Ephesians 2:8-9

Originally posted by chaney3
You have made a point that I believe has been missed. When a person decides to commit to a life of Christ......they do the best they can. It seems impossible to live a sin free life, but.....posters seem to think this is possible????

When I asked about Jesus saying 'Go, and sin no more', it was a serious question.

Is it possible to sin no more???

I know your answer, it's that Jesus was speaking of a particular sin.

The fact 'you' felt my reply answered your initial question is important, as it was claimed that i was confused by your question and later made attempts to hide that confusion. Clearly, we both feel otherwise, and that's all that really matters. (And the confusion lies elsewhere)..

You asked "...Is it possible for humans to NOT sin? Why would Jesus tell this woman to 'Go, and sin NO more?" (*Note, a two part questions).

I replied, "My interpretation is that he was saying "Go, and don't do that again. learn from your mistake." (He was speaking specifically about the sin of adultery, not telling her to lead a sinless life, which of course is impossible for a human being)

My answer made clear that i didn't think it was possible for humans to NOT sin (past or future), and also provided my understanding of what Jesus meant by 'Go, and sin NO more.'

Originally posted by chaney3
I believe your point is valid, and that KellyJay would also agree with the notion of attempting to walk with Christ 'as best as you can'......realizing that being perfect and sin-free is an impossibility to anyone except Jesus Himself.

Where I am confused regarding Rak is the opposite notion. It seems that Rak thinks that once a person is 'born again' an ...[text shortened]... e life??

Edit: As I said Rak, I may be really wrong, and please correct me if I am. Thanks.

I neither answer nor ask personal questions on a public forum. So dont waste your time asking me again.

However this part where you said I said this :

It seems that Rak thinks that once a person is 'born again' and makes the effort to do 'good works'....that perfection follows, and sinning stops once a born again Christian makes the decision to do good works.

Can you quote where I said this ?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Sir, you’re trolling me. Kindly desist.

Why do you find it necessary to make things personal? I rather enjoy a battle of wits, but instead of wit you bring only vitriol. There are perhaps two main qualifiers for a ‘troll’ which you may want to reflect upon, before throwing around such an accusation:

1. A troll will often have no interest in the ...[text shortened]... the forums. (You get how ridiculous that sounds right?)

I genuinely am embarrassed for you.

lol. Once again:

Not surprisingly the antics continue. And not surprisingly your responses do not address the facts.

The fact remains that c3's question was a matter of whether or not someone could stop sinning in the future and your response to me was a matter of whether or not some had ever sinned in past.

The fact remains that I told you that you seemed a bit confused and explained why.

The fact remains that you childishly still can't seem to be able to bring yourself to own up to it.

The fact remains that you tried to claim that I was "confused" for asking you (an atheist) a question about the Bible. This despite the fact that earlier in the thread you clearly stated that you're an atheist and established that you are more than willing to offer your opinions about the Bible.

The fact remains that I wanted your opinion and simply asked for it. You childishly accused me of being 'confused' in retaliation.

The fact remains that you childishly and underhandedly edited my post to remove the part that showed your confusion about Chaney3's question, so that you could avoid having to own up to it.

The fact remains that of all the posts you've made on this thread, that quoted post was the only one that you removed any text from - whether or not you were responding in whole or in part.

The fact remains that you underhandedly pulled the same thing the last time I called you a troll.

The fact remains that on the prior thread that I called you a troll, I stated reasons as to why I called you a troll, just as I stated reasons as to why I called you a troll on this thread. Both times you underhandedly tried to make it look like the only reason was because of your username (which was originally just tossed out as an interesting observation).

Please do not can me a troll. Not only is it incorrect it is also impolite and unnecessary.

I see. Now you childishly 'play the victim' which is straight out of RC's playbook.

The fact remains that I've once again documented your troll-like behavior, so it is not 'incorrect'.

Calling you out on the facts is neither 'impolite" nor 'unnecessary'.

What is "impolite and unnecessary' is your continued childishness, underhandedness and toll-like behavior.

Your posts bring to mind RC's antics when he's been called on something. Granted your attempts aren't as oafish, but then RC isn't generally as underhanded as you are. Though if your attempts continue to be this oafish, I might need to reconsider that part.

Based on your MO, it's no surprise that you continue to 'play the victim'.

BTW, also based on your MO, I figured that you'd show up to 'stir the pot' on the 'Salvation' thread, and 'lo and behold' you did on Page 13. I did a quick check and it seems it was your first post on that thread. No doubt it was just another 'coincidence' that your first and only post on the thread was to 'stir the pot'. Of course it was. You're really too funny kid.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
lol. Once again:
[quote]Not surprisingly the antics continue. And not surprisingly your responses do not address the facts.

The fact remains that c3's question was a matter of whether or not someone could stop sinning in the future and your response to me was a matter of whether or not some had ever sinned in past.

The fact remains that I told y ...[text shortened]... nd only post on the thread was to 'stir the pot'. Of course it was. You're really too funny kid.

Is it also coincidence that on the same morning you label me 'underhanded' you label another forum poster 'dishonest'?

Still waiting for you to explain why you find it necessary to make personal comments of this kind? (And also what you make of Chaney saying he felt i had answered his question, something you said i was confused about).

*Edit. Thanks though for calling me a kid.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I never said I'm cruel to animals, I did say I can and do eat them.
You do better when you are talking about your beliefs and your text from your scripture,
because you don't understand the Bible.

I perfectly understand the Bible and the Quran and the Torah.............and that's why I rejected them.

Why?

Because they are all promoting falsehoods.

True religion has no falsehoods.

Originally posted by Dasa
I perfectly understand the Bible and the Quran and the Torah.............and that's why I rejected them.

Why?

Because they are all promoting falsehoods.

True religion has no falsehoods.

I'm impressed, I don't claim to perfectly understand any of them.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm impressed, I don't claim to perfectly understand any of them.

Dasa is obviously being dishonest. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Every language contains “figures of speech”; that is, methods of speaking that are not literally true, but which are used to convey a point.

One figure of speech that is used in Hebrew is called “prolepsis”. With that idiom, events that will occur are spoken of as if they had already occurred. In other words, future events are referred to as if they were ...[text shortened]... st until God caused Mary to conceive.

http://lhim.org/blog/2013/11/24/the-idiom-of-prolepsis/

That last flies in the face of what you said earlier, maybe your deity is not omniscient. I used the argument that say, Abe and his son, the part where he had to off his son to prove himself to god, if god was omniscient, it would have known before the universe was created what the outcome of such a test would have been and therefore no test need be given. To that you replied, God is not omniscient, he doesn't know EVERYTHING, only most things. Something to that effect.

You can't have it both ways. Just like you like to cherry pick the bible, believing in the literal version of Genesis but you reject the verses about a man is worth 50 shekels and a woman 30, verses like that you would respond, we are CHRISTIANS, we don't have to listen to those books in the bible, that was for Jews, but you happily believe fully in the 6 day creation tale, a Jewish tale but you agree with it.

That is, by definition, cherry picking.