Originally posted by knightmeisterMaybe KM, you should consider the negative effect your vendetta (for want of a better word) is having on otherwise useful and interesting discussions.
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".
-------ToOne---------------------------------------------------------
And what standard do you think ...[text shortened]... his Father even existed?
Do you believe in the Father God that Jesus preached?
Of what relevance are people's personal standards or codes of conduct to the discussions we have? Would you need to know how much good works I am doing for example, in order for you to believe me if I said that Christ said to do good works?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
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.
So, is it your contention that a tree that produces 10000 good fruit for
every 1 bad fruit is a bad tree? Yes or no will suffice.
Is it your contention that an individual who obeys 10000 orders for every
1 order he disobeys is a disobedient individual? Yes or no will suffice.
Is it your contention that Mother Teresa whose selfless devotion to those
in need is an uncontested fact, if she in a moment of weak impatience
yelled at one of her fellow sisters in an uncharitable way is a 'bad tree?'
Again, yes or no will suffice.
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 did explain it. He meant by 'good tree' what everyone means by 'good
tree:'
a tree which produces an overwhelmingly high proportion of good fruit.
When you speak to a farmer, and he says 'This tree produces really good
fruit,' he does not mean 'This tree produces exclusively and without exception
good fruit and never has produced bad fruit.'
I understand that you don't see overcoming sin as possible.
Another 'yes or no' answer will do. Is it your belief that unfailingly overcoming
sin is possible?
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.
I don't think that being insulting in return, especially after I apologized,
is really a demonstration of the sort of charity Jesus commands.
Nemesio
Originally posted by knightmeisterShut up, KM.
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".
-------ToOne---------------------------------------------------------
And what standard do you think ...[text shortened]... his Father even existed?
Do you believe in the Father God that Jesus preached?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneA novel idea...but your statement is little off the mark. Christians are NOT perfect, they are just as flawed as anyone else. They are apart from God because of there sinful nature. They are however saved from paying the penalty for there sins because Jesus Christ has already paid that penalty for them. This is not a contradiction...and this idea is so simple, many people can't see it, because they are digging too deep in scriptural lingo, and thus over complicating things.
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.
🙂
Originally posted by Rajk999On certain subjects it is not neccessary to ask about that person's personal life , on others it is. ToO talks a lot about overcoming sin and obedience. It's the battle within. Unless he has some experience of this then his words are merely theoretical and are therefore limited.
Maybe KM, you should consider the negative effect your vendetta (for want of a better word) is having on otherwise useful and interesting discussions.
Of what relevance are people's personal standards or codes of conduct to the discussions we have? Would you need to know how much good works I am doing for example, in order for you to believe me if I said that Christ said to do good works?
For example , if he said he had had gone through the tough struggles of faith and obedience and fought against his sinful nature (in the way that is described in many great Christian writings + St Paul's writings) then his words would have great authority.
I'm simply trying to find out if what he is talking about is just hypothetical and abstract or based in any reality or experience of his own.
Otherwise it's a bit like listening to those people who go on about how you should do this and that with children and how you should follow all the handbooks on parenting and never lose your temper with them. As a parent I find myself wanting to ask them if they have any children themselves because I know if they did they would not talk so glibly about it.
Any parent who has been through the reality of child rearing will know that what is said in those books sounds oh so different when you have experienced it. You also find yourself balking at being lectured on parenting by someone who may never have experienced it.
Are you a parent? If you are , would you not want to know if the person you were discussing parenting with actually had children? I think you would.
Originally posted by NemesioCan you give me a good reason to? If you can then I will do as you wish.
Shut up, KM.
I apologize if you feel I have butted in on this one , but it's hard watching you go down the same lines with ToO and just being shut out like I was. You do know that he's not really interested in a debate don't you?
Originally posted by knightmeisterNonsense. Anyone can invent or exaggerate a story on the internet.
For example , if he said he had had gone through the tough struggles of faith and obedience and fought against his sinful nature (in the way that is described in many great Christian writings + St Paul's writings) then his words would have great authority.
In this medium, we're all forced to tackle problems from a primarily theoretical perspective.
Originally posted by knightmeisterI understand your point. But bear in mind that there is no way we can verify what someone is saying about themselves. We just have to take their word for it. Hence the reason why I maintain that we can benefit more from these discussions by focusing on the teachings of the Bible and not on each other.
On certain subjects it is not neccessary to ask about that person's personal life , on others it is. ToO talks a lot about overcoming sin and obedience. It's the battle within. Unless he has some experience of this then his words are merely theoretical and are therefore limited.
For example , if he said he had had gone through the tough struggles ...[text shortened]... if the person you were discussing parenting with actually had children? I think you would.
Originally posted by SwissGambitHowever , you can always tell if someone is giving out some BS or not. I bet you that I could work out if someone had children or not by having a conversation with them about it.
Nonsense. Anyone can invent or exaggerate a story on the internet.
In this medium, we're all forced to tackle problems from a primarily theoretical perspective.
Also , any one of us could be masquerading as anyone. I could be an Atheist pretending to be a Theist and no-one would know. Mind you I really don't think this is why ToO won't be drawn on the subject. I disagree with you that these forums have to be theoretcial only. I've seen plenty of people use all sorts of experiences and arguments here.
Originally posted by Rajk999Look it's not a vendetta , I'm not interested in ToO per se , I'm just interested to know if his argument is related to anything other than scripture alone.
I understand your point. But bear in mind that there is no way we can verify what someone is saying about themselves. We just have to take their word for it. Hence the reason why I maintain that we can benefit more from these discussions by focusing on the teachings of the Bible and not on each other.
Scripture without context is meaningless. It has to be alive to be relevant. ToO is on some crusade regarding a fundamental battle within human nature of sin versus righteousness. The greatest source of knowledge we have of the sharpness of this struggle is what we experience within ourselves. I have always asked ToO to refer to his own struggle , he won't.
Originally posted by knightmeisterThen have the decency to accept his privacy and stop hounding him about it. I see nothing wrong with asking him once or twice, but he has the right to refuse to answer personal questions and there is no good reason for badgering him about it.
I have always asked ToO to refer to his own struggle , he won't.
Certainly, even though knowing his beliefs etc might add more to the discussion, not knowing it does not detract significantly from his argument.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou don't think that I imagine he will answer do you?
Then have the decency to accept his privacy and stop hounding him about it. I see nothing wrong with asking him once or twice, but he has the right to refuse to answer personal questions and there is no good reason for badgering him about it.
Certainly, even though knowing his beliefs etc might add more to the discussion, not knowing it does not detract significantly from his argument.
I gave up long ago trying to get him to answer. My line now is to ask him whether he actually believes in God at all. That fact he doesn't say speaks for itself. If he doesn't then he has no hope of fulfilling the greatest of all Jesus's commandments (to love God with all his heart).
The fact that he doesn't answer suggests that he is at heart an Atheist. I don't have a problem with that as such , it just seems very very curious to hear him exhorting others to follow Jesus's commandments.
I think it's perfectly right that he should be asked about this as and when he starts piping off about Jesus what said we should do and how others are watering down his commandments etc etc. My questions are matched in frequency by his gas. He stops gasing , I stop asking.
You obviously perceive me as distorting science and coming out with what to you is nonsense , thats fine , you want to challenge it. You might ask me if I have a maths/physics degree , how are my questions different? I welcome your challenge because I am secure in my position. I think you have asked me more questions than I have ToO , you don't catch me crying foul about it , it's part of the deal here.
Originally posted by knightmeisterNo, you can't. Even in person, people get fooled by con-artists. It's 10 times easier to do it over the internet. You don't even have to be a good enough actor to keep a straight face when lying online.
However , you can always tell if someone is giving out some BS or not.
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioIf a farmer says, 'This tree produces really good
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]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.
So, is it your contention that a tree that produces 10000 good fruit for
every 1 bad fruit is a bad tree? Yes or no will suffice.
Is it your contention really a demonstration of the sort of charity Jesus commands.
Nemesio[/b]
fruit,' I don't take it to mean 'This tree produces exclusively and without exception good fruit and never has produced bad fruit'.
If a farmer says, "This tree produces good fruit and almost no bad fruit", I take it to mean that the tree produces almost all good fruit.
If a farmer says, "This tree produces good fruit and no bad fruit", I take it to mean that the tree produces exclusively good fruit.
But realistically, this is neither here nor there. It seems to me that Jesus used a metaphor to show how inner character can be revealed by outward appearances. Like most metaphors, it only goes so far. I'm not sure why you have the expectation that a metaphor would necessarily reflect the real world in all respects.
Jesus uses the same metaphor in Matthew 7:17-19. Here's Young's Literal Translation:
"17 so every good tree doth yield good fruits, but the bad tree doth yield evil fruits. 18 A good tree is not able to yield evil fruits, nor a bad tree to yield good fruits. 19 Every tree not yielding good fruit is cut down and is cast to fire"
From 17, there is no reason to believe that Jesus is saying that "good trees" yield exclusively "good fruit." However, Jesus doesn't stop there. From 18, there is every reason to believe that Jesus is saying that "good trees" yield exclusively "good fruit" and that "bad trees" do not yield any "good fruit". Note what Jesus says happens to trees not yielding good fruit.
Here are a couple of other places where Jesus uses dichotomy:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever;"
"If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
Here I see Jesus as saying you cannot be a semi-slave. You are either free of sin or a slave to it. You cannot continue to sin and have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation".
"For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it."
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God...That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
Across these two passages I see Jesus using the metaphor of death and rebirth. The first life is one of the flesh. It is this life that you must chose to lose. You cannot be semi-dead. You must entirely lose the life of the flesh. Only then can you be reborn of the Spirit. Only then will you have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation".
I'm not sure why you've adopted an interrogation mode with yes/no questions. In my experience, it's a poor method for having a fruitful discussion . I'm happy to continue a discussion, but I'm not interested in being presented with yes/no questions and answering them.
Originally posted by bill718Or "Christianity" has all but abandoned the teachings of Jesus for the teachings of Paul and followers of Paul. 🙂
A novel idea...but your statement is little off the mark. Christians are NOT perfect, they are just as flawed as anyone else. They are apart from God because of there sinful nature. They are however saved from paying the penalty for there sins because Jesus Christ has already paid that penalty for them. This is not a contradiction...and this idea is so simpl ...[text shortened]... , because they are digging too deep in scriptural lingo, and thus over complicating things.
🙂