Guilt

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
The Bible does call an offence of some kind, no matter how great or small, a sin. It only calls an offence a sin it if entails disobedience with God's will.

For example, you offend me by believing that I, an otherwise decent unbeliever, am going to hell. Are you thereby sinning? Why not come clean and admit it?

How can the believers be sinning towards you when they are just trying to save you!!!

Originally posted by Jay Joos
How can the believers be sinning towards you when they are just trying to save you!!!

Because even when you try to help you can be offensive. Also if I don't need or want to be saved then you trying to save me is against Gods will and hence a sin.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Because even when you try to help you can be offensive. Also if I don't need or want to be saved then you trying to save me is against Gods will and hence a sin.

Trying to save cannot be against God's will...that is what he wants the christian to do so we are doing his will therefore not sinning ourselves but doing good!!!

Originally posted by Jay Joos
Trying to save cannot be against God's will...that is what he wants the christian to do so we are doing his will therefore not sinning ourselves but doing good!!!

But that is a violation of my free will. If God wanted me saved he would save me himself instead of sending you! Besides you were told to spread the word not save people.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But that is a violation of my free will. If God wanted me saved he would save me himself instead of sending you! Besides you were told to spread the word not save people.

What do you think spreading the word was meant to do?!!!! ...

Yes its your free will and if you choose not to be saved then i accept your decision...i personally disagree but then i have respect for you and will leave it at that

Originally posted by twhitehead

Originally posted by twhitehead
But that is all of course - by definition. If Jesus was God and sin is to go against Gods will then everything Jesus did was going with Jesus' and hence Gods will and hence not a sin even if he did something that for one of us mere mortals would constitute a sin.
You are mostly right on what you say but there are parts I wish to clarify. Jesus emptied himself and was not the same as God the father. Though he is still God the father he is not as well. This is part of the doctorin called the trinity. Jesus could only do what he wished and be sinless because his wishes were that of God the fathers. Jesus never lied or murdered because that was not God the fathers desire. If Jesus lied and murdered then he would be going against God (which would have been imposable for him) and he would then be sinning (which would also be imposable).

I’m not sure I cleaned it up with that paragraph but I was getting the impression you were saying that Jesus is sinless because he is God, so if he was to do something that would be sin if a human did it, it is not sin because Jesus did it… this is wrong. If Jesus slept with a prostitute and murdered then of course he would be sinning like everyone else. But those actions go against his nature and he did not even think of them in any desiring way.

Of course it is all rather silly to think that I am going to feel guilty about doing something I had no choice about.

Ii agree it would be silly to feel guilty about something you had no choice about for two reasons. First is guilt is not a Good and Godly thing. When I wrong God, I should not feel guilt but rather apologize and take steps not to error again. I would only feel guilt if I was not forgiven. 2nd if you had no choice it would be really silly to feel guilty but of course you have choice in everything. If someone has a gun to my head and tells me to renounce Jesus or die, I still have a choice, it does not mean I have to like my options.

Why should I feel guilty about something I did at the age of 1 and why should I be punished or forgiven?

As I said I would not feel guilty because you would be forgiven. I would feel guilty if I was convicted of something and I was not forgiven. You are much older than one now and of course have many more errors since then. As for why you should be punished or forgiven, well in truth you should just ask why you should be saved. The natural consequence of sin is death. It isn’t like God it slapping you in the face and tossing you into hell because he is a tyrant but you would be going there anyway.

Try imagin this, it may help you understand judgement. You are hanging from a cliff and you hear a voice telling you to grab his hand. You look up and see it, then grab it just as the branch you were on broke and are saved. Or you dont. You are afraid to look up, perhaps can really see the hand very well or not at all unless you take a leep. The branch breaks and you fall.

Your rightful place is to fall, it is not to be saved and go to heaven. "Why would God send me to hell" God does not do this, but you do. "Why would God save me" Because you took the leep of faith and trusted God.

If God made me the way I am then why does he put the blame on me? And don't give me any of that free will nonsense because it is quite clear from earlier in the thread the we have no choice but to sin and thus no free will in the matter.

Because you DO have choice. You cannot be perfect, if you could you would go to heaven without Jesus… but it is imposable for us. So you do have choice to ask for forgiveness and be saved. You have that choice, everyone does. I find it funny that most people who are agnostic will way “why Christianity” and I will tell them why. Then they just sit on the info. They had a choice, a choice to read a book, think on it and pursue it to see if it is the real deal but rather they thought God should come down on CNN cuz “their” version of God would do that. Well pity their version of God is make-believe. And just because God is not the God they want then apparently it cant be real.

Oh and honestly if God was on CNN people still would not believe. Because everyone needs God to come down and shake their hand on their terms or it is false. Sorry God is not a performer and does not do tricks for those that demand things of him. Think how easy this judgement would be “so you knew about the bible, had access to people who could help you and you decided not to bother because you didn’t want to believe something that was not the way you wanted it to be…. “


People enjoy challenging Christianity but do not seek to learn about it. I’m faced all the time with challenges, not questions. And this whole board is about challenging not learning… pity.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Your primary contention seems to be with Law. God's law, in particular. If there is Law, then there is also the transgression of Law, 'sin'. We can jettison talk of sin, but only by jettisoning God's law as well. However, if we are to take the bible to be true, then we must also take God's law seriously. Therefore, 'sin', the transgression of God's law, must be taken seriously as well.

To the extent that your God came up with this law, this rule based morality, and promotes fear and self-deprecation to affect personal transformation; to that extent, your God just ain't very bright. I'm just thinking pragmatically and telling you that I think there are better approaches.

If your God exists, you basically have prudential reasons for following him, not much else. I agree with you that if you take the bible to be true, then you have some prima facie prudential reasons for worshipping and following your God. That's part of the nature of coercion.

Originally posted by josephw
Let's face it. We all know we are guilty of an offence of some kind, no matter how great or small. The Bible calls it sin. Why not come clean and admit you are a sinner?

Guilt is stupid! The admission as a sinner is totally stupid! Does it get you points for your hope/quest for heaven?

Originally posted by Stregone
Guilt is stupid! The admission as a sinner is totally stupid! Does it get you points for your hope/quest for heaven?

So you have never been guilty of anything?

I don't think that many here understand that sin is more than just "having done a bad thing" before GOD.

Sin is an infestation of something alien. Sin is discribed like a parasite attached to man. It is a being infesting and attached to man as a parasite. Sin is Satan himself joined to man.

Out from that union of this evil being with man comes out sins (plural) which need forgiveness. But the sin nature is like a cosmic leech or a cosmic tapeworm that has attached himself to mankind.

Romans 7 really elaborates on this.

Originally posted by LemonJello
To the extent that your God came up with this law, this rule based morality, and promotes fear and self-deprecation to affect personal transformation; to that extent, your God just ain't very bright. I'm just thinking pragmatically and telling you that I think there are better approaches.

If your God exists, you basically have prudential reasons for ...[text shortened]... ntial reasons for worshipping and following your God. That's part of the nature of coercion.

What's wrong with having prudential reasons for following Christ? I don't see how it could be otherwise, at least initially.

God's law is not something God 'came up with' simply for our benefit; God's law is a reflection of God's holy and righteous nature, which is unchanging and eternal, which we must conform to in order to abide with Him eternally (man's birthright before the Fall). Our fear and self-deprecation before the impossible demands of the law is therefore a matter of necessity and not something arbitrarily arrived at in God's design.

God cannot change Who He is, so He must change us. The proxy system He implemented with Christ is designed to do just that.

Charging God with stupidity for the way things are is hardly tenable. In fact, doing so is as absurd as blaming a lifeguard for the situation of having to use a floatation device in order to save a drowning person.

Originally posted by jaywill
I don't think that many here understand that sin is more than just "having done a bad thing" before GOD.

Sin is an infestation of something alien. Sin is discribed like a parasite attached to man. It is a being infesting and attached to man as a parasite. Sin is Satan himself joined to man.

Out from that union of this evil being with man comes out si ...[text shortened]... cosmic tapeworm that has attached himself to mankind.

Romans 7 really elaborates on this.

The sin nature is not Satan himself joined to man. Satan is an individual entity who cannot be at more than one place at a time. If he were joined to every person who walks the earth, then he would need an ubiquitous nature, which he has not. Only God is ubiquitous.

For all intents and purposes Satan is joined to all sinners and descendents of Adam.

How do you understand this passage:

" ... the ruler of the authority of the air, of the spirit which is now operating in the sons of disobedience ..." (Eph. 2:2)

How do you explain that the Devil, "the ruler of the authority of the air," operates in one sinner on one side of the globe and in another sinner on the other side of the globe at the same moment?

Is Satan then in no sense at all, simultaneously operating in all sinners, on the earth in all places?

Originally posted by jaywill
For all intents and purposes Satan is joined to all sinners and descendents of Adam.

How do you understand this passage:

[b]" ... the ruler of the authority of the air, of the spirit which is now operating in the sons of disobedience ..." (Eph. 2:2)

How do you explain that the Devil, "the ruler of the authority of the air," operates ...[text shortened]... hen in no sense at all, simultaneously operating in all sinners, on the earth in all places?[/b]

Disobedience is what caused Satan to fall. The same 'spirit' of disobedience is at work in the descendants of Adam. Paul is not talking about a 'spirit' in the sense of a spiritual entity, but a prevailing force of attitude, "the course of this world" (as in, we talked together in a 'spirit' of friendship). Satan is an angel and is therefore not omnipresent.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
What's wrong with having prudential reasons for following Christ? I don't see how it could be otherwise, at least initially.

God's law is not something God 'came up with' simply for our benefit; God's law is a reflection of God's holy and righteous nature, which is unchanging and eternal, which we must conform to in order to abide with Him eternally the situation of having to use a floatation device in order to save a drowning person.

No all-loving god would coerce people into worshipping him by giving these people prudential reasons to avoid his vengeance. If you don't understand that, there's something wrong with your judgment. There's also no reasons to think there is something necessary about coercion. There seems nothing necessary about these prudential reasons in particular: if there actually is some basis to them, then it's just a sad, unfortunate state of affairs. That's all we can say about them directly. Sure, if someone points a gun to your head and tells you to X, then perhaps you ought to X if you value your life. And perhaps, even, Xing is something you ought to be doing even without a gun to your head. But don't pretend like the coercer's actions are necessary and deserving of praise. And no, your god isn't very bright at bottom. Obviously he's efficient at prodding through fear and debasement; but he doesn't seem to understand anything about justness or fair rule.

This is all just very ugly idolatry on your part. I don't know what else to say about it.