24 Sep 15
Originally posted by chaney3Don't believe everything this Pope says. You must test all things with scripture to see if it is so.. This pope is another one of those false prophets and teachers that bring into the church damnable heresies and doctrines of demons.
About a month ago, or so, the Pope made a comment that he believes that once Jesus was crucified on the cross.....that ALL humans were saved. Regardless of who or what they believe, ALL are saved. To me, that makes sense.
I am fully aware that this conflicts with the 'Holy Bible'. But, I have maintained an attitude that maybe our Bible is not the 'say ...[text shortened]... this. Maybe we put too much emphasis on the Bible, and NOT on the deed that was done by Jesus.
24 Sep 15
Originally posted by chaney3The way I understand John 3:16 is that Christ's blood saves all who believe and trust in Him. There are others that will be thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone prepared for Satan and his angels.
Rak, do you realize how crazy that sounds?? In the post you replied to, I admitted that I would rather trust the crucifixion of Jesus, over comments made in the Bible. It is only in the Bible that supreme demands seem to be put on salvation.....how good a person is.
I don't believe that. It makes more sense that God knew that mankind was doomed, and when Jesus died.....Jesus saved ALL. Regardless of what the Bible may say.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28784
24 Sep 15
Originally posted by chaney3Thanks.
Ghost, I hold your opinions in high regards. I hope you don't mind me saying....but, maybe some posters don't know that you studied Theology at a University level, and are an atheist today.....despite the vast knowledge you posses regarding the Bible, God, and other religions. Many new threads could be started to find out why a person with such knowledge o ...[text shortened]... ...including adultery. Which as we know, is impossible. I am curious why He said such a thing.
In fairness though, there are many theists on this site who have a deeper knowledge on this subject than i do. My study of theology has only ever been academic, whereas to a Christian for example the bible is a living, breathing book which they study over far more regularly than i have ever done. For me, the bible is a collection of interesting stories written by a variety of human authors.
This is why the question, as to whether Paul's writing was as significant as what Jesus or God had to say, is wasted on an atheist. It's like asking a vegetarian which tastes better, pork or chicken?
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
24 Sep 15
Originally posted by sonshipAgreed, when a Christian has that "new nature" he/she has a desire to know God more intimately. They hate sin, even as God does.
[b] As we are transformed by the renewing of the mind, we tend to sin less and less. This will be culminated at the appearing of Jesus when we will be totally changed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is helpful.
Proverbs 4:18 shows that way of righteous living in God is like (or should ...[text shortened]... ecial class. It should be the normal result of all who love the Lord and live for His appearing.[/b]
In a practical sense we also do not want to be under sins authority, which leads to death. We desire to be pleasing to the Lord and under His authority or Lordship.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI will most respectfully disagree 🙂. There is no part of the teachings of Christ or the Apostles which give any leeway regarding sin. Sin is to be avoided at all costs. Sin and sinners are the enemy of God and sinners will have a hard time when it is time to face judgment... including the jokers around here that boast that their sins are fully covered and would not be held against them. The only leeway is the hope of forgiveness if and only if it is done in a manner consistent with the teachings of Christ ie from a contrite and sorrowful heart... sins that are constantly repeated imply that there is no remorse. Fools constantly claim they will be forgiven but only God knows.
My interpretation is that he was saying "Go, and don't do that again. learn from your mistake." (He was speaking specifically about the sin of adultery, not telling her to lead a sinless life, which of course is impossible for a human being).
But don't listen to me, i'm just an atheist.
Jesus speaking the words 'go and sin no more' is to be taken exactly as he said it. It is not reasonable to think that he would have meant go and dont commit adultery but it is ok to continue with other sins. No way could Christ have meant that. 'Go and sin no more' is consistent with the rest of Christ's teachings only if it meant exactly that.
I know there are some Christians that think they will escape judgment, because they are already saved and already have eternal life, but the Bible says no such thing
24 Sep 15
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsThen there are other people who are in both groups. Like me, according to you.
The way I understand John 3:16 is that Christ's blood saves all who believe and trust in Him. There are others that will be thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone prepared for Satan and his angels.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28784
24 Sep 15
Originally posted by Rajk999I respect a respectful disagreement. 🙂
I will most respectfully disagree 🙂. There is no part of the teachings of Christ or the Apostles which give any leeway regarding sin. Sin is to be avoided at all costs. Sin and sinners are the enemy of God and sinners will have a hard time when it is time to face judgment... including the jokers around here that boast that their sins are fully covered and w ...[text shortened]... , because they are already saved and already have eternal life, but the Bible says no such thing
Perhaps 'go and sin no more' was aspirational encouragement rather than instruction? (Like a mother telling her child 'be good' as they went off to school, knowing full well they would get into mischief).
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeWell precisely and that is most appropriate analogy, although Christ would hope that there would be a minimum of 'mischief' from his followers.
I respect a respectful disagreement. 🙂
Perhaps 'go and sin no more' was aspirational encouragement rather than instruction? (Like a mother telling her child 'be good' as they went off to school, knowing full well they would get into mischief).
Originally posted by Captain StrangeThats correct .. And it continues :
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
John 3:9
1John 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God ..
That is how you know who are the children of God, they do righteousness...
And how you know the children of the devil .. they do not righteousness .. and they are not of God.
24 Sep 15
Originally posted by Rajk999You really do think apart from Jesus that we can be righteous? That there are those among
Thats correct .. And it continues :
1John 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God ..
That is how you know who are the children of God, they do righteousness...
And how you know the children of the devil .. they do not righteousness .. and they are not of God.
us who are sinless?
24 Sep 15
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeThat doesn't stop the vegetarians here from giving their opinions about the cookbooks.
Thanks.
In fairness though, there are many theists on this site who have a deeper knowledge on this subject than i do. My study of theology has only ever been academic, whereas to a Christian for example the bible is a living, breathing book which they study over far more regularly than i have ever done. For me, the bible is a collection of intere ...[text shortened]... ay, is wasted on an atheist. It's like asking a vegetarian which tastes better, pork or chicken?
🙂
24 Sep 15
Originally posted by Rajk999And there IS. A 'minimum' I mean.
Well precisely and that is most appropriate analogy, although Christ would hope that there would be a minimum of 'mischief' from his followers.
You just want to make every Christian a hypocrite while holding yourself up as the only one who strives to be like Christ, never admitting that you fail as well.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeIn regards to Chaney, i did not confuse what he had written (as he has shown himself in his subsequent posts) and could not have given a more exact response than the one i gave.
I'm here to discuss interesting topics, not to endure needless name calling. Yes, the initials of my chosen username spell out 'goad' but this is obviously coincidental. Twice now you implied (or stated directly) that this is an indication that i am a troll. (Or more specifically a rather stupid troll who chose a username to spell out a troll like wo ...[text shortened]... t posts) and could not have given a more exact response than the one i gave. Please re-visit it.
1) Chaney framed his question about whether or not it is possible for a human to not sin within the context of Jesus telling the woman to 'go and sin no more'. Clearly this is a matter of whether or not someone could stop sinning in the future - NOT a matter of whether or not someone had ever sinned in the past.
You on the other hand, framed your response to me within the context of Jesus asking for those who were without sin to cast the first stone. Clearly this is a matter of whether or not some had ever sinned in past. You failed to make the distinction between the two scenarios.
So I told you that you seemed a bit confused and explained why.
2) When I pointed out that you seemed "confused", you tried to claim that I was "confused" for asking you (an atheist) a question about the Bible. This despite the fact that earlier in the thread you clearly stated that you're an atheist and established that you are more than willing to offer your opinions about the Bible.
It's as if a ten-year-old was told by an adult that he seemed "confused" and instead of admitting it, he tried to claim that the adult was "confused" and made up some nonsensical claim.
Laughably, you still can't seem to be able to bring yourself to own up to it.
And there was no malicious intent in 'editing' your message in my previous reply. I merely copied the small section i was responding to. I in no way changed your text or sought to take it out of context.
I neither said nor implied that there was "malicious intent' or that you "changed [my] text".
What I said was the following: "Plus you edited my post to remove the part that showed your confusion about Chaney3's question, so that you could avoid having to own up to it."
Interestingly of all the posts you've made on this thread, that quoted post was the only one that you removed any text from - whether or not you were responding in whole or in part.
Coincidence? Perhaps, But then there's the fact that you pulled the same thing the last time I called you a troll. Still coincidence?
Yes, the initials of my chosen username spell out 'goad' but this is obviously coincidental. Twice now you implied (or stated directly) that this is an indication that i am a troll.
On the prior thread that I called you a troll, I stated reasons as to why I called you a troll, just as I stated reasons as to why I called you a troll on this thread. Both times you tried to make it look like the only reason was because of your username (which was originally just tossed out as an interesting observation). Coincidence again?
Your posts bring to mind RC's antics when he's been called on something. Granted your attempts aren't as oafish, but then RC isn't generally as underhanded as you are.