17 Apr 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWho is not doing the will of His Father? Those who work iniquity. Iniquity is synonymous with sin. Therefore, those who continue to commit sin are not doing the will of His Father. Therefore, those who continue to commit sin will not enter Heaven.
Maybe it'll help for you to see the relationship between the two passages. I was hoping that steering you toward asking yourself incisive questions would help, but maybe I need to lay it all out. Seems to me that your objections to each respective passage are answered by the other.
"...everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does ...[text shortened]... t enter Heaven.
Hope this helps. Let me know if you still have any objections.
--------ToO--------------------------------
But in Judaism there were clearly different levels of sin ranging from outright defiance of God and evil-doing through to accidental sins done via human nature's inclination to sin. It's entirely possible that Jesus was refering to sin (wilful defiance) and iniquity in many of his verses but was not refering to other sins.
Do you accept that any distinctions in sin? For example , if actively seek out a man at a bar with the intent of beating him up isn't that different from if I lose my temper with a man who is harrassing me?
Most legal systems make clear distinctions between transgressions based upon motivation and circumstances , I have to believe that so would God.
I wonder if the sin problem is at the very heart of our long running debate. I accept that it is possible for a man to live free of evil-doing and live a righteous life (ie free of committing iniquity) . However , I do not think any man can ever escape the inevitable sin that is in built in human nature. Ask me if I think a man can be truly loving and faithful to his wife and I will say yes - ask me if he will never ever have any thoughts towards another woman I will say no.
See the difference? I think Jesus was expecting that his followers would stop committing sin wilfully with evil in their hearts , but there's no evidence to suggest that he thought men could totally escape the clutches of sin itself. He even said as much " things that cause men to sin are bound to come".
So ToO , where is the subtly in your theory? Why do you unthinkingly group all sin together? Whitey has been asking you for a proper defintion and so am I. The problem with your theories is that when they are really tested they come up short.
17 Apr 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadBetter than what? All I have ever asked of him is whether he has any personal knowledge of what he preaches. If he has personal knowledge of this in his own life then he does not share it. If he hasn't any personal knowledge of his theory in practice then his theory is incomplete. Many have asked for the same reason. He simply cannot go there.
So if you are incapable of telling whether he is sinless, why do you demand that he be able to do better?
If I waffled on to you about driving and how we should all be interpreting the highway code a certain way but had never driven a car what would you think? You might find it quite comical I guess.
18 Apr 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIs it? I am yet to see you give your understanding of sin in a clear way.
Those who work iniquity. Iniquity is synonymous with sin.
Do you have any information on what words were used in the original language where it has been translated into 'iniquity'?
Therefore, those who continue to commit sin are not doing the will of His Father.
Under some definitions of sin that is a tautology. Many people see sin as 'not doing the will of the father'.
I still want a clear statement from you as to what you feel this implies in terms of how much a follower of Jesus should change his lifestyle. Is it merely avoiding certain 'sins' or does it mean giving up all worldly possessions and going out to help the needy (as suggested by Jesus on other occasions.)
Also, to what extent is negligence 'sinful'?
18 Apr 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterThe problem is that you do not seem to have a counter argument. Whether or not he has personal experience of what he is saying only goes so far. Yes we all hate back seat drivers, but that does not make them wrong. Sure when your son tells you you are too drunk to drive you turn to him and say 'your too young to understand', but you will know that you are only using his inexperience as an excuse because you have no real defense.
Better than what? All I have ever asked of him is whether he has any personal knowledge of what he preaches. If he has personal knowledge of this in his own life then he does not share it. If he hasn't any personal knowledge of his theory in practice then his theory is incomplete. Many have asked for the same reason. He simply cannot go there.
If ...[text shortened]... n way but had never driven a car what would you think? You might find it quite comical I guess.
Sure you can say that if:
1. Jesus intended to have lots of followers.
2. Jesus was clever enough to know what message would get the most followers.
Then we should expect to see a lot of followers.
But what if Jesus was not about marketing whatever the cost, what if he preached the only way to get to heaven, the fact that not many have taken it up is hardly evidence that he didn't preach it. And ThinkOfOne has given verses that lead us to believe that that may in fact be the case.
Your argument almost boils down to 'all small denominations must be wrong'.
The other flaw in your argument is that you seem to think that anyone who preaches must be saved. What if ThinkOfOne has not been able to follow Jesus teaching himself? Why is it a requirement for him to have done so before what he says is correct? Yes I realize that Christians hate being preached to by non-Christians about their own religion, but it is not an logical argument, it is mere immaturity.
18 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadIsn't it? From Merriam-Webster:
Is it? I am yet to see you give your understanding of sin in a clear way.
Do you have any information on what words were used in the original language where it has been translated into 'iniquity'?
[b]Therefore, those who continue to commit sin are not doing the will of His Father.
Under some definitions of sin that is a tautology. Many people se as suggested by Jesus on other occasions.)
Also, to what extent is negligence 'sinful'?[/b]
iniquity
One entry found.
1 : gross injustice : wickedness 2 : a wicked act or thing : sin
"Under some definitions of sin that is a tautology. Many people see sin as 'not doing the will of the father'."
I'm not sure what your point is here. Jesus says that to gain entrance to Heaven one must follow the will of His Father. In the same line of thought he says "Depart from me, you who work iniquity."
"I still want a clear statement from you as to what you feel this implies in terms of how much a follower of Jesus should change his lifestyle. Is it merely avoiding certain 'sins' or does it mean giving up all worldly possessions and going out to help the needy (as suggested by Jesus on other occasions.)
Also, to what extent is negligence 'sinful'?"
I fail to see the relevancy of these questions. Jesus gives guidelines as to how a person is to live his life and that Jesus will judge. Jesus says that one cannot continue to sin. How I interpret those guidelines correctly is not relevant.
18 Apr 09
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSorry for the wait...been busy 🙂
no its not morally contemptible at all, the issue has been raised, humans are better off morally independent from God, ok, how could this be demonstrated? the simple yet brilliantly effective answer, let time pass, this will demonstrate, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that humans are/are not better off, by virtue of their moral independence from God. ...[text shortened]... ain, the present system of things in which we live, is an evident demonstration of this reality!
no its not morally contemptible at all, the issue has been raised, humans are better off morally independent from God, ok, how could this be demonstrated? the simple yet brilliantly effective answer, let time pass, this will demonstrate, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that humans are/are not better off, by virtue of their moral independence from God. Requiring a blood sacrifice *is* morally contemptible (to me). At any rate I fail to see how this argument of yours could not be reparameterised with muffy, FSM, Larry the Leprechaun or any other equiprobable magic friend other than "God" and still carry the same weight.
Am I better off eating chocoate crabs whilst they still breathe? To answer this would require that there is some way to carry out an experiment whereby such crabs are consumed. To do this would first require that chocolate crabs exist in the first place.
Not only that, he has provided clear, unambiguous counsel and guidance, in the form of a book, available to 95% of the population, it has been ignored!
Yeah right he has...a collection of books originally written in a tongue unfathomable by most modern men that has to be read in 'correct' context coupled with the assumption that the specific translation one is reading (out of a number of them) is accurate. Amongst a midst of other holy books touted to be the true word of a different God.
Clear, unambiguous counsel and guidance? No!!! 😀
he sent prophets and messengers, ambassadors of a message of reconciliation, they were contemptuously treated, his own son, who was treated with disdain and continues to be so, again with a message of reconciliation, ignored! no quite the contrary, God has not been inactive, quite the opposite. Conveniently such prophets have only been witnessed by primitive folk *a long time ago*. As for his own son, didn't God send himself to be contemptuously treated in the first place, or did humans blindside his ever transcendent knowledge and intellect?
God seems to be quite inactive these days when we have a better facility for calling bullsh;t on claims of *God inspired phenomenon*
This is not a case of making an example, its a case of gathering evidence, incontrovertible evidence, that humans are not better off, morally independent from God! Thats a bit me like starving a bunch of kids to gather evidence that people are they off if I let them kiss my arse in return for food at some future time yet to be decided. You're painting your God as a monster.
if you can produce any evidence to the contrary, then let it be heard, for I will state it once again, the present system of things in which we live, is an evident demonstration of this reality! This challenge is meaningless until I see demonstration that the existence of any type of God is plausible...In lieu of this demonstration I'll pull out of the hat an assertion that people not worshipping Larry the Leprechauns is the real cause of all our problems.
I claim that my own morals are better than those of your God. You would of course disagree because I expect you baselessly define your god to be point of origin for that which is morally good and conclude my claim is as such false. 🙂
19 Apr 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneMy point was that you declared as a conclusion that sining is sinful. I see that as a tautology.
I'm not sure what your point is here. Jesus says that to gain entrance to Heaven one must follow the will of His Father. In the same line of thought he says "Depart from me, you who work iniquity."
I fail to see the relevancy of these questions. Jesus gives guidelines as to how a person is to live his life and that Jesus will judge. Jesus says that one cannot continue to sin. How I interpret those guidelines correctly is not relevant.
We are discussing sin are we not? How is what you mean by that word not relevant? I am not asking for a list of sins, but rather a definition. Are you saying that sin is not following Jesus' guidelines?
19 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou've lost me here. Perhaps you've lost sight of what we're ultimately discussing:
My point was that you declared as a conclusion that sining is sinful. I see that as a tautology.
[b]I fail to see the relevancy of these questions. Jesus gives guidelines as to how a person is to live his life and that Jesus will judge. Jesus says that one cannot continue to sin. How I interpret those guidelines correctly is not relevant.
We are ...[text shortened]... t of sins, but rather a definition. Are you saying that sin is not following Jesus' guidelines?[/b]
"Many Christians seem to believe that they can continue to sin and still have 'eternal life'/'heaven'/'salvation'. Some even maintain that it is 'impossible' for a human being to not commit sin. From what I can tell, this is KM's position also. My position is that Jesus taught otherwise."
What is relevant here is what Jesus taught regarding the relationship between continuing to commit sin and having 'eternal life'/'heaven'/'salvation'. That and what Jesus taught regarding committing sin and freedom from it. We are discussing these relationships and not "sin" per se. I was pointing out the relationships that Jesus established in those passages.
19 Apr 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneBut how can we even begin to discuss these relationships if we do not know what 'sin' actually is? You are using passages that do not use the word 'sin' and claiming that they make definite statements about sin. It is impossible for you to make that conclusion without first knowing what 'sin' is. And no, a connection between 'iniquity' and 'sin' in the English dictionary is not good enough, you have to show that the words used in the original language of the book (Greek I guess) means or implies sin.
What is relevant here is what Jesus taught regarding the relationship between continuing to commit sin and having 'eternal life'/'heaven'/'salvation'. That and what Jesus taught regarding committing sin and freedom from it. We are discussing these relationships and not "sin" per se. I was pointing out the relationships that Jesus established in those passages.
We also have to establish whether Jesus was talking in absolutes or not - which is certainly not clear to me from those passages. For example I might say "you must study hard to pass the exam" does not actually mean you will never stop studying or fail the exam. To me, the passage (the iniquity one) implies he is talking about those who deliberately continue to sin to an extraordinary extent, and does not necessarily imply that eating pork (which might be sinful) will stop you getting into heaven.
19 Apr 09
2 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead"You are using passages that do not use the word 'sin' and claiming that they make definite statements about sin.
But how can we even begin to discuss these relationships if we do not know what 'sin' actually is? You are using passages that do not use the word 'sin' and claiming that they make definite statements about sin. It is impossible for you to make that conclusion without first knowing what 'sin' is. And no, a connection between 'iniquity' and 'sin' in the E ly imply that eating pork (which might be sinful) will stop you getting into heaven.
"...everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever"
I really don't know what's "not definite" about this. Is "everyone" not definite enough? How many people constitutes "everyone"? Is "commits sin" not definite enough? How often does one need to sin to "commit sin"?
"And no, a connection between 'iniquity' and 'sin' in the English dictionary is not good enough, you have to show that the words used in the original language of the book (Greek I guess) means or implies sin."
http://biblelexicon.org/matthew/7-23.htm
19 Apr 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneDon't waste our time playing games. You know perfectly well that I was referring to the other passage.
I really don't know what's "not definite" about this. Is "everyone" not definite enough? How many people constitutes "everyone"? Is "commits sin" not definite enough? How often does one need to sin to "commit sin"?
"And no, a connection between 'iniquity' and 'sin' in the English dictionary is not good enough, you have to show that the words used in the original language of the book (Greek I guess) means or implies sin."
http://biblelexicon.org/matthew/7-23.htm
Thank you.
It still think that it means a lot more than simply 'you who sin'.
As for the other passage I am not convinced that it is an outright claim that all who follow Jesus will cease sinning.
19 Apr 09
5 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]No games. This was your assertion:
Don't waste our time playing games. You know perfectly well that I was referring to the other passage.
[b]"And no, a connection between 'iniquity' and 'sin' in the English dictionary is not good enough, you have to show that the words used in the original language of the book (Greek I guess) means or implies sin."
http://biblelexicon.org/matthew/7-23. ot convinced that it is an outright claim that all who follow Jesus will cease sinning.
"You are using passages that do not use the word 'sin' and claiming that they make definite statements about sin. It is impossible for you to make that conclusion without first knowing what 'sin' is."
The point is that with the first passage is making definite statements about relationships to sin as opposed to your assertion. It is not only possible, but proper to draw the following conclusions:
"What is relevant here is what Jesus taught regarding the relationship between continuing to commit sin and having 'eternal life'/'heaven'/'salvation'. That and what Jesus taught regarding committing sin and freedom from it."
It is what Jesus explicitly states.
"It still think that it means a lot more than simply 'you who sin'."
What is your basis for this assertion?
"As for the other passage I am not convinced that it is an outright claim that all who follow Jesus will cease sinning."
Jesus states that all who commit sin are slaves to sin. Jesus also states that those who follow His teachings will be set free from this slavery. If they no longer commit sin, how can they continue to sin?
20 Apr 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe wording. If he meat 'anyone who sins' then no doubt he would have said so. The way he said it 'those who work iniquity' sounds much more like he is referring to people who deliberately do grossly sinful acts. It is not at all clear that it covers all sin.
What is your basis for this assertion?
Jesus states that all who commit sin are slaves to sin. Jesus also states that those who follow His teachings will be set free from this slavery. If they no longer commit sin, how can they continue to sin?
It is not clear to me what it means. Jesus was never very straight forward in what he said and some of his teachings appear to contradict each other. Despite the fact that the passage certainly at face value does seem to support your claim I am not convinced that that is what he is saying.
What do you think the phrase 'the slave cannot remain in the house forever' refers to? Is it an analogy?
20 Apr 09
3 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe point is that there are different types of sin ranging from gross wickedness , deviousness and defiance of God through to stray thought sins like a moments envy or anger or sins of omission.
[b]"You are using passages that do not use the word 'sin' and claiming that they make definite statements about sin.
"...everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever"
I really don't know what's "not definite" about this. Is "everyone" not definite enough? How many people ess) means or implies sin."[/b]
http://biblelexicon.org/matthew/7-23.htm[/b]
A man who plans a terrorist attack on a children's nursery and a man who has a short argument with his wife are both sinning but you seem to group them all together.
I doubt very much whether Jesus grouped together all sin into the same catagory as you do , infact the evidence is that he clearly could tell the difference between the wickedness and deceit of the Pharisees and the sin of his disciples.
The reason why you are stalling here (and also have stopped responding to me) is because you cannot go there. Your position depends on not exploring any such distinctions.
Have you considered that iniquity is not synonymous with all sin?
Do you think the disciples were sinless and perfect? (they patently weren't) If not why did Jesus still consider them his followers?
The gaping hole in your theory is that Jesus knew the difference between someone who was trying to follow him earnestly but still failed from time to time (eg Simon Peter) and someone who stood against him in wicked , hypocritical defiance(iniquity).
You continue to treat Jesus as if he were an idiot and couldn't possibly know the difference and just because you are adept at repeating your simplistic mantra on Jesus doesn't make it correct.
20 Apr 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI really don't know what's "not definite" about this. Is "everyone" not definite enough? How many people constitutes "everyone"? Is "commits sin" not definite enough? How often does one need to sin to "commit sin"?
[b]"You are using passages that do not use the word 'sin' and claiming that they make definite statements about sin.
"...everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever"
I really don't know what's "not definite" about this. Is "everyone" not definite enough? How many people ...[text shortened]... ess) means or implies sin."[/b]
http://biblelexicon.org/matthew/7-23.htm[/b]
------------ToO--------------------------------
Is it possible that "committing" sin involves a act of will and as such is a "wilful" sin or a committment to sin. Whereas , someone who is trying their darndest not to sin but still fails on occasions is not "committing " sin. Is not the intention of the individual the important factor?