Spirituality
30 Oct 15
30 Oct 15
Can you be forgiven or even need to be for something you didn't do?
Once you do something then the need arises doesn't it, but until that time
there would be no need.
So the debate about being forgiven of all future sins seems a bit,
unnecessary to me since no one is a murderer until they murder.
30 Oct 15
Originally posted by KellyJayIf you claim that the "sins" you will commit in the future have somehow been preemptively forgiven as a result of Jesus being executed ~ if that is your ideology, and you seek to air it in public ~ then debating it is, of course, valid and necessary. Surely you are not here on a debate forum insisting that scrutiny of your beliefs and claims is "unnecessary"?
So the debate about being forgiven of all future sins seems a bit,
unnecessary to me since no one is a murderer until they murder.
30 Oct 15
Originally posted by KellyJayActually you do not understand. The doctrine some Christians have is that they have eternal life already, they are regenerated and they cannot lose it. In order to support that doctrine they need to find ways to void the passages in the Bible that speak of the consequences of sin. Therefore they must claim that sin is not an issue as Christ died for all their sins. Now if Christ did not die for all sins [which is clear in the Bible], then their doctrine fails.
Can you be forgiven or even need to be for something you didn't do?
Once you do something then the need arises doesn't it, but until that time
there would be no need.
So the debate about being forgiven of all future sins seems a bit,
unnecessary to me since no one is a murderer until they murder.
30 Oct 15
Originally posted by Rajk999I got to tell you, you are funny some times. I don't understand the doctrine of some
Actually you do not understand. The doctrine some Christians have is that they have eternal life already, they are regenerated and they cannot lose it. In order to support that doctrine they need to find ways to void the passages in the Bible that speak of the consequences of sin. Therefore they must claim that sin is not an issue as Christ died for all the ...[text shortened]... Now if Christ did not die for all sins [which is clear in the Bible], then their doctrine fails.
Christians!
I don't care, I'm expressing my thoughts not what "other Christians" think and believe.
If you want to argue with one of those "other Christians" about what it is that they think
and believe, go find one and respond to their posts.
30 Oct 15
Originally posted by KellyJay"Can you be forgiven or even need to be for something you didn't do?"
Can you be forgiven or even need to be for something you didn't do?
Once you do something then the need arises doesn't it, but until that time
there would be no need.
So the debate about being forgiven of all future sins seems a bit,
unnecessary to me since no one is a murderer until they murder.
Strange question (and answer) coming from a Christian. Isn't that what the whole original sin thing's about? Being forgiven for something you didn't do?
30 Oct 15
1 edit
Originally posted by Green PaladinFuture sins, something that has not happen yet. The first sin put into us that nature, which
"Can you be forgiven or even need to be for something you didn't do?"
Strange question (and answer) coming from a Christian. Isn't that what the whole original sin thing's about? Being forgiven for something you didn't do?
is different.
I don't think I was clear, thanks for pointing that out.
30 Oct 15
Originally posted by KellyJayYou sad the debate was unnecessary. I was explaining why it was necessary.
I got to tell you, you are funny some times. I don't understand the doctrine of some
Christians!
I don't care, I'm expressing my thoughts not what "other Christians" think and believe.
If you want to argue with one of those "other Christians" about what it is that they think
and believe, go find one and respond to their posts.
30 Oct 15
Originally posted by KellyJayHow about original sin?
Can you be forgiven or even need to be for something you didn't do?
Once you do something then the need arises doesn't it, but until that time
there would be no need.
So the debate about being forgiven of all future sins seems a bit,
unnecessary to me since no one is a murderer until they murder.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
30 Oct 15
Originally posted by KellyJayGod has already provided for sins you will commit in the future. Christ died for sins once forever. If only your past sins are forgiven there is no blood sacrifice for future sins and every one would be condemned.
Can you be forgiven or even need to be for something you didn't do?
Once you do something then the need arises doesn't it, but until that time
there would be no need.
So the debate about being forgiven of all future sins seems a bit,
unnecessary to me since no one is a murderer until they murder.
30 Oct 15
Originally posted by FMFHonest scrutiny is one thing. Preemptively calling another's beliefs "superstition" or worse, is not mere "honest scrutiny and debate", it's name-calling, and yeah, that is unnecessary.
If you claim that the "sins" you will commit in the future have somehow been preemptively forgiven as a result of Jesus being executed ~ if that is your ideology, and you seek to air it in public ~ then debating it is, of course, valid and necessary. Surely you are not here on a debate forum insisting that scrutiny of your beliefs and claims is "unnecessary"?
And because of this, and certain posters' inclination to not show other's beliefs the tiniest scrap of respect (after all, everyone has beliefs, but to be called somehow deficient because of them is too much), I doubt if you'll be getting much Christian response in your new thread, but than again, perhaps you didn't want any. Bad-mouthing people doesn't exactly make them want to engage you.
30 Oct 15
Originally posted by Rajk999You still don't "get it", do you?
Actually you do not understand. The doctrine some Christians have is that they have eternal life already, they are regenerated and they cannot lose it. In order to support that doctrine they need to find ways to void the passages in the Bible that speak of the consequences of sin. Therefore they must claim that sin is not an issue as Christ died for all the ...[text shortened]... Now if Christ did not die for all sins [which is clear in the Bible], then their doctrine fails.
30 Oct 15
Originally posted by KellyJayA problem of time. I'd thought that the general notion is that the relevant time for divine forgiveness is after one dies. That seems to resolve the problem since it is difficult to commit sins after death. This also leaves one responsible for one's post baptismal behaviour.
Can you be forgiven or even need to be for something you didn't do?
Once you do something then the need arises doesn't it, but until that time
there would be no need.
So the debate about being forgiven of all future sins seems a bit,
unnecessary to me since no one is a murderer until they murder.
As far as I can tell when the Pagans converted the kings would fight a series of expansionary wars intending to formally convert after they'd completed their conquests. That way the sins one commits making war would be before the time of their baptism. There is of course the risk of dieing before conversion, for example Penda, but they could expand their kingdom and secure it by joining the Church, after which time they were secure against other Christian kingdoms as one could not make war on other Christians without an exemption from the Church. So medieval Christianity seems to have believed that one is not responsible for one's sins pre-conversion but that one is culpable for the sins committed after.
30 Oct 15
Originally posted by Suzianne"...but than again..."
Honest scrutiny is one thing. Preemptively calling another's beliefs "superstition" or worse, is not mere "honest scrutiny and debate", it's name-calling, and yeah, that is unnecessary.
And because of this, and certain posters' inclination to not show other's beliefs the tiniest scrap of respect (after all, everyone has beliefs, but to be called somehow ...[text shortened]... perhaps you didn't want any. Bad-mouthing people doesn't exactly make them want to engage you.
I'm shocked, Suzianne!