Jump to content

ByFaithAlone

Diamond Member
  • Content Count

    696
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

754 Excellent

1 Follower

About ByFaithAlone

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 09/13/1993

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Fencing (epee), science, history, theology, apologetics, chemistry, philosophy, politics, cosmology, teaching, backpacking

Recent Profile Visitors

4,182 profile views
  1. Yes and I guess Jesus and His saving Grace would fit in somewhere as well? I do not understand what you are trying to ask here. Are you asking if Christianity is a worldview? Certainly Christianity is a worldview and is thus impacted by our experiences, parents, etc. Is that what you were trying to ask or am I missing your point entirely?
  2. I think it is very difficult for parents of any ideological background not to impress beliefs on their kids so I think it is difficult for anyone to truly not influence their children at all with regards to religion. You can try of course but I think that anyone will give a biased account of their worldview. You for example had a bad experience with evangelical Christianity and I would wager that you probably did not take them to evangelical church services. Your children are now not evangelicals although one is Christian. I, on the other hand, had a bad experience with Calvinism driving me away from Christianity but then was brought back to Christianity by what I see as rational arguments. I therefore, if I have children, will most likely not bring them to a Calvinist church and will focus on explaining my beliefs in a rational manner to them. We can try to be neutral on these issues but I think it is also in our nature to guide our children towards what we see as the truth. Take this with a grain of salt as this is coming from a guy with no kids but that is my two cents . P.S. Welcome to Worthy! Our three girls are Christians. They were certainly taken to evangelical church services by my parents, when they were visiting them. We have never discussed matters of faith at home, and that is still the case. Our eldest girl, the Anglican Priest, would never presume to persuade us to see it her way, and we would never try to persuade her to see it ours. Interesting. I meant no offense by my comments and I hope you understand that. I was not trying to imply that you are brain washing your children or anything like that lol . I would still think that children are in some ways influenced by their parent's worldview. However, of course the addition of other family members such as grandparents as you mentioned would certainly have an impact on the develop of their personal worldviews.
  3. I think it is very difficult for parents of any ideological background not to impress beliefs on their kids so I think it is difficult for anyone to truly not influence their children at all with regards to religion. You can try of course but I think that anyone will give a biased account of their worldview. You for example had a bad experience with evangelical Christianity and I would wager that you probably did not take them to evangelical church services. Your children are now not evangelicals although one is Christian. I, on the other hand, had a bad experience with Calvinism driving me away from Christianity but then was brought back to Christianity by what I see as rational arguments. I therefore, if I have children, will most likely not bring them to a Calvinist church and will focus on explaining my beliefs in a rational manner to them. We can try to be neutral on these issues but I think it is also in our nature to guide our children towards what we see as the truth. Take this with a grain of salt as this is coming from a guy with no kids but that is my two cents . P.S. Welcome to Worthy!
  4. ByFaithAlone

    Mary, Christ and Original Sin

    Rusty, as I noted, I do not hold the RCC position. And I realize Jesus is God made flesh and that there is no sin in him. I am curious as to how Christ avoids original sin as he is also fully man. I want to know what other people think or other views they have heard. Jesus' father was not a man; He is the son of God. Where would original sin enter the picture? With this argument you seem to be holding to the same idea that jade does (namely that original sin is passed through the male line). The question I would have, is why is this the case? Why isn't original sin part of both parents?
  5. ByFaithAlone

    Mary, Christ and Original Sin

    Ok, my thoughts: Man was in the image of God, then after the fall, adams descendents are made in the image of adam. Also the bible tellsus that death came through one man adam and then that life came with the second adam (Jesus). Jesus was born of God and mary. She was not sinless but neither did He get tainted with original sin. Genesis 5 1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and blessed them. And He called their name man in the day when they were created. 3 And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years and fathered a son in his own likeness, after his own image. And he called his name Seth. 1 Corinthians 15 21 For since death is through man, the resurrection of the dead also is through a Man. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all will be made alive. Romans 5 12 Therefore, even as through one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed on all men inasmuch as all sinned: Thank you. Now we are getting somewhere. I agree with everything you said. I guess my question would be how Jesus avoided the taint of original sin passed down from parents to offspring? That is where I offered the various theories, only one of which is RCC dogma, which I reject. Passed down from father, not mother. Since He was conceived of the Holy Spirit, He does not have that taint. In my view. So at the risk of derailing this, which I hope it doesn't, where do we learn that sin is passed on from the fathers? I think jade was trying to make a logical inference based on what we know (1) Original sin is based to offspring (2) Mary did not pass original sin to Christ C: Women do not pass along original sin This is a common view among many denominations but there are other options out there as I mentioned in the OP
  6. ByFaithAlone

    Mary, Christ and Original Sin

    Ok, my thoughts: Man was in the image of God, then after the fall, adams descendents are made in the image of adam. Also the bible tellsus that death came through one man adam and then that life came with the second adam (Jesus). Jesus was born of God and mary. She was not sinless but neither did He get tainted with original sin. Genesis 5 1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and blessed them. And He called their name man in the day when they were created. 3 And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years and fathered a son in his own likeness, after his own image. And he called his name Seth. 1 Corinthians 15 21 For since death is through man, the resurrection of the dead also is through a Man. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all will be made alive. Romans 5 12 Therefore, even as through one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed on all men inasmuch as all sinned: Thank you. Now we are getting somewhere. I agree with everything you said. I guess my question would be how Jesus avoided the taint of original sin passed down from parents to offspring? That is where I offered the various theories, only one of which is RCC dogma, which I reject. Passed down from father, not mother. Since He was conceived of the Holy Spirit, He does not have that taint. In my view. Cool. Thank you for your input. I know several Protestant denominations that hold this view.
  7. ByFaithAlone

    Mary, Christ and Original Sin

    Ok, my thoughts: Man was in the image of God, then after the fall, adams descendents are made in the image of adam. Also the bible tellsus that death came through one man adam and then that life came with the second adam (Jesus). Jesus was born of God and mary. She was not sinless but neither did He get tainted with original sin. Genesis 5 1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and blessed them. And He called their name man in the day when they were created. 3 And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years and fathered a son in his own likeness, after his own image. And he called his name Seth. 1 Corinthians 15 21 For since death is through man, the resurrection of the dead also is through a Man. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all will be made alive. Romans 5 12 Therefore, even as through one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed on all men inasmuch as all sinned: Thank you. Now we are getting somewhere. I agree with everything you said. I guess my question would be how Jesus avoided the taint of original sin passed down from parents to offspring? That is where I offered the various theories, only one of which is RCC dogma, which I reject.
  8. ByFaithAlone

    Mary, Christ and Original Sin

    You may have problems. Those with faith, not so much. We are not meant to understand every single so-called "problem" that can crop up in our heads to tempt us to abandon our faith. What is most important is that Jesus was without sin and can, therefore, provide an atonement for our sin. The process by which God made that possible is unimportant. I think it is pretty simple to postulate that since both man and woman were complicit in the first sin, then without a physical union of a mortal man and woman, the original sin is not propagated. The actual process, however, is still unimportant. What is of paramount importance is the result. I am always amused when someone posits 2 or 3 possible solutions to a spiritual "problem" and then acts as if one must pick one, or come up with a better solution, or the entire belief process is suddenly in imminent peril. If a person's belief system is that shaky, they are going to be vacillating between various beliefs their entire life. We have not clearly understood this process being questioned for almost 2000 years now and Christianity does not seem to be threatened or diminished. Woah there Cobalt. I am not saying that it is critical that we know exactly the answer to how we solve the issue of Mary, Christ and original sin nor am I saying people should abandon their faith if they have never considered it. I am just saying it is an interesting theological question to consider. Also faith does not mean blind following Cobalt. It is trust based on evidence and study. I am just curious as to people's opinions and thoughts on this issue. I am not trying to undermine anyone's beliefs. Possibly you have an opinion on the issue? I gave my opinion in the above post. I don't blindly follow anything. I have always studied a wide variety of topics and will continue to do so. But when the rubber hits the road, the Bible is clear that one's acceptance of Christ should rest primarily on faith. Not evidence or study although those disciplines will also lead one to Christ if also guided by spiritual discernment and logical deduction. Your opinion above had nothing to do with the OP or the questions I presented. I was wondering people's thoughts on how we can reconcile Mary, Christ and original sin and you decide to blast me for supposedly undermining or questioning other's faith regarding trivial matters which was clearly not my intention. As to the rest, the Lord commands us to have evidence prepared for those who have questions for why we possess the hope of salvation (1 Peter 3:15). As to evidence, it is what brought me back to Christianity. If you have an opinion as to the OP and the questions I presented please give them. If not then don't berate me for things that I am not attempting to do. Thanks.
  9. ByFaithAlone

    Mary, Christ and Original Sin

    You may have problems. Those with faith, not so much. We are not meant to understand every single so-called "problem" that can crop up in our heads to tempt us to abandon our faith. What is most important is that Jesus was without sin and can, therefore, provide an atonement for our sin. The process by which God made that possible is unimportant. I think it is pretty simple to postulate that since both man and woman were complicit in the first sin, then without a physical union of a mortal man and woman, the original sin is not propagated. The actual process, however, is still unimportant. What is of paramount importance is the result. I am always amused when someone posits 2 or 3 possible solutions to a spiritual "problem" and then acts as if one must pick one, or come up with a better solution, or the entire belief process is suddenly in imminent peril. If a person's belief system is that shaky, they are going to be vacillating between various beliefs their entire life. We have not clearly understood this process being questioned for almost 2000 years now and Christianity does not seem to be threatened or diminished. Woah there Cobalt. I am not saying that it is critical that we know exactly the answer to how we solve the issue of Mary, Christ and original sin nor am I saying people should abandon their faith if they have never considered it. I am just saying it is an interesting theological question to consider. Also faith does not mean blind following Cobalt. It is trust based on evidence and study. I am just curious as to people's opinions and thoughts on this issue. I am not trying to undermine anyone's beliefs. Possibly you have an opinion on the issue?
  10. ByFaithAlone

    Mary, Christ and Original Sin

    Mary is human, humans have original sin. The question is, how did that sin not get passed to the fully human (and fully God) Jesus Christ? A number of theories have been presented and I was wondering people's thoughts.
  11. ByFaithAlone

    Mary, Christ and Original Sin

    umm... guys... I agree with you... my question is not if Mary needed a savior but rather how do we deal with the idea of original sin and Mary Did you read my post? Yes... you really didn't provide an answer to the OP though. I was wondering what valid theological reasons may exist that prevented Christ in the womb of Mary from obtaining original sin.
  12. ByFaithAlone

    Mary, Christ and Original Sin

    umm... guys... I agree with you... my question is not if Mary needed a savior but rather how do we deal with the idea of original sin and Mary Why? It is an interesting theological question. If we cannot reconcile the idea of original sin with the Incarnation, we have problems.
  13. ByFaithAlone

    Mary, Christ and Original Sin

    umm... guys... I agree with you... my question is not if Mary needed a savior but rather how do we deal with the idea of original sin and Mary
  14. ByFaithAlone

    Mary, Christ and Original Sin

    Rusty, as I noted, I do not hold the RCC position. And I realize Jesus is God made flesh and that there is no sin in him. I am curious as to how Christ avoids original sin as he is also fully man. I want to know what other people think or other views they have heard.
  15. ByFaithAlone

    Adam And Eve - Just An Allegory?

    I have made the ONLY argument that NEEDs to be made. I idon't need to make a philosophical argument. You need to believe the Bible. Evolution is impersonal according to the ToE. It is unguided, unplanned and wholly naturalistic. The very nature of the theory precludes God. It really isn't very hard to understand. But you have an agenda that entails skewing the Bible and the ToE. It's completely relevant. Why are all of them wrong and you are right??? Like I said, you and bary really don't know what you are talking about and this debate proves that your entire platform about Genesis being allegorical is all about pushing your bizarre version of Evolution that no reputable scientist will touch. You mistake methodological naturalism used by scientists and metaphysical naturalism (the claim you are backing). I can still hold the scientific method of discovery using methodological naturalism without holding to a metaphysical naturalism position. Once again, I see no philosophical argument in support of your claim. Support it or withdraw it. There is no middle ground here.
×