. 33 That person 34 must be cut off 35 from among his people. 15:31 Because he has despised 36 the word of the Lord and has broken 37 his commandment, that person 38 must be completely cut off. 39 His iniquity will be on him.’” 40

15:32 When the Israelites were 41 in the wilderness they found a man gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 42 15:33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and to the whole community. 15:34 They put him in custody, because there was no clear instruction about what should be done to him. 15:35 Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man must surely be put to death; the whole community must stone 43 him with stones outside the camp.” 15:36 So the whole community took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, 44 just as the Lord commanded Moses.

Rules for Tassels

15:37 The Lord spoke to Moses: 15:38 “Speak to the Israelites and tell them to make 45 tassels 46 for themselves on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and put a blue thread 47 on the tassel of the corners. 15:39 You must have this tassel so that you may look at it and remember all the commandments of the Lord and obey them and so that you do not follow 48 after your own heart and your own eyes that lead you to unfaithfulness. 49 15:40 Thus 50 you will remember and obey all my commandments and be holy to your God. 15:41 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your God. I am the Lord your God.”

So we see that immediately before the passage, the penalty is laid out for deliberate sin, then we have an example of that deliberate sin, and then afterwards there is a passage telling us of the lengths God went to to ensure that everybody remembered the rules. This is not a case of ignorance.

Interestingly, Jewish tradition (in the Talmud) holds that the woodgatherer sacrificed himself to a higher purpose, as we see in Rabbi's Corner:Got Sticks? Again, I'd recommend reading the whole piece (it's short and an easy read), but here's the relevant excerpt:

Our tradition teaches that capital punishment was rarely meted out, and only after a series of conditions were met. (The Talmud in Sanhedrin 41a tells us that 40 years before the destruction of the second temple the Sanhedrin lost the authority to decide capital cases, so in practice Jewish law does not enforce the death penalty….).

In order to have committed a capital offense the violator needed to know the significance of his actions. His actions must take place in public, with two witnesses. He needed to be warned by the two witnesses, and commit the offense in front of the witnesses immediately after being warned. The Torah tells us that the execution would take place “outside of the camp”, so as to provide more time for new facts to be discovered that would prevent the execution from taking place at all. The Torah is not teaching us to be a band of roaming zealots, looking for violators to “rub out”. To the contrary, Judaism despises capital punishment.

But this case in our Parasha is still baffling. Why did he have to die?

The case of the mekoshesh seems to be a classic case of “Suicide by Cop”. This is the conclusion reached by the midrash quoted by Tosefot in the Talmud( tractate Bava Batra 119a). Lest the generation condemned to wander in the desert think that Shabbat observance was irrelevant, the mekoshesh deliberately committed a capital offense, demanding his execution to prove the sanctity of Shabbat in the presence of the Shechina. According to this midrash he died “L’shem Shamayim“, for the sake of heaven.

Today we live in exile, and the presence of G-d is blurred and unfocused. The consequence of a life without the sanctity of Shabbat is an even greater chasm between the profane and the sacred.

“More than the Jews have kept the Shabbat, the Shabbat has kept the Jews.” – Ahad Ha’am

Shabbat Shalom,

Rabbi Greg

[Kosher Ham]

techboy, this is not to meant to offend anyone or disrespectful. I appreciate that you and MOST people have faith and turn to it for guidance. It is usually comforting.

The story would be more believable if the book said "God came down from the heavens and ravished Mary in the form of man in flesh, to bring forth the chosen one to lead man to faith". Or something along those lines.

And no, I don't believe in tarot cards, or ghosts,palm readers, or any of that stuff, including Spiderman and the rest of the super heroes.

But being honest with reality forces me to challenge a virgin birth from...even, the force. Even Anikan had sex with Luke's mother to bear this amazing set of powerful twins.

[techboy]

techboy, this is not to meant to offend anyone or disrespectful. I appreciate that you and MOST people have faith and turn to it for guidance. It is usually comforting.

The story would be more believable if the book said "God came down from the heavens and ravished Mary in the form of man in flesh, to bring forth the chosen one to lead man to faith". Or something along those lines.

I don't find it offensive, just odd. If we're allowing the possibility of God, why is it so difficult to believe that He could make a woman pregnant without sex?

[Kosher Ham]

Probably because I don't believe that either.

I don't believe the parting of the sea, the walking on water, the feeding a zillion people with one fish. etc.

[chipwhich]

Um, but...

Why haven't you been transformed into a credulous twitching mass that believes in every tenet of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and every other religion ever found on Earth, all at once, even where they contradict each other?

Man creates the contradiction.

Christians cannot even agree with each other. I know you know the history of christianity.

I don't need a human telling me what I need to believe. Most of them are confused

You never did tell me how to account for genetic, physical, and mental flaws and how they play a roll into being saved.

[techboy]

Man creates the contradiction.

Oh, no sir. That doesn't address the point. First you wrote this:

By that logic, I would not be allowed to reject any of mans claim of any event being supernatural. I would have to accept all things earmarked as supernatural.

Telling me that you (and it is implied, the rest of us) must reject the Virgin Birth, because to allow for any event to have even the possibility of a supernatural explanation, you'd have to accept every supernatural explanation.

But in the very next sentence, you wrote this:

I believe in a Deity

which is a supernatural explanation.

And yet, it doesn't seem to have forced you to "accept all things earmarked as supernatural".

You've offered me precisely one reason I should reject the story of the Virgin Birth, and you then proceeded to debunk it yourself.

It's not other people that created the contradiction. It's your own arguments.

You never did tell me how to account for genetic, physical, and mental flaws and how they play a roll into being saved.

Well, I could, but...

I don't need a human telling me what I need to believe. Most of them are confused

Sorry, but I'm a human being.

[Mickalino]

Believing in a virgin mother (without the science to make it possible) should make any person question their beliefs. Now, then, next week, whenever.

Someone did explain to me once a theory about the word "virgin" not having the same meaning as many of us would explain the meaning today.

Unfortunately most people I talk to wholly believe she was indeed a virgin by today's meaning.

I think it's safe to say the Bible meant it in a literal sense, because as far as I know, the Bible re-confirms that aspect by also stating that the baby was "conceived by the Holy Spirit"

[techboy]

Probably because I don't believe that either.

I don't believe the parting of the sea, the walking on water, the feeding a zillion people with one fish. etc.

I don't know how far I should pursue this, since it's just an oddity, but that doesn't really clear it up for me.

I understand atheism. I think it's a false belief system, but I understand it.

What I do not understand is how you could, as you said, have found it more plausible if God took human flesh and impregnated Mary that way. I fail to see how the story of a powerful immaterial being creating a body ex nihilo in order to have sex is any less miraculous than said being creating a child in a virgin's womb.

That's just weird to me.

[Hunter44]

God's an alien. Nothing supernatural at all. :cool:

[twa]

He is certainly alien to some,and fits the stereotype of a powerful,advanced being.

The real question is if he has a green card.

[skinsfan07]

We weren't. Religion, all of it, is made up mumbo jumbo.

THIS. The Bible as I've heard some say before is nothing more than a fairy tale "bedtime story" for Adults.

[Fred Jones]

[/color]

Because God is also Justice, your "God is love" and nothing else thinking just ignores so much of who God truly is, in favor of what you want God to be.

My God? I don't understand. I mean If God created everything and everyone wouldn't that mean that there is not only just the one God, but that God would be everyone's God.

[Hunter44]

He is certainly alien to some,and fits the stereotype of a powerful,advanced being.

The real question is if he has a green card.

Did Columbus have a green card? lol

[chipwhich]

Oh, no sir. That doesn't address the point. First you wrote this:

Telling me that you (and it is implied, the rest of us) must reject the Virgin Birth, because to allow for any event to have even the possibility of a supernatural explanation, you'd have to accept every supernatural explanation.

But I never asked you to reject the virgin birth, I simply implied it is a hard sell. The truth is throughout history, it's not hard to see people follow. I could easily see the revolution of christianity, and the belief in the story. Logically speaking, and sensibly speaking, it would be very easy for a man to be born and rise up and create a following in that region. History shows that can happen in religion and in war. Jesus obviously was a significant figure at the time. Joseph Smith and the golden plates is a similar example. Or Jim Jones and the kool aid. You simply need to know whether the following was based on cult or based on truth. Logically speaking, it would be easy to pick which one.

But in the very next sentence, you wrote this:

which is a supernatural explanation.

And yet, it doesn't seem to have forced you to "accept all things earmarked as supernatural".

You've offered me precisely one reason I should reject the story of the Virgin Birth, and you then proceeded to debunk it yourself.

It's not other people that created the contradiction. It's your own arguments.

Believing in a Deity and a greater being doesn't contradict anything I have said. It's the propaganda pushed forth by most of the organized religions that are built mostly on an agenda.

Well, I could, but...

Sorry, but I'm a human being.

Well no you really can't. Which is why you drop out on the tough stuff.