You don't think there are things at stake in this world if people don't achieve their spiritual formation?

I watch people bash AA on here to vindicate atheism. But I think a recovering alcoholic faces his challenges one day at a time just like Jesus recommends people do in his Sermon on the Mount. The founders of AA were religious people. You don't think God anchors people through sin? He does.

But along come the atheists to make AA into a bullet in their self validation of atheism.

Have you ever seen anyone drink himself to death? That calls for an emergency intervention. You get control of that person any way you can. You don't go and screw around with the principles that AA is founded on to serve your own belief system.

As for things at stake in the future. You can research into it. What are the believer's crowns all about that are mentioned in the NT? How would you like to be crownless in heaven?

That has nothing to do with what I was questioning: "because the stakes (eternal life) they are playing for are too high."

I'm in heaven. It's eternal bliss. There is no jealousy or pride, so whether I or anyone else is crownless counts for nothing.

Well, I'm going to leave you to research into it.

Asking biblical questions and researching into them is what establishes the ground of your relationship with God.

Most subjects on here are addressed sketchily at best because everything in the bible is so interconnected it is hard to do justice to topics on here.

Neither was involved in my post, it's a question of grammar. The "it" you claim I have has nothing to do with genetics in general but the DNA of Jesus, and his birth was a miracle. Like saying the resurrection is impossible because it violates natural law when we don't claim he was resurrected naturally.

Of course Jesus had DNA like every other human being. There's no reason to imagine there was anything mystical about it.

if there are miracles, they are part of nature. god, if he exists, is part of nature. in fact, god's existence would be the most important scientific fact. i don't think you should put "regular genetics" in one bucket and "the DNA of jesus" in another bucket.

you don't think a geneticist would love to take a peek at jesus and mary's DNA? you don't think collins would be hoping that jesus' DNA would be so remarkable and unusual that it renders the entire field of genetics completely void?

scientists would love to study god and miracles but there's nothing there for them to study. if god exists, scientists are utterly blind to the way the world actually works.

it's not natural laws and then god's interventions. the interventions would be part of natural law.

of course, if scientists did get to examine jesus' DNA, it would look just like normal DNA, and religious folks would say that god set it up that way. he is mysterious after all.

Nobody has yet asked an obvious question: where did Yeshua get his Y-chromosome from? Miryam had 46 chromosomes with just two X-chromosomes ( okay, essentially the Y- came from "YHWH", the "Father"! ). Was that the only difference between Miryam's and Yeshua's DNA? ( I would think only half of Yeshua's chromosomes came from Miryam. ) That Eve came from Adam seems less of an accomplishment ( and perhaps some Muslim can elaborate on the Quran 21:91 ).

how could this thread be anything but empty speculation? We don't even have reason to believe the miracles attributed to jesus happened, let alone HOW they happened. Take, say, walking on water. This is physically not possible, as we understand it, so something somewhere had rules of physics suspended. Was it gravity? EM? Was it some super special DNA that magically allowed this? Who knows. But I don't think there is anything meaningful to be said about it

In logic, this is known as a contradiction.

Yes, if you use the commonly accepted definition of a miracle which is:

act of God: an event that appears to be contrary to the laws of nature and is regarded as an act of God

Harrumph! Splendour (accurately) correcting NotReady. What is this world coming to?

the common definition of miracle seems incoherent to me.

if we think a rule governs a certain aspect of our world, and the truth is that the rule usually governs the aspect of our world, but sometimes doesn't, then our rule is not true and is not a rule.

the goal of science is to understand our world. if god intervenes in our world, then he and his interventions are part of our world.

if jesus didn't have a dad, our doctors do not fully understand human reproduction. we can't say that we understand it, except for when someone is born to a virgin. the "except for..." must become part of the understanding.

if it turns out that god can change the laws of nature at will, that fact automatically becomes the most important law of nature. it wouldn't be some obscure exception to the rule. it would become the most important rule.

a32: What correction?
augie: You're just denying miracle. Fine. If it wasn't miraculous then he had the DNA of his parents. If it was miraculous, then we don't know. In either case, I wasn't saying anything about genetics in general.

I think bodies are like bio organic computer suits designed "in heaven's lab", and then souls are placed into them.

So.....I'd imagine some angel just somehow hooked Marry up with the necessary ingredients to make a body, then the Arch Angel Michael gets placed into that body just as we are, after the body is born.

My money's on yes. Additional dna was needed to complete the suit. (fwiw, probably not much)

Obviously, whoever knocked her up in that sexytime incident she subsequently pretended didn't happen.

Was more of a clarification on something which could of been erroneous if an appropriate definition wasn't used.

I try to give Splendour points anytime I can; I agree with her so rarely.

You're not really familiar with how DNA works, are you?

The point I'm trying to make is that there is nothing especially special about his body imo. (all the awesomeness is in the soul part)

Some angel had to complete that egg or whatev with the necessary ingredients for that body to grow.

But yea, I don't think I'm going to be working for Pfizer anytime soon .

Like...idk, when Jesus healed the guy born blind from birth (born without eyes?), he took some dirt and spit in it, then rubbed that into dudes eyes.

It's like He was crafting eyeballs or the necessary components that the guy was lacking.

It's like...the story was made up (or exaggerated).

I feel this is different. I wouldn't have posted the question otherwise, because I know you can end any conversational inquiry with the simple claim of *magic* and be done with it.

Most miracles require the suspension of natural laws and could be done by most good magicians (the appearance of walking on water, turning water into wine, etc.). If Jesus is missing a father's DNA (or has no DNA at all), it means he lived his entire time on earth as a walking, talking, breathing accumulation of cells made up of what? This suggests that he just as easily been made up of any material (such as molten lave) and the molecules were just continually transforming into human flesh and organs (ala a Terminator movie).

This is what I didn't like about their answer. Even religious people should reach a point where magic doesn't suffice as an acceptable answer. I don't mind them saying, "I don't know", but then they should also say "I don't know" about the virgin birth claim.

Walking on water is child's play compared to a virgin birth. There's some kind of animal (can't remember its name) that can run for long distances over water. Like I already said. A good magician could probably pull it off. I'm sure god, if he exists, could.

FTR - I don't believe in any miracles, but surely some of them are less likely to have actually been pulled off than others.

Conventional, orthodox theology is that Jesus is fully human and fully divine. RTB is in line with that doctrine. When they say "I don't know" they mean that his DNA wasn't constructed the normal way because he had no earthly father, but they would almost certainly agree he had normal DNA. Saying "I don't know" about the virgin birth is entirely different because that is stated as a fact in the Bible. And FTR miracle ≠ magic.

Would you mind explaining the difference? I'm assuming the 'magic' you're referring to is more akin to Gandalf than David Copperfield. In other words, if Gandalf were real, was he performing magic, or miracles?

can we get a wiki link for magic up ITT?

DC is sleight of hand and illusion. Gandalf(and Harry Potter) is "real" (though fictional) magic. I take it to mean some unexplained power existing in the performer to do things that can't be done by nature. I don't believe that kind of magic exists, though I do like Gandalf and even to some extent young Harry.

Miracle is something performed by God or by humans empowered by God for specifically divine purposes. For instance, Jesus healed people miraculously, and after his ascension some disciples performed healing by God's power as part of their authentication as God's ministers.

Miracles don't violate natural law or change it. When Jesus walked on the water he wasn't rescinding the law of gravity, he was applying a higher, stronger power. Does an airplane or balloon violate gravity?

But what if miracles do violate natural law? Natural law isn't moral law - it is contingent and could have been different. Natural law only means "the way we observe that things happen." Since things happen by God's providence, why can't He make them happen differently for his purposes?

The Bible points to order in the universe and natural law is the norm. When that order is interrupted by God for his purpose he always gives a reason for it. So miracle in the Bible is always tied to a communication from God. For instance, Jesus said "If you don't believe my words, believe my works". He was referring to the miracles he performed as authenticating his authority as being from God.