07 Nov 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasBut won't ThinkofOne say that this can be interpreted in "so many ways"....? Oops I forgot , he told me I couldn't do that!
[b]Either you're hiding it from me or he never actually says "'eternal life' is granted at some point before sin is actually overcome." If he did say it, show me.
KM, ThinkOfOne refuses to talk to me, so this one's FYI. Christ did point to a historical event in a believer's life when he or she is definitely "born again." Here is the scriptural e ...[text shortened]... regard their portent, as they challenge his tenaciously held misconceptions.[/b]
07 Nov 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAnd if 100 million christians were getting it wrong and only 10 got it right that would mean that Jesus didn't say what he said? You cannot judge truth by how it is applied or misapplied. Jesus said what he said about his death and about the Holy spirit , and about his blood and about the new covenant , and about remaining in him , and about being born again.
Do you honestly believe that something more than a small percentage of "Christians" really try to overcome sin? Most are so wrapped up in the day-to-day world that it's never given more than a token effort. Of those who do give more than a token effort, most are like a child who scrunches up his face when he's running in an effort to convince the teacher ...[text shortened]... ng is the joy of the love of themselves. This is a real problem. It's heart-breaking.
Is fire bad because it can and has been used to set fire to houses? Is the English language not English because people don't use it right?
07 Nov 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasThese two passages prove that there is such a point in the life of a believer where he or she is "born again," and that the significance of being born again is that he or she "follows" Christ and is granted eternal life which cannot be lost.
[b]Either you're hiding it from me or he never actually says "'eternal life' is granted at some point before sin is actually overcome." If he did say it, show me.
KM, ThinkOfOne refuses to talk to me, so this one's FYI. Christ did point to a historical event in a believer's life when he or she is definitely "born again." Here is the scriptural e ...[text shortened]... regard their portent, as they challenge his tenaciously held misconceptions.[/b]
Note: despite these words coming directly from Jesus, expect ThinkOfOne to utterly disregard their portent, as they challenge his tenaciously held misconceptions.
--ephin-----
I have realised however that the problem debating with TofOne is one of sheer logic. He does not seem to feel obliged to hold himself to the same logic that he puts forward. In this context , the fact that we are debating Jesus is irrelevant because there is a debating principle at stake here. We could be arguing over blancmange and it wouldn't make any difference. The only rule seems to be " I make a point but you are not allowed to use the logic behind my point to challenge me". It's very frustrating.
07 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterWhere in "what he said about his death and about the Holy spirit , and about his blood and about the new covenant , and about remaining in him , and about being born again" does it say that "'eternal life' is granted at some point before sin is actually overcome"?
And if 100 million christians were getting it wrong and only 10 got it right that would mean that Jesus didn't say what he said? You cannot judge truth by how it is applied or misapplied. Jesus said what he said about his death and about the Holy spirit , and about his blood and about the new covenant , and about remaining in him , and about being born ...[text shortened]... to set fire to houses? Is the English language not English because people don't use it right?
Where does it say that Jeus didn't really mean it when He said, "Depart from me, you who work iniquity."?
07 Nov 07
3 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhere does it say that Jeus didn't really mean it when He said, "Depart from me, you who work iniquity."?
Where in "what he said about his death and about the Holy spirit , and about his blood and about the new covenant , and about remaining in him , and about being born again" does it say that "'eternal life' is granted at some point before sin is actually overcome"?
Where does it say that Jeus didn't really mean it when He said, "Depart from me, you who work iniquity."?
----thinkofone---------------
It doesn't but then jesus said a lot of things didn't he? Whereas you talk as if he only said the sentences you quote. There are a whole host of statements that we need to look at and make sense of together. Sometimes he seems to talk sternly and judgementally at others he seems to show great mercy and patience.
Two things that strike me about this statement is a) the "work" iniquity bit which suggests some kind of deliberate scheming or deviousness behind the sin and b) the specific group he was talking to (pharisees was it not) . There is an argument that says that Jesus might well have distinguished between wilful , scheming sin and someone who sins as a result of being a flawed human being (eg Simon Peter) . There is a lot of evidence to suggest that Jesus accepts Simon Peter's arrogance because he sees through it to his heart and willingness to follow him (however much he might stumble).
I have to believe that jesus is very interested in our intentions and where our heart is and not just whether we sin or not. Simon Peter was still sinning when Jesus said he would build his church on him. He should have told him to depart from him by your logic. It's clear that Jesus considered Peter to be a follower of him even though he was far from perfect. How queer!
BTW - I would still like to know whether you believe that Jesus taught that the Holy Spirit was to live in us and be with us and guide us in all truth? (yes/no)
07 Nov 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterI answered that a few posts back.
Where does it say that Jeus didn't really mean it when He said, "Depart from me, you who work iniquity."?
----thinkofone---------------
It doesn't but then jesus said a lot of things didn't he? Whereas you talk as if he only said the sentences you quote. There are a whole host of statements that we need to look at and make sense of together. S ...[text shortened]... at the Holy Spirit was to live in us and be with us and guide us in all truth? (yes/no)
08 Nov 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAnd your answer was.........? To be honest I can't remember if you gave a direct answer or not. My hunch is that you didn't .
I answered that a few posts back.
BTW- It wouldn't hurt just to repeat your answer would it. It doesn't take long. I'm not trying a trick question here , I'm simply trying to ascertain whether you subscribe to some of jesus's clear , explicit teachings on other issues and not just the ones you keep refering to.
I am not playing some silly game here , it's really simple , I need to be able to pin you down a bit. I don't really understand what you actually subscribe to and what you don't , so some clarity would be useful (even if it means repeating yourself).
The problem here is that you can be incredibly evasive. Can you see how you come across to others?
"Let your Yes be your Yes and your No be your No , anything more than this comes from the evil one"
You see evasiveness was definitely considered a sin by Jesus but I am unclear whether you have overcome it or not. If you haven't then by Jesus's own words (and your own argument) you had better prepare yourself to "depart from him"?
So , do you believe that Jesus taught we are to remain in him and him in us via the Holy Spirit? (yes/no)
BTW- Have you overcome sin? (yes/no)
08 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterThis may be difficult for you to understand, but not everyone lives superficially. You can ask a question like, "Do you believe in democracy?". Superficially the answer can be "Yes" or "No". But in order to understand where the person really stands some dialogue needs to take place.
And your answer was.........? To be honest I can't remember if you gave a direct answer or not. My hunch is that you didn't .
BTW- It wouldn't hurt just to repeat your answer would it. It doesn't take long. I'm not trying a trick question here , I'm simply trying to ascertain whether you subscribe to some of jesus's clear , explicit teachings on o him in us via the Holy Spirit? (yes/no)
BTW- Have you overcome sin? (yes/no)
Just because I choose not to chase all the red herrings you throw out, doesn't mean that I'm being "evasive."
I doubt you realize this, but there is a lack of depth and clarity to your belief system. For example, look at how you use the quote by Jesus. You twist His words in order to try to make a point. This should tell you some things about yourself. What does the following really mean?
"Let your Yes be your Yes and your No be your No , anything more than this comes from the evil one"
Your self-centeredness is at times alarming.
08 Nov 07
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThis may be difficult for you to understand, but not everyone lives superficially. You can ask a question like, "Do you believe in democracy?". Superficially the answer can be "Yes" or "No". But in order to understand where the person really stands some dialogue needs to take place.
This may be difficult for you to understand, but not everyone lives superficially. You can ask a question like, "Do you believe in democracy?". Superficially the answer can be "Yes" or "No". But in order to understand where the person really stands some dialogue needs to take place.
Just because I choose not to chase all the red herrings you throw out e than this comes from the evil one"
Your self-centeredness is at times alarming.
Just because I choose not to chase all the red herrings you throw out, doesn't mean that I'm being "evasive."
-------think of one-------------------------
It's not difficult at all. I think that you are right to say this. In one sense you are not being evasive and I couldn't agree more with the idea that there are no easy superficial answers to many things.
But don't you see it yet? Here's my problem. When I say that we are to look more deeply at Jesus's teachings and consider context , the wide range of his sayings , who he is speaking to , what the prophecies say about him and what the symbolism of passover means you seem to imply that I am pussy footing about and you say things like " he said what he said" and go on to also imply that I am interpreting his words in too complex a way.
The loaded dice come in. You seem to feel that you are entitled to put me on the spot and ask me (in not so many words) ' did Jesus mean what he said or didn't he?' but then when I give you the same treatment you complain I am being superficial.
The "red herrings" that I put before you are valid questions based on a deep overview of EVERYTHING Jesus said and did , rather than just a simplistic word for word and superficial reading.
The problem here is that you seem to want to play chess , so I think to myself , let's play chess then . You then start to not like the way the chess game is going so you say "let's play draughts instead" , so I start playing draughts , then the draughts takes a turn for the worst and you say " draughts is superficial , let's play chess" . If I then start to use the rules of chess to show you something , it's back to draughts again.
You see I agree with you , it's wrong to just take stuff literally and not look into things more deeply , I just which you would stick to this game the next time you quote Jesus and ask "well did he mean what he said or not?" Because if I say "there's more to it than this and we need also to look at the context and his other sayings " I DO NOT expect you to say I am being evasive . Can we agree then to play one game at a time rather than switch mid games?
This has nothing to do with Jesus and everything to do with your thinking style , play one game and stick to the rules this time. If you expect me to answer direct questions about what Jesus taught then you must be able to reciprocate other wise the game is not fair and you will always win .
I apologise if this sounds aggressive , but you have to appreciate how others experience your style. It's not personal , but when I have spent a lot of time thinking about my chess move only to find you start playing draughts it's ...well...frustrating.
This is what I mean when I say you are being evasive.
All I am doing is taking the logic you are using and reflecting it back to you and you don't seem to like it. Why is this?
08 Nov 07
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYour self-centeredness is at times alarming.
This may be difficult for you to understand, but not everyone lives superficially. You can ask a question like, "Do you believe in democracy?". Superficially the answer can be "Yes" or "No". But in order to understand where the person really stands some dialogue needs to take place.
Just because I choose not to chase all the red herrings you throw out e than this comes from the evil one"
Your self-centeredness is at times alarming.
KM, ThinkOfOne says this same type of crap to everyone. Don't buy it.
Ad hominem:
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man" ) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claims is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument. Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the validity of a logical inference is independent of the person making the inference."
Essentially, ThinkOfOne's willingness to personally attack the people he argues with is proof that he is unable to address the substance of their arguments or provide evidence against their claims.
08 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYour self-centeredness is at times alarming.
This may be difficult for you to understand, but not everyone lives superficially. You can ask a question like, "Do you believe in democracy?". Superficially the answer can be "Yes" or "No". But in order to understand where the person really stands some dialogue needs to take place.
Just because I choose not to chase all the red herrings you throw out e than this comes from the evil one"
Your self-centeredness is at times alarming.
KM, ThinkOfOne says this same type of crap to everyone. Don't buy it.
Ad hominem:
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man" ) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claims is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument. Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the validity of a logical inference is independent of the person making the inference."
Essentially, ThinkOfOne's willingness to personally attack the people he argues with is proof that he is unable to address the substance of their arguments or provide evidence against their claims.
08 Nov 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasYou can say that again!
[b]Your self-centeredness is at times alarming.
KM, ThinkOfOne says this same type of crap to everyone. Don't buy it.
Ad hominem:
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man"😉 consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or ...[text shortened]... e to address the substance of their arguments or provide evidence against their claims.[/b]
08 Nov 07
Here is a quote which ties everything in this thread together succinctly:
"Only he who believes is obedient, and only he who is obedient believes. It is quite unbiblical to hold the first propostion without the second. We think we understand when we hear that obedience is possible only where there is faith. Does not obedience follow faith as good fruit grows on a good tree? First, faith, then obedience. If by that we mean that it is faith which justifies, and not the act of obedience, all well and good, for that is the essential and unexceptionable presupposition of all that follows. If, however, we make a chronological distinction between faith and obedience, and make obedience subsequent to faith, we are divorcing the one from the other -- and then we get the practical question, when must obedience begin? Obedience remains separated from faith. From the point of view of justification it is necessary thus to separate them, but we must never lose sight of their essential unity. For faith is only real when there is obedience, never without it, and faith only becomes faith in the act of obedience.
"Since, then, we cannot adequately speak of obedience as the consequence of faith, and since we must never forget the indissoluble unity of the two, we must place the one proposition that only he who believes is obedient alongside the other, that only he who is obedient believes. In the one case faith is the condition of obedience, and in the other obedience the condition of faith. In exactly the same way in which obedience is called the consequence of faith, it must also be called the presupposition of faith."
-- Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship.
08 Nov 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasSpot on!!!
[b]Your self-centeredness is at times alarming.
KM, ThinkOfOne says this same type of crap to everyone. Don't buy it.
Ad hominem:
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man" ) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking o ...[text shortened]... e to address the substance of their arguments or provide evidence against their claims.[/b]