ThinkofOne: I'm happy to keep going with this, but it's a bit frustrating when you cherry pick
a single sentence or two out of my posts and don't address the other points. When you do
that, it makes it seem that you didn't understand what I wrote, which makes me inclined to
simply repost the same thing a second time. Can you try for a more comprehensive approach
to this discussion, rather than a piecemeal one?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Jesus said, "...everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever."
You prefer to read this as "...everyone who commits sin, except of course for the continuing occasional sin that is regretted, is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever."
This passage comes from St John 8:34. The literal Greek reads:
pis o poion ten amartian doulos estin tes amartias.
Everyone doing sin a slave is of sin.
This is not unlike the infamous line by Bill Clinton with the definition of the word 'is.' If someone
sins precisely once in 10 years, are they 'doing sin?' I don't believe so, and more significantly,
I don't think there is a good reason for me to believe that Jesus thought so. I take 'doing sin'
not as a reflection of discrete actions but a state of being. I think that there is a distinction
between 'living in sin' and 'leading a life in which sin plays a role.'
The reason I think Jesus recognized this distinction was because of His repeated teachings on
forgiveness. Of His teachings, these had to have been among the more controversial to His
audience. Jesus taught people to forgive both friends and enemies, and I have to believe that
the former includes 'Disciples.' Jesus further taught that to deny earthly forgiveness was to
have heavenly forgiveness denied to ourselves (forgive us as we forgive those...).
Again, to summarize: there is a difference between 'living in sin' and 'leading a righteous life
in which sin plays a part,' and I believe that Jesus was aware of this difference.
Jesus said, "Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father."
You prefer to read this as "Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father, except of course for the occasional sin that is regretted."
I don't think that being glib or sarcastic is a reflection of doing the will of the Father, incidentally.
Again, I think there is a difference between 'doing the will of the Father' and 'doing exclusively
without exception the will of the Father.' I think a person who lives a life of charity and
compassion, mindful of the impact of his words and actions upon the lives of other people and
at one point or another said or did something that was less than charitable did, indeed, do the
will of the Father.
And, again, I think that Jesus would find my interpretation more compelling than yours because
of the full corpus of His teachings on forgiveness (e.g., the woman caught in adultery).
If that was what Jesus meant, He certainly expressed it extremely poorly. Earlier you admonished someone for believing what they "prefer". This is what you're doing here.
If Jesus expected each of His Disciples to have a flawless, unwavering obedience to the
commands of God, then He certainly expressed it extremely poorly.
Of course, I never used the word 'prefer;' you interjected it in your poor paraphrasing of what
I wrote.
My interpretation takes into account the whole body of Jesus' teachings. Yours relies on a
misreading of the concepts entailed in the original language because of your use of translation.
I don't know if there's any point in addressing the rest of your post. It's evident that your position speaks to the topic of this thread.
I see that, when it's inconvenient for you to address something, you behave no differently than
Jaywill, JosephW, or a number of other so-called Christians. You can duck your head in the
sand, if you want, but the burden of proof that Jesus expects unfailing obedience in order to
be a Disciple lies on you, especially given the flawed obedience His closest followers demonstrated.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Rajk999Precisely---Christ IS the judge. It boils down to the fact that I believe deathbed confessions resulting in salvation happen quite frequently. I gather you do not. That's fine--Christians can disagree on points; the sky won't fall. 😉
Christ is the judge of that.
But exceptions dont void the rule.
One person who genuniely cannot do good works, does not set a precedent to excuse 100,000 persons who can.
Read the parable of the talents.
4 edits
Originally posted by NemesioI understand it well enough. I'm just not buying it.
ThinkofOne: I'm happy to keep going with this, but it's a bit frustrating when you cherry pick
a single sentence or two out of my posts and don't address the other points. When you do
that, it makes it seem that you didn't understand what I wrote, which makes me inclined to
simply repost the same thing a second time. Can you try for a more comprehensiv His closest followers demonstrated.
Nemesio
In your "verbal diarrhea" response to jaywill, you said:
"In the passages in John the you work of God, the obeying IS the believing into Christ."
The concept that obedience includes the "occasional" disobedience is a rationalization on your part. It seems it's the standard you've set for yourself, so you read it into the teachings of Jesus. Jesus sets a higher standard. Jesus commands that we hear what He says and act accordingly.
Luke 6:43-49
"For there is no good tree which produces bad fruit, nor, on the other hand, a bad tree which produces good fruit. For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush. The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart. Why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them, I will show you whom he is like: he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid a foundation on the rock; and when a flood occurred, the torrent burst against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built. But the one who has heard and has not acted accordingly, is like a man who built a house on the ground without any foundation; and the torrent burst against it and immediately it collapsed, and the ruin of that house was great."
A good tree does not produce "bad fruit". What's more a bad tree does not produce "good fruit". I don't see an allowance for the "occasional bad fruit" from a "good tree" here, which is what you seem to be advocating.
When you sin, you may have heard what Jesus says, but you aren't acting accordingly. If you aren't acting accordingly, why do you call Him "Lord"?
For whatever reason, you seem to have bundled the standard for "forgiveness" in this world with what is required to have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation". If you open your ears to what Jesus actually says instead of hearing what you want to hear, you'll be able to make this distinction.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneBriefly, because I don't have time for a full post, but let me ask you this:
A good tree does not produce "bad fruit". What's more a bad tree does not produce "good fruit". I don't see an allowance for the "occasional bad fruit" from a "good tree" here, which is what you seem to be advocating.
Do you know any fruit trees that produce only good fruit? I don't. I know many that produce
an overwhelming majority of good fruit, maybe 99.9%. But every now and then, some of those
trees over the course of a season produce a single fruit that's misshapen, or undersized and bitter,
or defective in some other capacity. We still call it a 'good tree' in spite of occasionally producing
bad fruit.
I'm not a dendrologist or pomologist, but I think it's safe to assume as a resident of Judea, knew
a fair bit about trees (and fishing, and manual labor). I'm confident that He knew more than I
did on this matter. Unless Jesus was a real dullard, then He knew that good trees occasionally
produce bad fruit.
Do you disagree that good trees, even really super good trees, occasionally produce bad fruit?
Do you think that Jesus didn't know that?
Nemesio
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAnother fast post:
"In the passages in John the you work of God, the obeying IS the believing into Christ."
The concept that obedience includes the "occasional" disobedience is a rationalization on your part. It seems it's the standard you've set for yourself, so you read it into the teachings of Jesus. Jesus sets a higher standard. Jesus commands that we hear what He says and act accordingly.
I don't know if you have any children, but I have one who is approaching five years old. And, by
and large, he is well behaved, a good listener, and inasmuch as he has responsibilities, he executes
them without complaining.
I would describe him as obedient, even though sometimes he does disobey what I or my wife asks
him to do. That is, we judge the general question 'Is your son well behaved?' as an examination of
the entirety of his character, not whether he as ever disobeyed.
Your line of inquiry sounds uncomfortably like the questions on the 'Way of the Master' site, in
which Kirk Cameron asks, 'Have you ever lied even once?' And, if you answer in the affirmative,
you are branded 'A Liar' even if over the course of 10 years, you've lied only a single time. I
don't subscribe to such a mindset, and I don't see a good reason to think that Jesus did either.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioAre you familiar with the expression, "can't see the forest for the trees"?
Briefly, because I don't have time for a full post, but let me ask you this:
Do you know any fruit trees that produce only good fruit? I don't. I know many that produce
an overwhelming majority of good fruit, maybe 99.9%. But every now and then, some of those
trees over the course of a season produce a single fruit that's misshapen, or undersi ...[text shortened]... , occasionally produce bad fruit?
Do you think that Jesus didn't know that?
Nemesio
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSo, you're not going to differentiate yourself from most of the other Christians on this site and
Are you familiar with the expression, "can't see the forest for the trees"?
actually engage in discussion. You're going to pose questions and, upon receiving answers which
raise other questions, just be insulting.
Why do you bother in the first place? I mean, why do you even ask the questions in the first place
if you're not interested in dialogue? Why not just do what Jaywill does and just express yourself
and move on?
I guess you think that either good trees never, ever produce bad fruit ever in their lifespan, or
that Jesus believed that good trees never, ever produce bad fruit.
Either way, it's an untenable position, but you're sure entitled to it.
Nemesio
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe concept that obedience includes the "occasional" disobedience is a rationalization on your part. It seems it's the standard you've set for yourself, so you read it into the teachings of Jesus. Jesus sets a higher standard. Jesus commands that we hear what He says and act accordingly.--------ToONE------------------------
I understand it well enough. I'm just not buying it.
In your "verbal diarrhea" response to jaywill, you said:
"In the passages in John the you work of God, the obeying IS the believing into Christ."
The concept that obedience includes the "occasional" disobedience is a rationalization on your part. It seems it's the standard you've set for yoursel ...[text shortened]... t you want to hear, you'll be able to make this distinction.
Look ToO , are you talking from any personal experience whatsoever here? Have you attempted to live the "sinless" and 100% obedient life? Did you manage it?
Everyone here knows that unless you have personal experience of what you are waffling on about then its YOUR words that are just rationalizations and theoretical/hypothetical musings.
You talk about Jesus's commands (the greatest of which is to love God with all your heart and mind) and yet you will not even commit to saying that you actually believe in God at all.
What standard have you set for YOURSELF? I suggest that you start with believing in the Father God that Jesus said we were to follow and love. Maybe then your words would come across as less hollow.
I'm not sure how you rationalize all this stuff in your head. You see fit to lecture Neme on Jesus's commandments when it's pretty clear that you don't believe in the Father God of Jesus? Do you not see at all how hypocritical that seems to others?
Originally posted by NemesioA brilliant post. You are trying to get ToO to see the essence of his all or nothing thinking. He sees a world with no greys in it because it suits his agenda. Most of your posts here remind me of things I have said to him in the past. They fell on deaf ears then and it seems he hasn't moved much since. As far as he is cocerned any attempt to look at human nature in a reasonable , practical and sensible way is a "rationalization".
Another fast post:
I don't know if you have any children, but I have one who is approaching five years old. And, by
and large, he is well behaved, a good listener, and inasmuch as he has responsibilities, he executes
them without complaining.
I would describe him as obedient, even though sometimes he does disobey what I or my wife asks
him to do. ...[text shortened]... a mindset, and I don't see a good reason to think that Jesus did either.
Nemesio
My feelng is that he sees "rationalisations" everywhere but that this very process of hisis his own "rationalization" in order to butress his rigid position. It's a rationalisation of rationalisations if you get my drift.
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterI'll have to confess, knightmeister, that I'm very uncomfortable when I find that you agree with me,
A brilliant post. You are trying to get ToO to see the essence of his all or nothing thinking. He sees a world with no greys in it because it suits his agenda. Most of your posts here remind me of things I have said to him in the past. They fell on deaf ears then and it seems he hasn't moved much since. As far as he is cocerned any attempt to look at h ress his rigid position. It's a rationalisation of rationalisations if you get my drift.
since generally the level of analysis you offer is often distorted and more than occasionally perverse.
It makes me think I said something wrong.
But then I remember, you have a 'enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend' mentality, and you have
some silly agenda against ThinkofOne, the origin of which is inscrutable.
So, when you write a post like this, if I don't respond, then it seems like I'm tacitly agreeing
with your psychobabble as to his motivations or state of mind. I don't agree with you and frankly
I don't care what his or your state of mind is. Additionally, I don't want to get caught up in your
little vendetta against ThinkofOne since I think it's petty and foolish.
And, while I thank you for the compliment as to the content of my post, I'd appreciate it if you'd
simply respond to that content rather than personalize it with a color commentary as to ThinkofOne's
psychological state.
And, for the record, I think that there are many circumstances in life and in Jesus' teachings
where there are black and white proscriptions and commands. And I have no objection to Jesus'
insistence that we strive to obey those commands, that our goal ought to be flawlessness, even
while such a goal is ultimately unachievable. And I believe that Jesus knew that the goals He
established are impossible to meet, which is why He emphasized forgiveness so fervently in the
course of His ministry.
Nemesio
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioQuite frankly, I didn't see yours a serious response, so didn't respond with one. You attacked the quality of the metaphor used by Jesus which is a detail that doesn't begin to address what the words of Jesus mean. Hence the "forest for the trees" comment. That you took it as "insulting" says more about you than it does me. Your other post pointed out a standard for obedience for a five year old instead of addressing the standard of obedience that Jesus set for "enternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation". To top things off, you tossed out some lame Kirk Cameron comparison that only served to disparage.
So, you're not going to differentiate yourself from most of the other Christians on this site and
actually engage in discussion. You're going to pose questions and, upon receiving answers which
raise other questions, just be insulting.
Why do you bother in the first place? I mean, why do you even ask the questions in the first place
if you're not int ...[text shortened]... ruit.
Either way, it's an untenable position, but you're sure entitled to it.
Nemesio
In what way have you differentiated yourself "from most of the other Christians on this site"? The quality of your responses thus far have been little better.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOf course it's a serious response. You would have others believe that Jesus used the notions of
Quite frankly, I didn't see yours a serious response, so didn't respond with one. You attacked the quality of the metaphor used by Jesus which is a detail that doesn't begin to address what the words of Jesus mean. Hence the "forest for the trees" comment. That you took it as "insulting" says more about you than it does me. Your other post pointed out a s ...[text shortened]... ns on this site"? The quality of your responses thus far have been little better.
good tree and good fruit in a way that I don't think He intended. Good trees, even very good trees,
occasionally give bad fruit. That doesn't make them bad trees. Jesus and His audience had to
have known that. And you know it, too.
So the question is: do you really think that Jesus insisted that His followers be flawless? I think
He wanted them to be flawless, because fewer flaws is indicative of being closer to God, but I think
it's bizarre to maintain that it was the only standard that Jesus would tolerate.
You brought up obedience when I responded to Jaywill's intercontradictory posting. On your
view, a person who disobeys once in a lifetime is a disobedient individual, even if he obeyed
a million other times. To boot, if that person repents and atones for that disobedience, he is
still disobedient. I find this a very odd stance to maintain.
By example, I believe that, in terms of sins of commission, I sin relatively infrequently. In terms
of works of compassion, I believe I commit far more of those than sins. I acknowledge (confess)
my sin, I strive to make amends when I can, and struggle prayerfully with my flawed nature to avoid
them in the future. Consequently, I would conclude that, while I do indeed sin, I do not lead a
'sinful life' or consider myself a 'worker of iniquity.' And I am inclined to believe that if Jesus
had an opinion about me, He would agree, too.
If, indeed, you are right about Jesus' insistence that all people of faith had to both strive to be
and succeed at being sinless, then it seems that you are committed to the idea that no one
will be granted eternal life.
As for the Kirk Cameron comment, I'm sorry you were insulted; it was not my intention to disparage.
I was trying to communicate that what it appears that you are saying is akin to what he says:
If you have ever lied, then you are a liar. If you have ever taken something, then you are a
thief. If you have ever disobeyed your parents, then you are a dishonorable person, and so on.
This is his contention, and I find it to be deeply problematic. I was merely commenting that
it seems very similar to yours. If I have misunderstood you, then I apologize.
Nemesio
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe true Christian faith is not an obstacle to reason ... on the contrary.
For many Christians, their core beliefs require them to hold contradictory beliefs. From discussions I've had with many of them, it is apparent that they don't see a problem with this. This sets the bar exceedingly low when it comes to logic and reason. For them, a "belief" is true even though reason dictates otherwise. Does this ultimately make it imposs ...[text shortened]... word of God despite that fact that the Bible is filled with contradictions.
etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism
3 edits
Originally posted by NemesioSeems like you misunderstand my position. I believe that when you cease to be disobedient you become obedient. I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise.
Of course it's a serious response. You would have others believe that Jesus used the notions of
good tree and good fruit in a way that I don't think He intended. Good trees, even very good trees,
occasionally give bad fruit. That doesn't make them bad trees. Jesus and His audience had to
have known that. And you know it, too.
So the question is: d ems very similar to yours. If I have misunderstood you, then I apologize.
Nemesio
I understand you don't care for the metaphor, but you still haven't addressed what you believe He meant when he said, ""For there is no good tree which produces bad fruit, nor, on the other hand, a bad tree which produces good fruit." He said what He said.
I understand that you don't see overcoming sin as possible. However, thus far your responses have pretty much amounted to "Since I don't think it's possible, what Jesus said can't be what He meant". So you effectively change "commits sin" to "habitually commits sin", "does the will of of my father" to "trys to do the will of my father", etc. What precludes Jesus from meaning what He said other than you don't think it a standard to which one should be held? It's basically the same line of thinking as those who don't think one should be held to a higher standard than "professing belief".
I wasn't "insulted" by the Kirk Cameron comment. I merely found it lame. I brought it up as an example of the quality of your response.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhat precludes Jesus from meaning what He said other than you don't think it a standard to which one should be held? It's basically the same line of thinking as those who don't think one should be held to a higher standard than "professing belief".
Seems like you misunderstand my position. I believe that when you cease to be disobedient you become obedient. I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise.
I understand you don't care for the metaphor, but you still haven't addressed what you believe He meant when he said, ""For there is no good tree which produces bad fruit, nor, on the other hand, a bad ...[text shortened]... ame. I brought it up as an example of the quality of your response.
-------ToOne---------------------------------------------------------
And what standard do you think you should hold yourself to? Professing belief in the existence of Jesus's Father might be a start don't you think? Since Jesus's greatest commandment was to "love the Lord your God with all your heart" , then it would be nice to hear you profess your belief in the God that Jesus preached.
Since you cannot and will not do this it seems...well...shall we say strange to hear you waffling on to others about "standards " and "commandments". What do you think Jesus would say to someone who denied his Father even existed?
Do you believe in the Father God that Jesus preached?