You HAVE to believe

[§outh§tar]

Can you cause yourself to be sexually aroused by faeces through will? Can you will yourself to prefer an apple over an orange, or change your favorite color on a whim?

If not, then it is foolish to tell someone to accept something on faith, to fall in love with a God. In the same manner you cannot do the above things, so too can another not read the Bible and recieve the same feelings of inspiration/awe/love that you do. Just as you cannot WANT to fall in love with a banana peel/a math book/a strip of leather, so can the atheist not WANT to love the Bible/Jesus/God. Of course it may be argued that a person can try, but a person cannot want. A skeptic can truly want to believe (like I do at times) and read the Bible as much as possible, listen to Christian music, go to Church.. and yet they CAN NOT make themselves fall in love with Jesus.

22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brotherwill be subject to judgment.

27“You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’[e] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Of course you now see how absurd claiming someone is rejecting the truth by rejecting the Bible is. Just as you obviously cannot do the things listed above, so can you not will yourself to look at a woman without lust. And just how will you plan to not get angry? Can you will yourself to not get angry? That is as absurd as claiming you can will yourself to not feel an itch.

Therefore stop with the foolishness about nonbelievers being blinded by the things of the world when it is obvious they cannot make themselves love your God. They cannot make themselves have faith in God just as you cannot make yourself believe you are George Bush's grandmother. So do not say all they have to do is have faith, that is false. Do not say all they have to do is pray, for they cannot have this faith. Do not say they choose not to believe, for they cannot make themselves believe.




----------

As a curious sidenote you are already going to heaven. Since Jesus died for the sins of the world, you are automatically saved. If you have to initiate the relationship through faith (we have shown that is impossible), then His work was never a finished work and was absolutely unnecessarily since He would not have needed to die for a person to be able to believe. If He did need to die for you to be able to believe, then you have no free will in the first place and there is nothing to worry about. So if Jesus has already died for our sins, then it is obviously disrespectful to ask for Him to "save" us from our sins since He has already done so. Therefore we are going to heaven. If we still need to ask Him to save us then either a) His work on the cross failed b) He excluded some people from His roster of saints.

So as an added bonus, either you have already been saved 2000 years ago, or you were never meant to be saved.

 

[Godless]

Oh!! ok; for a minute there I was thinking you were planing to re-stablish your faith in religious rhetoric.

I see now that you've caught on very well for using the bible as a guiding light to atheism; if only more theist observed the deception as well as you have, we would have had abolished this religion long ago.

I've never read the bible so much as when I became an atheist, I turned away from religion when I felt that I've been deceived by the faith I had, in preachers, nuns, and the overal clergy. Basically I began to doubt, when a preacher claimed that; "one can be infected by AIDS by siting on a toilet". Soon after that statement I saw the Surgen General of the US, explain the ways that a person can be infected. So I concluded this sob's didn't know what the hell they are talking about.

It took me two years after that insident to proclaim myself as an atheist. Through the literature of Ayn Rand, Nietzsche, Hume, Aristotle, and other humanist philosophers I began to change my views.

You my friend did it here on Sci-forums by trying to convert us to your former faith in Christianity. Thus it is true that if a person keeps reading and trying to comprehend the bible, they will come to a point that one will finally realize the deceptive nature of the manuscript. It is full of discrepancies, and we butt heads on argument, amongs others whom you argued with till finally you saw it as we have.

Good going!.

Godless.

 

[water]

Can you cause yourself to be sexually aroused by faeces through will? Can you will yourself to prefer an apple over an orange, or change your favorite color on a whim?

If not, then it is foolish to tell someone to accept something on faith, to fall in love with a God. In the same manner you cannot do the above things, so too can another not read the Bible and recieve the same feelings of inspiration/awe/love that you do. Just as you cannot WANT to fall in love with a banana peel/a math book/a strip of leather, so can the atheist not WANT to love the Bible/Jesus/God. Of course it may be argued that a person can try, but a person cannot want. A skeptic can truly want to believe (like I do at times) and read the Bible as much as possible, listen to Christian music, go to Church.. and yet they CAN NOT make themselves fall in love with Jesus.

I fully agree.

“ Originally Posted by Matthew 5

22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brotherwill be subject to judgment.

27“You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’[e] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. ”

Of course you now see how absurd claiming someone is rejecting the truth by rejecting the Bible is. Just as you obviously cannot do the things listed above, so can you not will yourself to look at a woman without lust. And just how will you plan to not get angry? Can you will yourself to not get angry? That is as absurd as claiming you can will yourself to not feel an itch.

This I don't agree with -- it needs some elaborating:

The basic premise of Christianity (as I see it) is that one must not sin.

But yours is: ONE IS NOT ALLOWED TO SIN.

There is a great difference between the two!

Of course you cannot will yourself to not become angry, you cannot will yourself to not think of a woman with lust.

But what you can do, and what you should do, is reflect upon those things when they happen.
And then NOT INDULGE in them -- if you think it would be wrong to continue in that direction.

Sin is to indulge in something that you think is wrong.


To give you other, religiously unburdened examples:
I do not like getting up early in the morning, but I think I ought to, and often I must. I like sweets, but I know they are bad for me.
I would do wrong (in Christian terminology: I would sin) if I would give in to things that I think are wrong. I would do wrong if I would get up late on workdays. I would do wrong if I would eat a lot of sweets.

How about that I sometimes have the wish I could sleep longer and eat sweets -- is this wrong? It is wrong inasmuch that "I should have never had those wishes in the first place"? Well, I have them, and I cannot simply will them away.

But the clue is to recognize these wishes, not indulge in them, and do something about them, think where they come from -- not simply stigmatize them as "bad" and then put up with their presence and try to supress them.

Thinking that it is *wrong* to get up late (on a workday) and to eat a lot of sweets -- this is what matters. How come I think it is wrong? There must be a reason why I think it is wrong.

And usually, if one thinks calmly about these things, one figures out that they aren't just some "abstract weaknessess of the flesh and the imperfect soul" -- there is usually some practical reason for them, they function as compensation.
If we'd be completely sure about them being good for us, we'd never think of them as being wrong in the first place.

Anyway, this then slowly leads you to change your behaviour, to change your personality, you get to know yourself -- and then also these wishes disappear. But that takes time.

Therefore stop with the foolishness about nonbelievers being blinded by the things of the world when it is obvious they cannot make themselves love your God. They cannot make themselves have faith in God just as you cannot make yourself believe you are George Bush's grandmother. So do not say all they have to do is have faith, that is false. Do not say all they have to do is pray, for they cannot have this faith. Do not say they choose not to believe, for they cannot make themselves believe.

Yes, one is often exposed to simplified arguments by the religionists, and it is a shame it is so.

As a curious sidenote you are already going to heaven. Since Jesus died for the sins of the world, you are automatically saved. If you have to initiate the relationship through faith (we have shown that is impossible), then His work was never a finished work and was absolutely unnecessarily since He would not have needed to die for a person to be able to believe. If He did need to die for you to be able to believe, then you have no free will in the first place and there is nothing to worry about. So if Jesus has already died for our sins, then it is obviously disrespectful to ask for Him to "save" us from our sins since He has already done so. Therefore we are going to heaven. If we still need to ask Him to save us then either a) His work on the cross failed b) He excluded some people from His roster of saints.

So as an added bonus, either you have already been saved 2000 years ago, or you were never meant to be saved.

No.
You are arguing from the position
1. that we can know what God knows,
and
2. free will means being able to do whatever you want, even move mountains.

We do not know what God knows. And understanding free will as described under 2 is self-sabotaging.

It is useless to argue from that position.


* * *

You my friend did it here on Sci-forums by trying to convert us to your former faith in Christianity. Thus it is true that if a person keeps reading and trying to comprehend the bible, they will come to a point that one will finally realize the deceptive nature of the manuscript. It is full of discrepancies, and we butt heads on argument, amongs others whom you argued with till finally you saw it as we have.

Good going!.

Godless.

You think you are such a good person, Godless, don't you?

Before, SouthStar was not your friend -- and after he stopped what he once did, he suddenly became your friend? One of you? Better than Christians?

 

[Godless]

*You think you are such a good person, Godless, don't you?

Before, SouthStar was not your friend -- and after he stopped what he once did, he suddenly became your friend? One of you? Better than Christians?*

Well my friend; I use the word "friend" with many theist as well, Even with Tony1, that was way before your time. I've been here on Sci-forums apx 4 years, and I've yet to reach the level of stupidty to rehash such a simple statement as calling some one a friend; in a friendly nature that I am. I don't personally know SouthStar, he is not an intimate friend on line either, I've had many disagreements with other atheist as well, so there's no such thing here is "one of you". I've tend to have a friendly nature, it keeps me at pease with myself. I've been in good arguments here were it turns out battle of words, I try not to loose my temper, take it all in stride, so before you go pointing out absurdities get to know a person first at least!.

Godless.

 

[Huwy]

Read this, its funny.




from Deuteronomy 22

10 " You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together. 11 " You shall not
wear a garment of different sorts, [such as] wool and linen mixed together.
12 " You shall make tassels on the four corners of the clothing with which you
cover [yourself.]

 

[§outh§tar]

This I don't agree with -- it needs some elaborating:

The basic premise of Christianity (as I see it) is that one must not sin.

But yours is: ONE IS NOT ALLOWED TO SIN.

1 John 3
4Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. 5And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.

7Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

I want to emphasize v8 here. The PURPOSE of the Son of God was to destroy the works of the devil. Not only that, but as we see in the line immediately preceding this, he who sins is of the devil BECAUSE the devil has sinned from the beginning.

Therefore, a Christian who sins is either not a Christian OR is proof that Jesus' work on the cross failed.

There is a great difference between the two!

Of course you cannot will yourself to not become angry, you cannot will yourself to not think of a woman with lust.

But what you can do, and what you should do, is reflect upon those things when they happen.
And then NOT INDULGE in them -- if you think it would be wrong to continue in that direction.

This sidesteps the point. In order to "reflect upon those things when they happen" you would of course have to sin first. In that case, you must be claiming it is God's will for a Christian to sin in order for them to "reflect" and "not indulge".

Romans 5:14
5For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7For he who has died has been freed from sin.

12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. 13And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

And then we will address the rest of your argument:

But the clue is to recognize these wishes, not indulge in them, and do something about them, think where they come from -- not simply stigmatize them as "bad" and then put up with their presence and try to supress them.

As with the quotes from Romans I showed above, it is impossible for a Christian to actually have these wishes if Jesus' work really is a finished work. Or else what would the point of Him dying if Christians would still have to try to avoid sin like their Jewish counterparts?

In fact, the Bible speaks strongly against this doctrine of "works", even going as far as to condemn the Jews:

Romans 9
30What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness.[n] 32Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law.[o] For they stumbled at that stumbling stone.

As you can clearly see here, the Bible goes back again to the absurd teaching of faith which I discounted earlier. It also discount your idea of "works", calling it a "stumbling stone" for Israel.

There are many more verses in the Bible discounting works in favor of grace (most of them anti-semitic):

Romans 11
6And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

Taken in context, this again attacks the Jews for striving to be better instead of just accepting "grace through faith" (which we have shown to be absurd).
Sin is to indulge in something that you think is wrong.

And again:

Romans 4
2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." 4Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

------------

No.
You are arguing from the position
1. that we can know what God knows,

Is that not the purpose of the Bible, divine revelation? Besides, where did I argue that?

2. free will means being able to do whatever you want, even move mountains.

We do not know what God knows. And understanding free will as described under 2 is self-sabotaging.

That's not at all what I said.

First off, Christians *can* move mountains.

Matthew 17
20He replied, “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”

I think "nothing will be impossible for you" and other similar verses clearly point out the fact that the Christian has NO limitations. Also I would like to know where I gave such an interpretation of free will.

 

[marv]

No honest discussion of religion can be based on so-called sacred texts. The Torah was a compilation of word-of-mouth myths passed down from generation to generation before there was a recorded history. The rest of the Old Testament was written only a couple of centuries before Christ.

The story of the flood, as "reported by Gilgamesh, and only later attributed in the Christian Bible to Moses, ocurred around 8-10,000 BC and is only an example.

To authenticate a deity, proof must be offered, not just asking for faith. Absent proof, a person may choose among many to "have faith" in some particular deity. But to say, "You HAVE to believe" is completely improper.

 

[Yorda]

Religions first have to make sense. Then you can believe. If people only believe so that they come to heaven or don't come to hell... then they're not so good really (but it's ok...) oh ye of small faith... if U only had faith as big as a mustard seed.... find a seed, then plant it... let it grow... bigger and bigger...

It just takes some time. Many years, but if you try, you will be able to do the right thing. But all people can't find the truth in the Bible. The way to heaven is easy: "Be good, and do no evil." Humans don't fall in love, it's only the bodies (images) and persons (reflections) which fall in love... When you were little you never looked on women with lust, because you were only you... but when the body grows... you don't grow with it... it takes time...

You can't defeat evil things if you don't face them, and you can't defeat them if you can't control them. Look at them in the face and say to them that they should go away, and they will go away. Just say: "Get thee behind me satan..." I am not the slave of my body. It's only an instrument for me (God) There is nothing bad or wrong or evil with the body... only if you use it the wrong way... You decide what is right and wrong... some day I will be as true as God.

Every act in its right place is divine. Even anger is useful. Why else would God be angry at people? He's angry at them so that they would learn. Have faith in yourself and maybe you will some day understand the truth about God and religions. You dead people think you only have one human life for this incredible long mission. They only said that to you so that you would believe faster. It's possible to come to God in one life, but most people will need more time... The dead are rising from their graves. It happens every day. The kingdom has already come, but people don't see it.

 

[water]

Well my friend; I use the word "friend" with many theist as well, Even with Tony1, that was way before your time. I've been here on Sci-forums apx 4 years, and I've yet to reach the level of stupidty to rehash such a simple statement as calling some one a friend; in a friendly nature that I am. I don't personally know SouthStar, he is not an intimate friend on line either, I've had many disagreements with other atheist as well, so there's no such thing here is "one of you". I've tend to have a friendly nature, it keeps me at pease with myself. I've been in good arguments here were it turns out battle of words, I try not to loose my temper, take it all in stride, so before you go pointing out absurdities get to know a person first at least!.
Godless.

So before you go calling someone "my friend", get to know the person first. At least.


* * *

The basic premise of Christianity (as I see it) is that one must not sin.

But yours is: ONE IS NOT ALLOWED TO SIN.

“ 1 John 3
4Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. 5And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.

7Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. ”


I want to emphasize v8 here. The PURPOSE of the Son of God was to destroy the works of the devil. Not only that, but as we see in the line immediately preceding this, he who sins is of the devil BECAUSE the devil has sinned from the beginning.

Therefore, a Christian who sins is either not a Christian OR is proof that Jesus' work on the cross failed.

I am not a Christian and I cannot defend their position.

But the way I see it, you are interpreting the whole thing in a self-sabotaging manner, you are setting yourself up for failure.

I was once at the exact same point as you: It all seemed to me like the application of the "one mistake and you're out" rule.
But this is true only in a world where there is no forgiveness.

This sidesteps the point. In order to "reflect upon those things when they happen" you would of course have to sin first. In that case, you must be claiming it is God's will for a Christian to sin in order for them to "reflect" and "not indulge".

As usual, you bring the argument to a sharp edge -- but I agree. Yes, in order to recognize sin, one must have first sinned (so that there is something to be recognized in the first place).

But this "have to sin" does not mean "must sin", it means just "sin"!!

It DOES NOT mean that I should/must now go and kill a few people so that I would have "material to reflect upon".

In fact, the Bible speaks strongly against this doctrine of "works", even going as far as to condemn the Jews:

“ Romans 9
30What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness.[n] 32Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law.[o] For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. ”


As you can clearly see here, the Bible goes back again to the absurd teaching of faith which I discounted earlier. It also discount your idea of "works", calling it a "stumbling stone" for Israel.

As far as I do know, the problem here is that they boasted with their righteousness -- and that was sinful.

Taken in context, this again attacks the Jews for striving to be better instead of just accepting "grace through faith" (which we have shown to be absurd).

I think you see it too rigidly.
Read those verses on faith and works in James.

“ No.
You are arguing from the position
1. that we can know what God knows, ”

Is that not the purpose of the Bible, divine revelation? Besides, where did I argue that?

I think it is implicit in your argument, and I remember this problem from earlier discussions.
(By the way, I changed my user name -- I was formerly known as RosaMagika, just so you know whom you're speaking with.)

The purpose of the Bible may be divine revelation. But the Bible does not say, anywhere, anything about you in specific, SouthStar, or me, water. Certain things can be known only between you and God. But you do not know those things yet, do you? You'll find out on judgement day.
So we can't do as if we already had that knowledge.

“ 2. free will means being able to do whatever you want, even move mountains.

We do not know what God knows. And understanding free will as described under 2 is self-sabotaging. ”

That's not at all what I said.

/.../
Also I would like to know where I gave such an interpretation of free will.

I've gathered from other discussions that this seems to be an underlying premise in your thinking. If I'm wrong, I apologize.


But let's dissect this:

As with the quotes from Romans I showed above, it is impossible for a Christian to actually have these wishes if Jesus' work really is a finished work. Or else what would the point of Him dying if Christians would still have to try to avoid sin like their Jewish counterparts?

I don't have the necessary scriptorial background, but I can tell you that this is probably the central point of your problems with Christianity.

How is it impossible for a Christian to actually have those wishes? They are only human, too.
And why would it mean that if a Christian has those wishes, then either he is not really a Christian, or Jesus' work isn't a finished work?

I think there is this premise in your thinking: "If you sin, you are not a Christian." Which I think is a faulty premise.

I also think you are arguing from Christian pefectionism.


This seems very promising! I'll invite Jenyar, I daren't go at this all by myself.

I think "nothing will be impossible for you" and other similar verses clearly point out the fact that the Christian has NO limitations.

I suppose then that you would argue "He who cannot move mountains is not a Christian"?

 

[SnakeLord]

I suppose then that you would argue "He who cannot move mountains is not a Christian"?

I would.

Matthew 17:20 He replied, “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”

Matthew 21:21 Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done.

As jesus says, (truthfully - as emphasised), if you have faith you can move the mountain, or even get the mountain to throw itself into the sea. Nothing will be impossible for you.

A christian who doesn't have faith isn't much of a christian. Just do what you tell us all to do... "Have faith". When you do start having faith, you can move/dispose of mountains. If you can't move/dispose of those mountains, then you don't have faith, and don't amount to being much of a christian.

 

[§outh§tar]

As usual, you bring the argument to a sharp edge -- but I agree. Yes, in order to recognize sin, one must have first sinned (so that there is something to be recognized in the first place).

But this "have to sin" does not mean "must sin", it means just "sin"!!

It DOES NOT mean that I should/must now go and kill a few people so that I would have "material to reflect upon".

I think you are exaggerating my points a little bit there..

Can you then show the alternative way to "reflect upon sin"?

As far as I do know, the problem here is that they boasted with their righteousness -- and that was sinful.

Can you please provide any contextual evidence for such an assumption?

I think you see it too rigidly.
Read those verses on faith and works in James.

Which ones specifically (post them) and add why they show i am seeing it too "rigidly".

I think it is implicit in your argument, and I remember this problem from earlier discussions.
(By the way, I changed my user name -- I was formerly known as RosaMagika, just so you know whom you're speaking with.)

I guessed as much when you suddenly took over where she left off

The purpose of the Bible may be divine revelation. But the Bible does not say, anywhere, anything about you in specific, SouthStar, or me, water. Certain things can be known only between you and God. But you do not know those things yet, do you? You'll find out on judgement day.
So we can't do as if we already had that knowledge.[/quote]

The Bible (alledgedly) however makes specific statements still applicable today.

How is it impossible for a Christian to actually have those wishes? They are only human, too.
And why would it mean that if a Christian has those wishes, then either he is not really a Christian, or Jesus' work isn't a finished work?

I think there is this premise in your thinking: "If you sin, you are not a Christian." Which I think is a faulty premise.

I will again quote "John":

1 John 3
4Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. 5And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.

7Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

This seems very promising! I'll invite Jenyar, I daren't go at this all by myself.

I suppose then that you would argue "He who cannot move mountains is not a Christian"?

I am going strictly by the verses and their context. The verses supply no conditional clauses to their promises. Therefore yes, if as a Christian you have faith and your faith is fruitless then again, a) either you are not a Christian b) the Bible is wrong.

Example:

As a Christian, I prayed for wisdom from God and faith during the difficult times before my "deconversion". I really did earnestly pray and beg day in and day out. Obviously that was too much for God to answer. From the promises of that verse and the one found in
James 1:5- it is very obvious that either I was not a true Christian or the Bible is wrong. Of course Christians will happily point to the latter, but I know differently.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

§outh§tar: it is very obvious that either I was not a true Christian or the Bible is wrong. Of course Christians will happily point to the former, but I know differently.
*************
M*W: First, let me say again, you are still my hero! The way both of us came to 'deconversion' has been so similar. I know I felt that the bible could not be wrong, so there must have been a weakness in me, and I would just have to pray and beg God to let me have the faith that my friends had so I could know him truly. What I didn't understand was that I was putting myself in this mindset. The questions I asked those closest to me, and if you recall, I only associated with catholics and other christians, some fanaticals, too, but in doing this (limiting my scope), they all told me the same thing -- that I was lacking 'faith.' Warned by them all -- don't doubt, don't have questions, just accept everything 'on faith.' I've come to realize that even those whom I thought were the staunchest in our 'faith,' were just blind sheep (of course, this was a number of years down the road). Not surprisingly, when I've run into one of them over the past 25 years, they still remain the blind sheep from years ago. The outcome is that their lives didn't really turn out any better than mine did. It was difficult for me to even converse with them about the past 25 years, because it seemed to me that none of them had progressed beyond the days I knew them well. Some who were married were still married to the same spouse. Some of them had divorced. A couple of them had remarried. Their children were grown and gone like mine. For the most part, they were stay at home moms. The ones who worked seemed to be content in their menial jobs, including their husbands. None of these old friends traveled beyond their comfort zone. They all seemed to be quite content with their lifestyles. Then I asked myself, what is our lifetime all about? It appeared to me as I compared myself to them that I wasn't content with a mundane life. I wanted to know what laid beyond my reach, and I went for it. I also learned to question everything I didn't understand, and without any guilt, I learned the truth. It wasn't just one event that changed my life -- it was a thousand events. I still don't know why I was given these opportunities to grow and experience a full life and my old friends weren't. Somehow, I believe they, too, had opportunities that were put in front of them, but for whatever reasons, they let them pass by. Maybe it was the fear of change or the fear of fire and brimstone. All I know is that I feared neither. How many people are out there who fear God? I have reconciled myself to know that those who fear God also fear their own power to live abundantly.

 

[David F.]

Sin is to indulge in something that you think is wrong.

I would venture a different definition of sin. Sin is anything which separates us from God. If we become one with God, then we cannot sin because we cannot be separated from God. Christians can still do things which displease God, just as a wife can do things which displease her husband, but - barring the dissolution of the marriage (the unpardonable sin?) - they are still one and thus do not sin.

Sin, in the OT definition, would be breaking the Law and thus breaking the Covenant agreement between God and Israel - separating themselves from God. The blood of sacrifices was to reestablish that relationship. In the NT, there is no need for sacrifices since the Christian is covered by the blood of Jesus, even before the transgression occurs.

 

[Godless]

Christians can still do things which displease God, just as a wife can do things which displease her husband, but - barring the dissolution of the marriage (the unpardonable sin?) - they are still one and thus do not sin.

Oh! no wonder that there are so many "criminals" that claim to be christians. Thieves, child molesters, rapists, only just pissoff god for a spell but after they serve their "pentenence" in county jail they can go on believing that they are christians and that they had "paid" for their sinfull act. Good excuse, to comit crime; who cares? god will forgive in the end. Right?.

Godless.

 

[Jenyar]

James 4:16-17
As it is, you boast and brag. All such boasting is evil. Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins.​

Oh! no wonder that there are so many "criminals" that claim to be christians. Thieves, child molesters, rapists, only just pissoff god for a spell but after they serve their "pentenence" in county jail they can go on believing that they are christians and that they had "paid" for their sinfull act. Good excuse, to comit crime; who cares? god will forgive in the end. Right?.

Wrong.

Romans 6
What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?
...
15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey–whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.
... When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness.​

 

[Jenyar]

Can you please provide any contextual evidence for such an assumption?

The argument here is that the belief that doing away with sin, and living a "perfect" life, made you more eligible for forgiveness. It this arrogance that led in practice to treating "those more sinful than yourself" as if they cannot be eligible for forgiveness, and that you were "further up the ladder". It led to Priests and Levites passing by "lesser people" in order not to defile themselves on their way to the Temple... and walking past God himself. Jesus taught that someone who did what God really expected -- even if he was a Samaritan (*gasp!*) -- was eligible for forgiveness and eternal life.

Taken in context, this again attacks the Jews for striving to be better instead of just accepting "grace through faith" (which we have shown to be absurd).

I think you see it too rigidly.
Read those verses on faith and works in James.

Which ones specifically (post them) and add why they show i am seeing it too "rigidly".

If grace through faith were absurd, the Jews would be even worse off than they thought themselves to be after the destruction of the temple and the cessation of sacrifices for atonement:

By the school of Hillel the lamb was to be "kobes," "to wash Israel clean" from sin; see Isa. i. 18; Jer. ii. 22; ... Compare also the expression "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (John i. 29). "The morning sacrifice atoned for the sins committed during the previous night, the afternoon sacrifice for the sins committed in the daytime" (Tan., Pinḥas, 12).
...
The cessation of sacrifice, in consequence of the destruction of the Temple, came, therefore, as a shock to the people. It seemed to deprive them of the divine Atonement. Hence many turned ascetics, abstaining from meat and wine (Tosef., Soṭah, xv. 11; Ab. R. N. iv.); and Joshua ben Hananiah, who cried out in despair, "Wo unto us! What shall atone for us?" only expressed the sentiment of all his contemporaries (IV Esd. ix. 36: "We are lost on account of our sins"). -- JewishEncyclopedia: Atonement​

If we did not believe that God's mercy could afford righteousness, and therefore grace, on the account of faith, then any works of faith would have really been useless. Faith does not forgive us of sin -- that is something God must do.

And what does it mean if you just say you have faith, but do not act on it? What does it say about your "faith"? What must God do with that?

I will again quote "John":
8He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

Compare Romans 6, which I quoted above:

"Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey-–whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?"​

What you do reflects on who you belong to, not simply what you say. You left out John's conclusion in 1 John 3:10:

"This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother."​

This is where David F.'s definition of sin comes in. It is clear that sin draws the line between us and God -- it completely separates us, and practically ensures our spiritual death. It is in this light that it becomes clear what Jesus did for us:

1 John 3:16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.
​

And if you read the rest of 1 John 3, you'll see he also points out the role of conscience in all this. That we must strive to clear our conscience, now that our bodies have been saved. Our sins have been washed off, but our minds can still carry our bodies, forgiven and all, into hell. Because what does it help if your body is free, but your mind is enslaved? As little as when your mind is free, but your body remains in its sins, "enslaved by death".

Every part of us must be without sin if we wish to enter into God's presence at all, and we can't do this without God's help. That much is clear.

I suppose then that you would argue "He who cannot move mountains is not a Christian"?

I am going strictly by the verses and their context. The verses supply no conditional clauses to their promises. Therefore yes, if as a Christian you have faith and your faith is fruitless then again, a) either you are not a Christian b) the Bible is wrong.

And how many mountains have been moved since Jesus spoke those words? Do we have tourist attractions with plaques saying, "this mountain was moved by John", or "this mountain was moved by Paul"? Strange, that even if anyone moved a mountain, all we would see was a mountain -- and a mountain of disbelief. But not many problems of faith require mountains to be moved into the sea -- in fact, that seems to be a mere mustard seed against having to drive out demons. Jesus was putting things into perspective here, and in more than one way.

1 Corinthians 13:2
If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.​

 

[spidergoat]

Can you cause yourself to be sexually aroused by faeces through will? Can you will yourself to prefer an apple over an orange, or change your favorite color on a whim?


Yes.

 

[§outh§tar]

I would venture a different definition of sin. Sin is anything which separates us from God. If we become one with God, then we cannot sin because we cannot be separated from God. Christians can still do things which displease God, just as a wife can do things which displease her husband, but - barring the dissolution of the marriage (the unpardonable sin?) - they are still one and thus do not sin.

Sin, in the OT definition, would be breaking the Law and thus breaking the Covenant agreement between God and Israel - separating themselves from God. The blood of sacrifices was to reestablish that relationship. In the NT, there is no need for sacrifices since the Christian is covered by the blood of Jesus, even before the transgression occurs.

Just to clarify that was water's definition. I forgot to add the QUOTE tags.

 

[§outh§tar]

The argument here is that the belief that doing away with sin, and living a "perfect" life, made you more eligible for forgiveness. It this arrogance that led in practice to treating "those more sinful than yourself" as if they cannot be eligible for forgiveness, and that you were "further up the ladder". It led to Priests and Levites passing by "lesser people" in order not to defile themselves on their way to the Temple... and walking past God himself. Jesus taught that someone who did what God really expected -- even if he was a Samaritan (*gasp!*) -- was eligible for forgiveness and eternal life.

The point was made with specific reference to the verse. Again, is there any available contextual precedent?

If grace through faith were absurd, the Jews would be even worse off than they thought themselves to be after the destruction of the temple and the cessation of sacrifices for atonement:

By the school of Hillel the lamb was to be "kobes," "to wash Israel clean" from sin; see Isa. i. 18; Jer. ii. 22; ... Compare also the expression "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (John i. 29). "The morning sacrifice atoned for the sins committed during the previous night, the afternoon sacrifice for the sins committed in the daytime" (Tan., Pinḥas, 12).
...
The cessation of sacrifice, in consequence of the destruction of the Temple, came, therefore, as a shock to the people. It seemed to deprive them of the divine Atonement. Hence many turned ascetics, abstaining from meat and wine (Tosef., Soṭah, xv. 11; Ab. R. N. iv.); and Joshua ben Hananiah, who cried out in despair, "Wo unto us! What shall atone for us?" only expressed the sentiment of all his contemporaries (IV Esd. ix. 36: "We are lost on account of our sins"). -- JewishEncyclopedia: Atonement​

If we did not believe that God's mercy could afford righteousness, and therefore grace, on the account of faith, then any works of faith would have really been useless.

Faith does not forgive us of sin -- that is something God must do.

Au contraire:

• John 3:16
• Romans 3:22
• Romans 3:27-28
• Romans 4:5
• Romans 4:24
• Romans 5:1
• Hebrews 11:1-6
• And especially Ephesians 2:8
• And many more verses I don't remember

And what does it mean if you just say you have faith, but do not act on it? What does it say about your "faith"? What must God do with that?

Romans 3:28, Romans 4:4, Romans 4:5

Compare Romans 6, which I quoted above:

"Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey-–whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?"​

What you do reflects on who you belong to, not simply what you say. You left out John's conclusion in 1 John 3:10:

"This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother."​

This is where David F.'s definition of sin comes in. It is clear that sin draws the line between us and God -- it completely separates us, and practically ensures our spiritual death. It is in this light that it becomes clear what Jesus did for us:

1 John 3:16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.
​

And if you read the rest of 1 John 3, you'll see he also points out the role of conscience in all this. That we must strive to clear our conscience, now that our bodies have been saved. Our sins have been washed off, but our minds can still carry our bodies, forgiven and all, into hell. Because what does it help if your body is free, but your mind is enslaved? As little as when your mind is free, but your body remains in its sins, "enslaved by death".

I think this has already been addressed in the first post, this problem of the "enslaved mind". I also saw no correlation between what you said on conscience and the text in 1 John 3. Moreover, your statements still do not address verses 4-9, which are obviously more explicit than the generalized v10. After all, I am sure Hitler loved his girlfriend and truly thought what he was doing a good thing. Therefore more than this is necessary.

Every part of us must be without sin if we wish to enter into God's presence at all, and we can't do this without God's help. That much is clear.

And so if you sin does that mean God is not helping you? Or will you say that the sinner is entirely responsible, creating a nice double standard since you claim it is God who helps us be sinless?

And how many mountains have been moved since Jesus spoke those words? Do we have tourist attractions with plaques saying, "this mountain was moved by John", or "this mountain was moved by Paul"? Strange, that even if anyone moved a mountain, all we would see was a mountain -- and a mountain of disbelief. But not many problems of faith require mountains to be moved into the sea -- in fact, that seems to be a mere mustard seed against having to drive out demons. Jesus was putting things into perspective here, and in more than one way.

Again, you have ignored the context. I know not many problems of faith need a mountain to be moved but did you not see the anecdote I wrote? Secondly, the issue of whether or not a "problem of faith" requires moving a mountain is extraneous. Do you see anything in those verses and verses such as 1 John 3:22 that say "God will only give it to you if it is required for that specific problem." If that was the case, then faith would be fruitless since regardless of all the faith in the world you had, it would still be God's whim to determine the most 'efficient' (the best) way to solve a problem. The context speaks for itself.

1 Corinthians 13:2
If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.​

I would assume if you had faith in God that could move mountains, then He would be abiding in you, which would mean you had love. But to have love simply goes back to the problem I pointed out in the first post.

 

[Jenyar]

The point was made with specific reference to the verse. Again, is there any available contextual precedent?

Sure:

John 5
44 How can you believe if you accept praise from one another [works that other can see], yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God?

45“But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.​

See also Matthew 6.

Au contraire:

• John 3:16
• Romans 3:22
• Romans 3:27-28
• Romans 4:5
• Romans 4:24
• Romans 5:1
• Hebrews 11:1-6
• And especially Ephesians 2:8
• And many more verses I don't remember

I'm glad you've read Ephesians 2 -- it supports my point wonderfully:

8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God–-not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.​

And what does it mean if you just say you have faith, but do not act on it? What does it say about your "faith"? What must God do with that?

Romans 3:28, Romans 4:4, Romans 4:5

Romans 3:28 Justified by faith apart from the law.
Romans 4:4-5
Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

because:

Luke 17:7-10 “Suppose one of you had a servant plowing or looking after the sheep. Would he say to the servant when he comes in from the field, ‘Come along now and sit down to eat’? Would he not rather say, ‘Prepare my supper, get yourself ready and wait on me while I eat and drink; after that you may eat and drink’? Would he thank the servant because he did what he was told to do? So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.’ ”​

This was said in answer to the disciples' request that Jesus 'increase their faith' (to be able to move mountains, remember?). See also Matt.20:9-15, in regards to duty. Faith transcends works, because it is in response to something God does.

I think this has already been addressed in the first post, this problem of the "enslaved mind". I also saw no correlation between what you said on conscience and the text in 1 John 3. Moreover, your statements still do not address verses 4-9, which are obviously more explicit than the generalized v10. After all, I am sure Hitler loved his girlfriend and truly thought what he was doing a good thing. Therefore more than this is necessary.

Exactly, because even though we do good (and thereby acknowledge that we know what it means), we are still sinners. Two rights don't fix a wrong. No amount of doing right fixes a wrong -- that is merely our duty. Belonging to God, having faith in Christ's work, means repenting from all sin -- even leaving off doing 'good' until that sin has been addressed. Because if we do not, we are not taking God into account.

Matt.5:23-24 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.​

And so if you sin does that mean God is not helping you? Or will you say that the sinner is entirely responsible, creating a nice double standard since you claim it is God who helps us be sinless?

We could not even begin to address our sins if we lived in fear that they would not be forgiven, whether we managed to repent or not. God's help was Christ. We are either accepting help or rejecting it -- drowning, or being saved -- regardless of our past sins.

Hebrews 10:26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left...​

Again, you have ignored the context. I know not many problems of faith need a mountain to be moved but did you not see the anecdote I wrote?

Yes, what did you pray for? For your faith to be strengthened? Read Luke 17:5-10 again: the little faith you have is all you need, but the nature of faith is that you have to trust God. If you don't trust Him, why pray at all? Or did you give Him a deadline?

Secondly, the issue of whether or not a "problem of faith" requires moving a mountain is extraneous. Do you see anything in those verses and verses such as 1 John 3:22 that say "God will only give it to you if it is required for that specific problem." If that was the case, then faith would be fruitless since regardless of all the faith in the world you had, it would still be God's whim to determine the most 'efficient' (the best) way to solve a problem. The context speaks for itself.

But if the specific problem seems like a mountain that will not be moved, faith is most applicable, and most fruitful. You didn't lose your faith, you let go of it -- and God did not abandon you, but if you don't trust Him it doesn't matter what He says or enables you to do, does it?

I would assume if you had faith in God that could move mountains, then He would be abiding in you, which would mean you had love. But to have love simply goes back to the problem I pointed out in the first post.

Your first post made the observation that we are trapped and condemned by sin -- that Jesus did not relax the requirements of the law, but made it unquestionably clear, "so that God may be proved right when He speaks and prevail when He judges." To believe that we can be forgiven, saved, and even declared righteous, requires faith in God. Nobody forces you to believe that, but having hope -- and love -- is not exactly the same as being asked to change your favouite colour or be "sexually aroused by faeces".

God is not going to lead your life for you, that wasn't His intention when He created us. He gave us laws to live by, to expose sin and injustice in us, but provided a righteousness that does not depend on being perfect: Jesus Christ. To say you can't love Him, is like saying you can't respond to such love.