Simple Question
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#41 May 7, 2014
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
Contrary to your comment, Believers still sin whether it be knowingly or unknowingly. When they do it 'knowingly', they turn from GOD and sin. They still believe in HIM and the conviction of the HS lets them 'know' what they did was wrong...
Very good, Nick. You can't blaspheme what you can't believe.

"The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a lascivious drunken jerk" doesn't rise to the level of blasphemy in most people's book. There are, no doubt, exceptions.
comment

Ozark, MO

#42 May 7, 2014
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
Contrary to your comment, Believers still sin whether it be knowingly or unknowingly. When they do it 'knowingly', they turn from GOD and sin. They still believe in HIM and the conviction of the HS lets them 'know' what they did was wrong...
I'm not sure where you think I said believers do not sin, but
I think you're right, both believers and unbelievers sin, and the Spirit
works in convicting them. But a believer and an unbeliever have
differing obligations and assistance present

A believer cannot commit blasphemy against the Spirit, by the definition of the word. If a believer insults the Spirit, that indwelling Spirit, will lead the same believer to remorse and repentance. If a believer can commit the act of sacriligious insult to God, without engendering remorse and repentance then he has no relationship with God, and he is not a believer.

But the unbeliever has no such comforter, and no such divine support. It is possible for an unbeliever to commit such an act and no remorse or repentance is forthcoming. So the blasphemy remains and the condemnation remains. as scripture indicates. The extent of the Spirit's involvement with a nonbeliever's sin is to hint to his conscience that what he does displeases God. Nothing more.
comment

Ozark, MO

#43 May 7, 2014
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Your opinion, humble or otherwise, does not matter. What matters is your theological argument which we are yet to hear.
I fail to see your point. The translations I cited all say "there is sin" not "there is a sin".
You have confirmed this and called it deceit.
In the Gospel of John, and most of the Letters, the plural of sin is sin.
In the Synoptic Gospels the plural of sin is sins.
1 John 1:29
"Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world." (KJV)
You said earlier the "a" was superfluous. Now you are hanging your argument on it.
Let's just go back to the Greek, as your initial assertion referred. The Greek word
"There is" used in the verse, is "third person singular". Do you understand what that
implies? That's 1John 5:16, if you've forgotten.

What theological argument are you anticipating? The verse refers to one sin. and
other scripture identifies it.as blasphemy of the Spirit. Nowhere in scripture are the seven deadly sins identified as such.

I don't argue that sin can either be referencing a unique sin, or all sin in total. But if it were
referencing any other number of sins between those extremes, the text would reflect the
plural tense. "there is", is not equivalent to "there are" in the Greek.

This has got to be the most inane conversation I've participated in for quite a while, I'm not
going to spend any more time on it. It is a minor issue, in the larger RCC apostasy.
I can't fix that problem.

Anoid

Bronxville, NY

#44 May 10, 2014
comment wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure where you think I said believers do not sin, but
I think you're right, both believers and unbelievers sin, and the Spirit
works in convicting them. But a believer and an unbeliever have
differing obligations and assistance present
A believer cannot commit blasphemy against the Spirit, by the definition of the word. If a believer insults the Spirit, that indwelling Spirit, will lead the same believer to remorse and repentance. If a believer can commit the act of sacriligious insult to God, without engendering remorse and repentance then he has no relationship with God, and he is not a believer.
But the unbeliever has no such comforter, and no such divine support. It is possible for an unbeliever to commit such an act and no remorse or repentance is forthcoming. So the blasphemy remains and the condemnation remains. as scripture indicates. The extent of the Spirit's involvement with a nonbeliever's sin is to hint to his conscience that what he does displeases God. Nothing more.
You claim to know a lot of so called facts. Like you KNOW the HS is telling non-believers X or Y, re; their behaviors. But the reality is this is unfounded, and is a POV that that you would like to Believe over it being based on anything sound and theological. To what purpose is the HS so involved? When we know that this God has already decided who is and isnt saved? For what end is this third-entity so involved in efforts that are likely wasted?

Whats really funny is that you believe that a Believer can insult your God, and over and over be forgiven, due to the HS calling them on the carpet for their transgressions. ONLY due to the alleged existing faith. Your theology seems to be based on a Doctrine of Petulance, over all else. "because I believe, I can insult my God, and be forgiven over and over...because due to my faith he has to." Like a petulant child who knows their parent will put up with their nonsense.

This get of jail free pass, never expiring, is not only funny, but an absurdist POV based on nothing but the God you have created in YOUR HEAD.
Anoid

Bronxville, NY

#45 May 10, 2014
comment wrote:
<quoted text>
You said earlier the "a" was superfluous. Now you are hanging your argument on it.
Let's just go back to the Greek, as your initial assertion referred. The Greek word
"There is" used in the verse, is "third person singular". Do you understand what that
implies? That's 1John 5:16, if you've forgotten.
What theological argument are you anticipating? The verse refers to one sin. and
other scripture identifies it.as blasphemy of the Spirit. Nowhere in scripture are the seven deadly sins identified as such.
I don't argue that sin can either be referencing a unique sin, or all sin in total. But if it were
referencing any other number of sins between those extremes, the text would reflect the
plural tense. "there is", is not equivalent to "there are" in the Greek.
This has got to be the most inane conversation I've participated in for quite a while, I'm not
going to spend any more time on it. It is a minor issue, in the larger RCC apostasy.
I can't fix that problem.
Its also fascinating how Believers like you will go back to the old Greek texts, or any other language you dont actually comprehend, but lifted from some Christian web site - to make minor isolated points, all while relying on the English language traditions of the Western churches for all the rest of your personal theology.
Anoid

Bronxville, NY

#46 May 10, 2014
Lana- wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's look at this. The lie that the child told, if left un corrected will lead to more lies and more "bad" behavior.

Granted not every child that lies, becomes a murderer, but I think sin is progressive in most cases just like other bad habits.

God cannot abide sin, He is perfect and sinless. So yes, every sin is dispised by God.

The reason we as humans attach a scale to sin is because of emotional response and connection. God is not human, he is a deity. If you believe that He is sinless and perfect, then you have to believe that all sin is unacceptable to him. That is why there was a supreme sacrifice given, to attone for our sins. That is why it is necessary for us humans to repent and turn away from our sins however minor they may seem to human kind.
Do children lie? yes. Do they us them frequently? Yes. Do they lie for no obvious purpose sometimes? Yes. Are they all grave offenses to others, or even themselves? No, not IMO, in fact there is no research, nothing backed by any hard facts that this ordinary behavior turns bad in any real way. Sometimes the socio-paths among us are the most honest among us, as they have no care what their words mean to others. But normal people trend to caring about harming others, so they will lie to save others some discomfort, etc..

Do adults do the same? Yes! I bet you lied at least a dozen times yesterday. Little ones of course, but they are part of the human condition. A condition either evolved, or constructed by your God. Did you lie to your boss, a family member, etc, to save them from the reality of what real honesty would produce...? Im gonna say yes.

Do you actually believe that lies - little ones, or big ones are all equal? Answer that Q, dont dance around it. Why you believe we humans would apply a metric to an offense is not relevant.

What only makes sense is that a supremely intelligent Being, who sees and knows all, all the time, would need to also measure them on a scale. Otherwise you are never going to win his favor because of all the many things that pile up on you faster than you can perform any acts of contrition for them.
Anoid

Bronxville, NY

#47 May 10, 2014
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
Contrary to your comment, Believers still sin whether it be knowingly or unknowingly. When they do it 'knowingly', they turn from GOD and sin. They still believe in HIM and the conviction of the HS lets them 'know' what they did was wrong...
So by your accounting, if someone says/does something that they dont truly know is a sin, they are still sinning? Which means - using your accounting methods - we're all like Adam and Eve in the garden, everything and everyone regresses back to that condition. And that Jesus' sacrifice was for nothing.
comment

Branson, MO

#48 May 10, 2014
Anoid wrote:
<quoted text>
This get of jail free pass, never expiring, is not only funny

Its also fascinating how Believers like you will go back to the old Greek texts, or any other language you dont actually comprehend, but lifted from some Christian web site - to make minor isolated points, all while relying on the English language traditions of the Western churches for all the rest of your personal theology.

What's funny is how irate you are about all this. You'd think that a nonbeliever wouldn't care squat about religious topics. But here you are........

I'm not going back to the "There is sin/sins " stupidity again. but you feel free to just stay here and keep complaining.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#49 May 14, 2014
susanblange wrote:
Murder is defined as the intentional taking of an innocent life. Not all killing is murder but murder is a deadly sin and it means eternal death of your spirit. You cannot make atonement for it and right the wrong. There are some things that will not be tolerated in the Kingdom of God and murder is one of them. Hopefully, things like that will become a thing of the past. There are seven deadly sins and they are not the Christian ones which are not sins at all.
No atonement for murder... Wow! "Does this mean that Moses, who allegedly wrote the first five books of the bible, and Father Abraham will not enter the Kingdom of God because they were murderers," if you do not mind my asking?
FSM

Melbourne, Australia

#50 May 14, 2014
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
Very good, Nick. You can't blaspheme what you can't believe.
"The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a lascivious drunken jerk" doesn't rise to the level of blasphemy in most people's book. There are, no doubt, exceptions.
Only on weekends.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#51 May 15, 2014
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>
No atonement for murder... Wow! "Does this mean that Moses, who allegedly wrote the first five books of the bible, and Father Abraham will not enter the Kingdom of God because they were murderers," if you do not mind my asking?
Who did Abraham kill? I know Moses killed an Egyptian, but he had it coming. Murder is defined as the intentional taking of an innocent life. Not all killing is murder. I know both Abraham and Moses are in heaven.

Since: Aug 08

Somewhere in Ireland

#52 May 15, 2014
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>Who did Abraham kill? I know Moses killed an Egyptian, but he had it coming. Murder is defined as the intentional taking of an innocent life. Not all killing is murder. I know both Abraham and Moses are in heaven.
Does your nonsense come naturally, or do you have to work at it?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#53 May 15, 2014
susanblange wrote:
Who did Abraham kill? I know Moses killed an Egyptian, but he had it coming. Murder is defined as the intentional taking of an innocent life. Not all killing is murder. I know both Abraham and Moses are in heaven.
Yes, Moses not only killed an Egyptian but also he ordered that 3,000 of his own people be slaughter, i.e., "Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the Lord's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.(Ex 27:26-18).

Now, are you ready for this: It has been argued in biblical scholarship that Abraham did in fact follow God's (Elohim) command to sacrifice Isaac. After all, Gen 22:8 informs us that both Abraham and Issac went up the mountain together; however, only Abraham returned to his young men at Gen 22:19. Further, it was God (Elohim) who commanded that Isaac be sacrificed, but the LORD's (YHWH) angel who allegedly stopped it. Nonetheless, Isaac is never spoke of again in any story by Elohim.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#54 May 15, 2014
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, Moses not only killed an Egyptian but also he ordered that 3,000 of his own people be slaughter, i.e., "Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the Lord's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.(Ex 27:26-18).
Now, are you ready for this: It has been argued in biblical scholarship that Abraham did in fact follow God's (Elohim) command to sacrifice Isaac. After all, Gen 22:8 informs us that both Abraham and Issac went up the mountain together; however, only Abraham returned to his young men at Gen 22:19. Further, it was God (Elohim) who commanded that Isaac be sacrificed, but the LORD's (YHWH) angel who allegedly stopped it. Nonetheless, Isaac is never spoke of again in any story by Elohim.
You're wrong, Gundee. Isaac was not sacrificed as a child, he grew up, married Rebekah and had twin sons. If God allowed idolaters in Israel to live, they would've led the children of Israel astray. Israel was the elect but only if they remain faithful to God. The purpose of Israel is to make the Messiah king of the universe. This will happen in the near future. That is why God will come to the earth.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#55 May 15, 2014
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>You're wrong, Gundee. Isaac was not sacrificed as a child, he grew up, married Rebekah and had twin sons. If God allowed idolaters in Israel to live, they would've led the children of Israel astray. Israel was the elect but only if they remain faithful to God. The purpose of Israel is to make the Messiah king of the universe. This will happen in the near future. That is why God will come to the earth.
Wrong? Or perhaps, I just have a different perspective. At any rate, "Did Isaac return from the mountain after the sacrifice was performed or did Abraham return alone," if you do not mind my asking?

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#56 May 16, 2014
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong? Or perhaps, I just have a different perspective. At any rate, "Did Isaac return from the mountain after the sacrifice was performed or did Abraham return alone," if you do not mind my asking?
Do you know the book, chapter and verse? Even if Isaac did not return with Abraham, it doesn't mean he was sacrificed.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#57 May 16, 2014
susanblange wrote:
Do you know the book, chapter and verse? Even if Isaac did not return with Abraham, it doesn't mean he was sacrificed.
Yes, here is what the bible says:

"And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together" (Gen 22:8).... Well, it appears that both Abraham and Isaac went up the mountain, right?

"So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beersheba" (Gen 22:19).... Well, it appears that Abraham returned from the mountain without Isaac, right? Perhaps, he simply forgot to unbound Isaac from the altar (Gen 22:9)....(smile).
Anoid

Bronxville, NY

#58 May 17, 2014
comment wrote:
<quoted text>
What's funny is how irate you are about all this. You'd think that a nonbeliever wouldn't care squat about religious topics. But here you are........
I'm not going back to the "There is sin/sins " stupidity again. but you feel free to just stay here and keep complaining.
Once again you make assumptions. I have never stated my beliefs. My beliefs are conservative, I shy away from ever thinking for, or putting words in the mouth, or claiming to know future outcomes of or for my God. I allow my God to do his own thinking, and decision making. I refuse to limit my God to a man-made book, or the claims of priests and preachers. Unlike Christians like you, and many who frequent these pages.

Im also not irate, far from it. But You seem to be, as once you are seriously challenged you reply as above, and stomping away, "I'm not coming back to this, waah! Taking my ball and going home!"

Im simply and methodically challenging your Personal Theology. About the God you created in your head who seems to be your puppet.
Anoid

Bronxville, NY

#59 May 17, 2014
comment wrote:
<quoted text>
What's funny is how irate you are about all this. You'd think that a nonbeliever wouldn't care squat about religious topics. But here you are........
I'm not going back to the "There is sin/sins " stupidity again. but you feel free to just stay here and keep complaining.
And how about you stop avoiding reality?

I said, "Its also fascinating how Believers like you will go back to the old Greek texts, or any other language you dont actually comprehend, but lifted from some Christian web site - to make minor isolated points, all while relying on the English language traditions of the Western churches for all the rest of your personal theology."

What I said here is a common problem for many Protestant Christians, falling back on isolated terms and texts in languages you do not truly understand, in order to make a point, that simply supports a very Personal Theology. All while creating this PT wholly from the English language based traditions of Western Christianity.

Once you or anyone goes back and isolates a few words, or phrases in Greek, or Aramaic, or even Latin - you must then continue the process with all of it preceding the select term, and all of it following.

Think of it this way. If you're speaking in modern American English, but keep stopping and defining a commonly understood term (in the present) like it was used in say the 1300's, you effectively scramble up the rest of the sentences, ideas...which means you are not making much sense in a modern language sense. The term righteousness, had a very different meaning when the KJV was written then it does now. It didnt carry the slap of insult it does now when the "prefix" Self was added, in fact it was a hardly ever used term. But when someone is now called righteous, or is self-righteous, or full of righteous indignation, etc, etc - its typically a means to insult.

Can you understand this?

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#60 May 17, 2014
gundee123 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, here is what the bible says:
"And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together" (Gen 22:8).... Well, it appears that both Abraham and Isaac went up the mountain, right?
"So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beersheba" (Gen 22:19).... Well, it appears that Abraham returned from the mountain without Isaac, right? Perhaps, he simply forgot to unbound Isaac from the altar (Gen 22:9)....(smile).
I think the story about Isaac, ends with the substitution of the ram. Just because the text does not mention him until later doesn't mean he was sacrificed.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Religion, higher education and critical thinking (Aug '15) 59 min KAB 9,194
Do you believe in tolerance for Gay Christians? 1 hr little lamb 69
Evidence Against God (Jan '16) 1 hr KAB 4,402
Nettie's Pit Stop (Jan '12) 2 hr Poof1 27,321
Jesus did not claim to be God 2 hr Barnsweb 298
The False Teachings of the Hebrew Israelites, s... (Jan '14) 2 hr Barnsweb 213
Is it possible for Jesus to be Messiah and Rabbi 3 hr Atheistgirl 29
More from around the web