The Origin of God

Originally posted by Badwater
Hold on a moment. Jesus is teaching while he's alive and Christians believe that his death is the atonement for sins. Jesus is instructing for the forgiveness of sins because 1) He's not dead yet, and 2) He's not making the assumption that all have been baptized - either in his listening audience at the time or after. Regardless of whether you believe that ...[text shortened]... n believer may be making that distinction while you seem to not be making that distinction.

1) I doubt ToO is a "Christian believer"
2)The Lord's prayer was Jesus's instruction on how believers/followers should pray , and still applies today. I think it was one of his disciples (followers) who asked him "how should we pray"?
3) Jesus was specifically telling his followers that they should ask for forgiveness for sins daily.
4) ToO thinks forgiveness is a one time deal only and that once someone has repented they will be forgiven and never sin again.
5) number 3 makes no sense because Jesus would never ask anyone to ask for repeated forgiveness if 3 was actually true.


ToOne's theory is contradictory and illogical . Goodnight , QED , Slamdunk , period -whichever way you look at it.

Originally posted by knightmeister
1) I doubt ToO is a "Christian believer"
....

Meaning you're perfectly willing to make an assumption because in doing so you buttress your argument; however, in doing so you have removed logic and reason from your argument. There is no slam dunk - you are being convenient and irrational. You'll have to do better than that.

Originally posted by Starrman
That has nothing whatsoever to do with responding to my post, it's just a collection of rhetorical statements.

Blah, blah and thrice; blah.

What do you have there with you, sheep?

Blaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhicup.

Originally posted by Badwater
Meaning you're perfectly willing to make an assumption because in doing so you buttress your argument; however, in doing so you have removed logic and reason from your argument. There is no slam dunk - you are being convenient and irrational. You'll have to do better than that.

Me thinks its you that is buttressing your argument with no logic attached. I have laid out my reasoning in convenient numbered asnd logical stages for you to engage with , and yet you have chosen not to say which of these stages you disagree with.

Maybe if you could say at which stage my logic broke down? I don't think it did.

3) + 4) are obviously irresolvable and contradictory.

Originally posted by knightmeister
...

Maybe if you could say at which stage my logic broke down? I don't think it did.

....

Guess you need to reread my previous post.

Originally posted by Badwater
Guess you need to reread my previous post.

You need to be more specific and say why 3) and 4) are not contradictory with each other.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You need to be more specific and say why 3) and 4) are not contradictory with each other.

Why is it so difficult for you to read and comprehend the posts of others?

Even after it gets pointed out to you that you need to do so, you still can't seem to be able to do it. It's evident that, for whatever reason, you see only what you want to see. It becomes pointless to point out details to you when you still can't be bothered to really look. This is one of the main reasons I will no longer discuss things with you - not lame things like the following that you make up in order to not have to face this and other shortcomings of your own:

KM "Sadly , you can't address this , you just walk away and find some other person on which you can ply your trade , feigning to discuss and debate when in reality you are on a crusade. "

You really need to be able to find a way to get your mind around this reality.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Why is it so difficult for you to read and comprehend the posts of others?

Even after it gets pointed out to you that you need to do so, you still can't seem to be able to do it. It's evident that, for whatever reason, you see only what you want to see. It becomes pointless to point out details to you when you still can't be bothered to really look. Th usade. "

You really need to be able to find a way to get your mind around this reality.

I presume that this is the point that you are refering to.....?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Hold on a moment. Jesus is teaching while he's alive and Christians believe that his death is the atonement for sins. Jesus is instructing for the forgiveness of sins because 1) He's not dead yet, and 2) He's not making the assumption that all have been baptized - either in his listening audience at the time or after."
-------------------------------------------------BADWATER-----------------

Care to discuss this? I'm up for it! I can see a gross logical flaw in it already. Can you? Can Badwater?

Let's see who walks away from this one.

Let's find out who is REALLY looking and REALLY thinking.

So. Are you feigning or crusading ToO?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I presume that this is the point that you are refering to.....?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Hold on a moment. Jesus is teaching while he's alive and Christians believe that his death is the atonement for sins. Jesus is instructing for the forgiveness of sins because 1) He's not dead yet, and 2) ut who is REALLY looking and REALLY thinking.

So. Are you feigning or crusading ToO?

lol. Well, I guess you'll first need to be able to read and comprehend my post.

Try putting everything in the context it was written instead of looking to make everything fit your preconceived notions. You might actually learn something if you develop that skill. Seriously. I don't think you're dim so much as unable or unwilling to see beyond your preconceived notions. But if you are capable of humility, you should be able to overcome this. That said, the humility part seems to be seriously lacking.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
lol. Well, I guess you'll first need to be able to read and comprehend my post.

Try putting everything in the context it was written instead of looking to make everything fit your preconceived notions. You might actually learn something if you develop that skill. Seriously. I don't think you're dim so much as unable or unwilling to see beyond your pre ...[text shortened]... should be able to overcome this. That said, the humility part seems to be seriously lacking.

And this is what you always do.....you make a post about me and not the issue.

Can you not see that you are avoiding the issue? Stop talking about me and lets discuss the logic of the argument. It's logic and reason that will sort this out.

So let's spell this out for you.

1) Badwater's claims that (in the Lord's Prayer) Jesus only says that we need to ask for daily/repeated forgiveness of sins because he's not dead yet.

2) ToOne claims that in John 8:32 Jesus is commanding people to overcome sin once and for all so that we wouild have no need to ask for forgiveness.

3) In John 8:32 and Matthew 6:9 (L's Prayer) Jesus is "not dead yet" in both cases.

4) So why would Jesus feel the need to ask people who follow him to confess sins daily in Matthew 6:9 , and yet in John 8:32 say that people should be overcoming sin completely so that no forgiveness is neccessary?

5) Both statements occurred BEFORE Jesus died.


Can you not see the inconsistency?


Come on ToOne , stop making this about me and start seeing reason. If you think you can show a flaw in my reasoning then just get on with it instead of coming out with your insubstantial drivel about my "lack of humility". If my argument was that flimsy you would have shot me down by now.

The humility of any one individual has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Either John 8:32 and Matt 6:9 can be logically resolved or they can't , and no amount of personalising this will make this go away.

So , one more time - ToO- ADDRESS THE ISSUE!!!!!!!


(I know what you will do - I predict you will walk away as normal - probably rationalising it by saying to yourself "there's no point in discussing with KM blah blah" )

Originally posted by knightmeister
And this is what you always do.....you make a post about me and not the issue.

Can you not see that you are avoiding the issue? Stop talking about me and lets discuss the logic of the argument. It's logic and reason that will sort this out.

So let's spell this out for you.

1) Badwater's claims that (in the Lord's Prayer) Jesus only says that sing it by saying to yourself "there's no point in discussing with KM blah blah" )

Listen KM, I know you don't like hearing it, but in order for you to understand the flaws in your arguments, you need to be able to comprehend what others are posting. While this isn't as blatantly flawed as your "there is no general word for 'sin' in Hebrew" theory, this one is flawed like the myriad of arguments you've made in the past.

Not too long ago, I asked that you start addressing my posts in their entirety. I was thinking that by doing so, you could demonstrate that you actually read and comprehend my posts. You declined to do so despite my repeated requests for you to do so. I don't know. Maybe you couldn't comprehend the request. Whether you like to admit it or not, the lack of comprehension on your part is a serious impediment to having a discussion based in logic and reason. Right now, you don't seem to have the skills necessary to have a fruitful discussion. Whether you like it or not, that is a prerequisite.

Please try to comprehend what I'm saying here before you just go off again.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Listen KM, I know you don't like hearing it, but in order for you to understand the flaws in your arguments, you need to be able to comprehend what others are posting. While this isn't as blatantly flawed as your "there is no general word for 'sin' in Hebrew" theory, this one is flawed like the myriad of arguments you've made in the past.

Not too long ...[text shortened]... isite.

Please try to comprehend what I'm saying here before you just go off again.

But you haven't said anything of substance or anything rational. Don't play games , just lay out an argument and I will discuss it gladly. I'll even play fair and answer a specific argument of yours in exchange for you doing the same afterwards. But you just won't do it.

I went and re-read Badwater's argument and addressed it , but still you would not engage in meaningful discussion. It's just your usual stalling tactic. I have spent many hours reading your posts and others and understanding your position

What you fail to understand is how all this really works. When a person makes a catagorical claim it only takes one fly in the ointment to shoot them down. Just one irresolvable inconsistency and they've had it.

If a man says "there are no mice in this room" - how many mice do i need to find to prove him wrong? 12? 137? 1,000,000 ? or just 1?

1) You have made a catagorical claim in many of your posts - ie that in John 8:32 Jesus is saying that sin must be completely overcome in order to be saved and become a follower of his. (do you deny this?)

2) I have argued in this thread very logically and precisely that 1) is contradictory with Matt 6:9 because if 1) were true it makes no sense for Jesus to ask his followers to ask God daily for forgiveness.

3) I then went on to counter Badwater's argument (which you said I didn't understand) and show that at the very least it is seriously flawed. So far you have no counter-argument

4) Unless you can find a way to resolve this then there will remain a big fly your ointment. It matters not whatever else you have said or what I have comprehended or not comprehended because the logical inconsistency will remain.

I can only conclude that you haven't the foggiest idea how to argue your corner on this one otherwise you would have begun by now.

You keep harping back to previous posts and personalising things as you go , but the debate is here and now. Not yesterday or on some other thread , but right here right now. Here it is. The illogical self contradiction within your position.

And you just can't deal with it. You will do ANYTHING and try ANY rationalisation to avoid the truth laid out right in front of you on your computer screen.

If you were really confident that your position would hold water then you would not be afraid of taking up this discussion right now and seeing where it goes. For endless months you have found some reason or other to avoid things.

Any objective reader of these posts will realise immediately who is prepared to thrash out the truth and who is on the run.


Would you not concede that Matt 6:9 and John 8:32 are at the very least uneasy bedfellows?

Originally posted by knightmeister
But you haven't said anything of substance or anything rational. Don't play games , just lay out an argument and I will discuss it gladly. I'll even play fair and answer a specific argument of yours in exchange for you doing the same afterwards. But you just won't do it.

I went and re-read Badwater's argument and addressed it , but still you would u not concede that Matt 6:9 and John 8:32 are at the very least uneasy bedfellows?

Evidently the concept that you necessarily have to be able to comprehend what is posted for there to be meaningful dialogue is beyond you. Whether you realize it or not, this is quite substantive and rational. What is irrational is that you ignore this fact.

Plus you know I've addressed most of your nonsensical "theories", so stop pretending that I haven't. The problem is that no matter how many I address, you keep tossing them out there as "proof". No matter how ludicrous they are, you keep tossing them out there. That "there is no general word for 'sin' in Hebrew" theory was something else. Then there was also the "we don't really know what Jesus said" theory. This latest really isn't all that much better. Should I really be expected to respond to every ridiculous theory that you think of?

What you can't get past is that what I believe is explicitly stated by Jesus. Thus far, you have only come up with speculation and often wild speculation at that. The problem with speculation is that there is no end to it. Even at that, I'd be willing to try to discuss it if you'd demonstrate that you can be bothered to actually read and comprehend what I post. Thus far, you have declined. If you can't be bothered to read and comprehend it, why should I bother to post it?

Once again, please try to comprehend what I'm saying here before you just go off again. Not that it stopped you the last time and doubtless it won't stop you again.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Evidently the concept that you necessarily have to be able to comprehend what is posted for there to be meaningful dialogue is beyond you. Whether you realize it or not, this is quite substantive and rational. What is irrational is that you ignore this fact.

Plus you know I've addressed most of your nonsensical "theories", so stop pretending that I hav , please try to comprehend what I'm saying here before you just go off again.

I'd be willing to try to discuss it if you'd demonstrate that you can be bothered to actually read and comprehend what I post. Thus far, you have declined. If you can't be bothered to read and comprehend it, why should I bother to post it?
------------------------------ToO----------------------------------------

Ok , I'll take you at your word then. Would you like to discuss the Hebrew word for sin thing in exchange for discussing my most recent argument?

My point about there being no general Hebrew word for sin was this. There are many Hebrew words for sin if you research it and what you will find is that some of them refer to more wicked , intentional rebellion against God and some of them refer to less serious flaws , sins or errors , or "falling short". The one thing we can say for sure is that Hebrew words for sin are a bit like Eskimo words for snow in the sense that they draw distinctions and bring out subtlties that our language doesn't so much. The fact that there may exist a generic word for sin in Hebrew alongside many other words for sin changes nothing much at all.

Therefore it's entirely reasonable to ask the question "which word was Jesus actually using in John 8:32?". It also seems totally logical to ask this question and think about what John 8:32 actually might mean.

Why? Because your interpretation (and that's what it is) sits very, very poorly with Matt 6:9. Something doesn't add up somewhere.

So what's the logical thing to do? Naturally explore other interpretations of John 8:32. Logic dictates this because if you are right on John 8:32 then Matt 6:9 makes little sense or at the very least creates a big problem. Jesus would not be telling his disciples (and by implication future believers) to ask for continual forgiveness for sins , if he had already made it clear that anyone who does not overcome sin is not one of his followers. It's crazy.

You could of course say that the Lord's Prayer was not intended for anyone else other than those people he was talking to and it was not meant to be an instruction to future Christians . The obvious problem with that is that then you could just say the same thing about John 8:32 - and your pack of cards would fall anyway.

Overall , it seems much more objective and logical to explore other possibilities rather than stick to one rigid interpretation at all costs. Now you may think this is "wild speculation" , but I think many will agree that it's the only congruent thing to do. I don't see anything "wild" about exploring the very language that Jesus may have used in John 8:32 to try and figure it out.

Unlike you I do not have to believe that everything Jesus said matches up like some colour by numbers theology. I can live with the messiness of it and explore the contradictions. Aparently you cannot tolerate the anxiety this creates for your belief system.

You seem to have decided long ago before you came on this forum that anyone who did not see it the way you did MUST by definition be deluding themselves or rationalising John 8:32 away.

Well , it just doesn't wash anymore because I have a logical argument that demands that any rational person should by definition have doubts about your interpretation of John 8:32.

So , you might be right , you might be wrong. Let's try and thrash it out using some logic and objectivity.

Would you not at the very least accept that Matt 6:9 is a problem? You won't die if you just accept that it's not as clear cut as you might think it is. Even if you accepted Matt 6:9 as a problem , it would hardly be grounds for me to claim proof of anything.

All I would have done is shown that your position on John 8:32 is maybe not as secure as you first thought. Would that be so bad? Or Do you cling to that which you think is explicit and black and white? Surely you don't want to be like those fundies who just read something on homosexuality and then never think about the context or any other passages? You are better than that.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I'd be willing to try to discuss it if you'd demonstrate that you can be bothered to actually read and comprehend what I post. Thus far, you have declined. If you can't be bothered to read and comprehend it, why should I bother to post it?
------------------------------ToO----------------------------------------

Ok , I'll take you at your word then ink about the context or any other passages? You are better than that.

lol. This has little or nothing to do with my posts. If this is supposed to be a demonstration of what you comprehended, I can only gather that you didn't comprehend much if anything. You certainly didn't demonstrate that you comprehended the reasons for the posts. Like usual, you ignore the germane points and just go off and start another monologue. Do I really have to explain the concept of "dialogue" to you?