Spirituality
11 Nov 17
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @thinkofoneHere's a post I didn't read until now.
Focus Jaywill. You didn't answer the question.
Where did I say anything about repentance?
This is what you do. You create straw men and then attack them. If you don't know what that is, then google it.
Repentance is the beginning of taking personal responsibility.
Repentance is a change of mind, to begin to think differently.
So though you didn't mention repentance per se, taking responsibility starts very often with a change of the mind - repentance.
Formerly, I felt it was OK to do thus and such. Now I have a change of heart about that. I now think differently about that - I repent towards God and God's requirement.
The attitude of not needing forgiveness would be more that side stepping of responsibility towards God.
Case in point - Cain who quarreled with his Maker - "Am I my brother's keeper?" knowing full well that he had just murdered his brother.
Did God shrug because his forefather Adam had plunged the human race into the sin nature?
Your objection that redemption in Christ is God's giving license to sin more without any care for personal responsibility is wrong as far as the Bible teaches. You should not read religious hypocrisy INTO the teaching of the Bible, if that is the case.
Incidently, God warned Cain as Cain was in the process of being eaten up by his jealousy and resentment at being not received in his "worship". The divine warning is all about Cain standing against the sin seeking to devour him alive from within.
"And Jehovah said to Cain, Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up?
And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and his desire his for you, but you must rule over him." (Genesis 4:6,7)
Does it read differently for you? Do you see God unconcerned for Cain's approaching lust to murder simply because Adam and Eve brought sin into the world ?
14 Nov 17
Originally posted by @sonshipYou're really off the beam jaywill.
Here's a post I didn't read until now.
Focus Jaywill. You didn't answer the question.
Where did I say anything about repentance?
This is what you do. You create straw men and then attack them. If you don't know what that is, then google it.
Repentance is the beginning of taking personal responsibility.
Repentance is a cha ...[text shortened]... d for Cain's approaching lust to murder simply because Adam and Eve brought sin into the world ?
Address my post at the bottom of the previous page and we'll go from there.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
14 Nov 17
2 edits
Is this what you say I am not focused on?
C'mom jaywill. You put the "blame" squarely on the "fallen state" of man - which ultimately puts the blame on Adam and Eve. As such, in your mind "they" are responsible for your "abject guilt and failure". How is this not true?
Here we go again.
Did the Bible teach that Cain was not guilty and a failed person in his murder of Abel because, after all, it was all Adam's fault that the sin nature came to man ?
YES - is your answer if Cain was NOT responsible for the murder.
NO - if you detect that God held Cain responsible for the murder.
You were mentioning FOCUS ?
Do some on Genesis 4:1-26
C'mon ThinkOfOne, is not the intended POINT of the record of Cain and Abel following the disobedience of Adam and Eve an indication that men afterwards were held RESPONSIBLE for their sins ?
Originally posted by @sonshipYou're really off the beam.
Is this what you say I am not focused on?C'mom jaywill. You put the "blame" squarely on the "fallen state" of man - which ultimately puts the blame on Adam and Eve. As such, in your mind "they" are responsible for your "abject guilt and failure". How is this not true?
Here we go again.
Did the Bible teach that [b]Cain was not gui ...[text shortened]... Adam and Eve an indication that men afterwards were held RESPONSIBLE for their sins ?[/b]
Just answer the question at the end of the following:
People believe in the "the redemptive death of Christ" because it is self-serving to do so. It's a way to avoid having to take responsibility for ones character and actions.
.
.
C'mom jaywill. You put the "blame" squarely on the "fallen state" of man - which ultimately puts the blame on Adam and Eve. As such, in your mind "they" are responsible for your "abject guilt and failure". How is this not true?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
14 Nov 17
Originally posted by @thinkofoneYou answer about whether Cain was held guilty for the murder of Abel.
You're really off the beam.
Just answer the question at the end of the following:People believe in the "the redemptive death of Christ" because it is self-serving to do so. It's a way to avoid having to take responsibility for ones character and actions.
.
.
C'mom jaywill. You put the "blame" squarely on the "fallen state" of man - whic ...[text shortened]... mind "they" are responsible for your "abject guilt and failure". How is this not true?
Cain is not held responsible for what Adam did.
Cain is held responsible for obeying the sin nature that he inherited.
Am I wrong about that or right about that?
Your push for a theology of "Cain you are not responsible for YOUR crime because Adam your forefather brought man into union with the sin nature" as I see it, is the real strawman argument here.
Where's the case ??
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
It is Romans which speaks so strongly about the nature of sin working in man.
And it is Romans that traces such a foreign element in man's being back to Adam's eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
But each sinner is accountable to God. Paul lists a representative wrong doings which make a man worthy of death.
"And even as they did not approve of holding God in their full knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mind, to do the things which are not fitting.
Being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, whisperers, slanderers, hateful to God, insolent, arrogant, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, senseless, faithless, affectionless, merciless;
Who though fully knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do them, but also have fellow delight in those who practice them." (Romans 1:28-32)
Paul had before him the history of Genesis. He views the descendants of Adam and Eve as plunged into sins which are ultimately deserving of death to them. He is laying the ground work for condemnation of all the world SO THAT he can go on to speak of JUSTIFICATION in Christ's redemption.
Romans does not stop with Justification. It goes on to SANCTIFICATION and the need and responsibility to overcome the sin nature through the grace of Christ working within.
Originally posted by @sonshipSeriously jaywill.
You answer about whether [b]Cain was held guilty for the murder of Abel.
Cain is not held responsible for what Adam did.
Cain is held responsible for obeying the sin nature that he inherited.
Am I wrong about that or right about that?
Your push for a theology of "Cain you are not responsible for YOUR crime because Adam your forefa ...[text shortened]... n with the sin nature" as I see it, is the real strawman argument here.
Where's the case ??[/b]
Why are you insisting on pursuing your straw man argument instead of addressing what I actually wrote?
Set aside your pride. Reread our discussion thus far. Admit that you created a straw man. And address what I wrote.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
15 Nov 17
Originally posted by @thinkofoneCan I assume that the words that you are most concerned about me addressing in detail are these ?
Seriously jaywill.
Why are you insisting on pursuing your straw man argument instead of addressing what I actually wrote?
Set aside your pride. Reread our discussion thus far. Admit that you created a straw man. And address what I wrote.
. As such, in your mind "they" [Adam and Eve] are responsible for your "abject guilt and failure". How is this not true?
Are those the precise words you feel that I am ignoring?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
15 Nov 17
Me:
Please don't tell me when I turned my whole life over to Jesus that day, I was shirking responsibility. It was the first time before God that I acknowledged my total responsibility and that I needed God to saved me from my abject guilt and failure.
ToO:
C'mom jaywill. You put the "blame" squarely on the "fallen state" of man - which ultimately puts the blame on Adam and Eve. As such, in your mind "they" are responsible for your "abject guilt and failure". How is this not true?
ThinkofOne are these two paragraphs what you find not being discussed by me?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
15 Nov 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @sonship
Me:Please don't tell me when I turned my whole life over to Jesus that day, I was shirking responsibility. It was the first time before God that I acknowledged my total responsibility and that I needed God to saved me from my abject guilt and failure.
ToO:
C'mom jaywill. You put the "blame" squarely on the "fallen state" of ...[text shortened]... t true?
ThinkofOne are these two paragraphs what you find not being discussed by me?
Seriously jaywill.
Seriously ThinkOfOne. Do these two paragraphs locate the specific points you're confident are being evaded by me?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
15 Nov 17
1 edit
ThinkOfOne,
If you are ready to commit in a non-nebulous, non-ambiguous point in this discussion which I intend to reply to in detail, then have the courage to commit.
Don't leave some back door open that you can slip out latter saying "Seriously now, Oh focus on the discussion."
If you have to courage to commit to being penned down to what I think you feel has been unattended, then I'll deal with it in terms should be crystal clear where I stand.
I found it interesting that Ghost, who is no cheerleader for my theism, also said he cannot understand how your approach to the Bible goes. Interesting that I am not alone or that only Christian's like me find your approach to belief in the Bible a not a little nebulous.
Originally posted by @sonshipJaywill it's really simple. I'm not accusing you of "ignoring" anything.
Can I assume that the words that you are most concerned about me addressing in detail are these ?
. As such, in your mind "they" [Adam and Eve] are responsible for your "abject guilt and failure". How is this not true?
Are those the precise words you feel that I am ignoring?
I'm accusing you of having created a straw man.
Once again, following is the definition from wiki:
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
The argument you are refuting was not made by me. It is an argument that you made up in your own mind.
Am I mistaken, but haven't you been accused of doing this more than a few times before by more than one poster? Your reading comprehension and ability to follow a discussion are really poor. It is what it is.
Originally posted by @sonshipI found it interesting that Ghost, who is no cheerleader for my theism, also said he cannot understand how your approach to the Bible goes. Interesting that I am not alone or that only Christian's like me find your approach to belief in the Bible a not a little nebulous.
ThinkOfOne,
If you are ready to commit in a non-nebulous, non-ambiguous point in this discussion which I intend to reply to in detail, then have the courage to commit.
Don't leave some back door open that you can slip out latter saying "Seriously now, Oh focus on the discussion."
If you have to courage to commit to being penned down to what I thi ...[text shortened]... at only Christian's like me find your approach to belief in the Bible a not a little nebulous.
What's even more interesting than the opinion of a troll like GoaD, is the fact that I've had many a discussion with Christians outside of this forum who have been able to understand my position perfectly well and have been able to engage in a rational discussion about the Bible with me. But then, they've tended to be intelligent and well educated.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
15 Nov 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @thinkofoneAn argument not made by you.
Jaywill it's really simple. I'm not accusing you of "ignoring" anything.
I'm accusing you of having created a straw man.
Once again, following is the definition from wiki:
[quote]A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was ...[text shortened]... but haven't you been accused of doing this more than a few times before by more than one poster?
In other words YOU really have no dog in the fight.
That's convenient. So I go through a lot of thought and reply only to have you say "Well, it was not argument that I was making"
That's worse than a strawman argument. That's a marshmellow man argument I suppose.
I think I'll move on.
Other than an invitation to get all introspective and wrapped up in my style of posting, I don't see any significant matter to pursue here.
Originally posted by @sonshipYes. When you refute an argument of your own making instead of addressing the argument put forth by me - I have no dog in that fight.
An argument not made by you.
In other words YOU really have no dog in the fight.
That's convenient. So I go through a lot of thought and reply only to have you say "Well, it was not argument that [b] I was making"
That's worse than a strawman argument. That's a marshmellow man argument I suppose.
I think I'll move on.
Othe ...[text shortened]... ective and wrapped up in my style of posting, I don't see any significant matter to pursue here.[/b]
Now if you were to address the argument actually made by me, then I would have a dog in that fight.
What's "convenient" is that you create a straw man argument and then get in a huff because I point out that there's no point in trying to address your refutation of YOUR own argument.