Indian triumph

-Removed-

If the book of James applies only to certain people and not to everyone it implies that sin is relative. Would you agree with this assessment?

-Removed-

When you say some aspects you imply that some aspects are not relative. Which aspects might those be?

-Removed-

You're the one that is wriggling. If the scriptures do apply to all people how can you say they are relative?

For the scripture in James to be relative is would imply that the scripture itself only applies to some people and not to everyone. Since you said it is relative that is what you mean by implication. If not feel free to clarify what you mean by 'relative'.

-Removed-

If by 'relative' you mean that it applies only to some people and not to others I disagree. Does the statement "Therefore, whoever knows the right thing to do, yet fails to do it, is guilty of sin" apply to everyone or only to some people? It can only be 'relative' if it does not apply to everyone. Since you believe it is relative, you believe it only applies to some people or not? If not, what do you mean by 'relative'?

-Removed-

Is that the full context of your question?

Are you asking it like "is premarital sex wrong? Is maturation wrong? Is burning someone alive wrong?"

Like these three things don't need further context? That's the whole of it? This isn't an ambush with more background information you're going to spring... It's literally just the standalone, absurd question of whether or not it'd be wrong to go out and burn another human alive?

Then yeha, it's wrong. However, I DON'T think this is what you intended.

You're literally insisting on some ambush.

So, Idk, if this will get us to move on, tell us about your rhetorical trap.

-Removed-

A jabbering Moron. How Christian of you, Dive!

-Removed-

No.

Plus:

Is that the full context of your question?

Are you asking it like "is premarital sex wrong? Is maturation wrong? Is burning someone alive wrong?"

Like these three things don't need further context? That's the whole of it? This isn't an ambush with more background information you're going to spring... It's literally just the standalone, absurd question of whether or not it'd be wrong to go out and burn another human alive?

Then yeha, it's wrong. However, I DON'T think this is what you intended.

You're literally insisting on some ambush.

So, Idk, if this will get us to move on, tell us about your rhetorical trap.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
Utter nonsense.

So you say. Nonsense to you, but true nevertheless.

Originally posted by @fmf
If you feel "born again" because of some kind of supernatural process you believe in, then good for you. I hope it helps you to navigate your way through the vicissitudes of life and to be a good person. I know countless people ~ from various faiths ~ whose religious dogma and perspectives are anything but trivial aspects of their lives.

Yet you trivialize the "born again" experience as "some kind of supernatural process" as though it were visceral and not a genuine spiritual experience.

Jesus Christ offers the world the only real and true conversion there is. All other faiths offer only a religious experience that's based in "works" that generate "feelings".

Being born again is based on the work Jesus did on the cross on our behalf.