03 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by TerrierJack...they lose the ability to appreciate that language is just a way of talking about the world and not the world itself.
A sure sign of this is long and never ending posts filled with quotes from some dusty old manual. Some people fall so much in love with the sounds that flow from their mouths when they learn a particular language that they lose the ability to appreciate that language is just a way of talking about the world and not the world itself.
You forget that language is not exclusively employed in talking about the world (i.e., the world of things), but also abstract concepts lacking any physical referent. In these cases language must communicate realities which the normative use of words cannot properly express. A two-dimensional individual seeking to express in two-dimensional language the third dimension illustrates this decently. He wouldn't be able to fully understand the dimension of which he speaks, and his language becomes peculiar when he talks about it, but the anomalies he observes and experiences nevertheless indicate that a third dimension is a reality. Likewise, the Christian, through study, prayer and the spiritual insight imparted via the Holy Spirit, becomes familiar with the realities which the biblical language, despite its limited capacity, is being used to express. No Christian I know of mistakes the language for the reality itself.
03 Apr 10
4 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehas[/b]Your second example is also true; Christ demands daily repentance for sins as they arise (Matthew 6:12), to do so is obedience to Christ. Again, Christian orthodoxy 101.
[b]They are convinced that those who see the Bible as "internally inconsistent" as being "superfiscial [sic]" or having "little minds" as JW demonstrated in his OP:
What it demonstrates is a lack of a basic understanding of Christian orthodoxy and a firm grasp of the Bible in its entirety. It has nothing to do with intelligence (usually).
S rise (Matthew 6:12), to do so is obedience to Christ. Again, Christian orthodoxy 101.
Your adherence to the argument that "a sinner could be said to be keeping Christ's commandments if he repents, even though he had sinned" shows "...a fixed, dominating or persistent false mental conception resistant to reason".
Your position fails in at least three ways:
1) In an earlier thread you agreed that "when one sins, one is not keeping His commandments."
2) If the sinner had kept His commandments, there would have been no need for him to repent
3) Repentance does not change the fact that he did not keep His commandments in the first place. Breaking one of His commandments and then subsequently following a different commandment does not change the fact that His commandment was broken.
Your position is completely incoherent. It is not reasonable to continue to defend such a position, yet you persist.
To top it off, your counter argument using Matthew 6:12 not only does not at all address the incoherence of your position, your assertion that it shows that "Christ demands daily repentance for sins as they arise" also fails. You have taken a single verse from a prayer that Jesus gave as an example of how one may pray and somehow have read all manner of things into it that can only be described as absurd.
Matthew 6
12 And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
The first example in your OP is true; it simply needs elucidation for those who lack a basic understanding of orthodox Christianity. The seed (1 John 3:9) that God plants within the believer cannot sin (that is what it means when it is said that a Christian cannot sin), and yet the flesh itself remains prone to sin (1 John 1:8), i.e., the flesh is not without sin. There is a perpetual war, as long as the flesh lives, between the Spirit within the believer and the believer's flesh. This is orthodox Christianity 101; I suggest you take a few classes.
Evidently "orthodox Christianity" requires that one be in a state of delusion.
You make the following claim:
"The seed (1 John 3:9) that God plants within the believer cannot sin (that is what it means when it is said that a Christian cannot sin)"
However 1 John 3:9 does not say that it is the "seed" that cannot sin, but the believer himself. In order to prop up your beliefs, you have to stoop to changing the very meaning of the verse. If it meant that the "seed cannot sin" it would have said so instead of saying that "he [one born of God] cannot sin".
1 John 3:9
King James
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Young's Literal Translation
every one who hath been begotten of God, sin he doth not, because his seed in him doth remain, and he is not able to sin, because of God he hath been begotten.
Both examples from the OP clearly are not the product of rational thought. That you continue to defend them speaks volumes. It is this type of irrational thought that is the subject of the OP.
03 Apr 10
2 edits
Epi,
Thanks for the "volumes" you have shared on the subject.
I don't think it is possible for the natural mind to understanding the merging of one life into another life. Yet that is the new covenant. This is especially true of the one who is determine to hone in what he feels is a good case against the Gospel.
ToO is only interested in perfecting his argument not one bit is truly understanding the New Testament, much less in experiencing the resurrected Christ.
How can one without experience really know what Paul means by "It is no longer I that live, but Christ that lives within me."
Human language has its limitations. It is no longer the ego that lives but the Person of Jesus as the life giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45) living in the "me".
" ... and the life which I now live I live in faith, the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me ."
Do you think this probably sounds like foolishness to all but the open minded about profound spiritual matters?
We are told to "put on" Christ. That is a life long matter.
We are also told to "put on the new man". That is also a putting on which is a life long transformation.
In the transition of God being dispensed into man human language capturing this mingling and merging of one life into another life probably sounds like nonsense to the carnal minded.
It is the same with the divine SEED which is planted and growing in the believer. This is just another way of the Bible speaking of the dispensing of God's life into the vessel of the human life.
03 Apr 10
Originally posted by jaywillThen methinks you 'ld better use the word "belief" instead of the word "Knowledge", for Knowledge of Yours it is not😵
[b]==================================
We agree that the so called "source of knowledge" regarding the religious text that in your opinion is sacred,
============================
I think you used the word "sacred".
I think you also used the phrase "religious text".
I think you also introduced the phrase "source of knowledge". ...[text shortened]... question. Sorry if I missed your concern. Someone else might do better.[/b]
03 Apr 10
3 edits
We should be clear about this. It is the Apostle John who both encourages the disciples that the divine seed makes the disciple not able to sin. And it is the SAME Apostle John who teaches them HOW they should deal with thier ocasional sins.
The so called "cognitive dissonance" has to be leveled at John.
Who do you think had more experience and understanding of the teachings of Jesus, ThinkoOne or the Apostle John?
I think John knew what he was teaching. I don't think ThinkoOne understands much about the teachings of Jesus.
Here it comes ... "C'mon jaywill .... etc. etc."
03 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleThanks but I don't celebrate Easter.
I also know that these days are sacred for you, jaywill. I wish you to taste them in full according to your beliefs and to share them in bliss with the ones you love.
Best regards from Athens, Greece😵
I do rejoice and celebrate the resurrection of Jesus 365 days a year.
03 Apr 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneBreaking one of His commandments and then subsequently following a different commandment does not change the fact that His commandment was broken.
Your second example is also true; Christ demands daily repentance for sins as they arise (Matthew 6:12), to do so is obedience to Christ. Again, Christian orthodoxy 101.
Your adherence to the argument that "a sinner could be said to be keeping Christ's commandments if he repents, even though he had sinned" shows "...a fixed, dominating or pe ...[text shortened]... lumes. It is this type of irrational thought that is the subject of the OP.[/b]
ThinkOfOne, it is you who insists that Christ teaches sinless perfectionism, not me; why should I or anyone else care what conclusions you derive from your mistaken premises?
It is a source of perpetual amusement how cleverly you insinuate that your particular interpretation of Christ's teaching is not only a foregone conclusion, but more accepted and reasonable than the established interpretation of orthodox Christianity.
The only reason you perceive illogic in orthodox Christianity is due to your erroneous interpretation of Christ's teaching. If your premises are incorrect (that obedience to Christ requires sinless perfection), then your conclusions are incorrect (that it is illogical that a believer can be both obedient and imperfect). Yet here you are expecting us to treat your false conclusions as if they were at all relevant.
Hilariously, my pointing this out to you will not stop you from persisting; further evidence that a false mental conception resistant to reason is controlling you.
You have taken a single verse from a prayer [Matt. 6:12] that Jesus gave as an example of how one may pray and somehow have read all manner of things into it that can only be described as absurd. Matthew 6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
Yes, Christ gave the Lord's Prayer as an example of how one ought to pray. In this prayer he directs His followers to ask for forgiveness for their sins. How is it absurd to conclude from this that obedience to Christ requires confession rather than sinless perfection?
However 1 John 3:9 does not say that it is the "seed" that cannot sin, but the believer himself. In order to prop up your beliefs, you have to stoop to changing the very meaning of the verse. If it meant that the "seed cannot sin" it would have said so instead of saying that "he [one born of God] cannot sin".
What John is saying is that no believer sins as an expression of abiding in Christ. In the past, before the individual was born again, his nature was to sin; sinning was an expression of his nature. But for a Christian in possession of a new nature, sin is no longer an expression of who he is. John is not teaching that Christians are sinless, obviously (see 1 John 1:8-10), simply that sin is no longer an expression of his new nature (i.e., God's seed). You are in desperate need of some serious Bible study.
03 Apr 10
Originally posted by jaywillAgreed. Nicely put, jaywill.
Epi,
Thanks for the "volumes" you have shared on the subject.
I don't think it is possible for the natural mind to understanding the merging of one life into another life. Yet that is the new covenant. This is especially true of the one who is determine to hone in what he feels is a good case against the Gospel.
ToO is only interested in per ...[text shortened]... Bible speaking of the dispensing of God's life into the vessel of the human life.
03 Apr 10
2 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasFor anyone who wonders how those in delusion manage to hold onto irrational beliefs, this is a prime example.
[b]Breaking one of His commandments and then subsequently following a different commandment does not change the fact that His commandment was broken.
ThinkOfOne, it is you who insists that Christ teaches sinless perfectionism, not me; why should I or anyone else care what conclusions you derive from your mistaken premises?
It is a source of per new nature (i.e., God's seed). You are in desperate need of some serious Bible study.[/b]
Take the following argument:
Your adherence to the argument that "a sinner could be said to be keeping Christ's commandments if he repents, even though he had sinned" shows "...a fixed, dominating or persistent false mental conception resistant to reason".
Your position fails in at least three ways:
1) In an earlier thread you agreed that "when one sins, one is not keeping His commandments."
2) If the sinner had kept His commandments, there would have been no need for him to repent
3) Repentance does not change the fact that he did not keep His commandments in the first place. Breaking one of His commandments and then subsequently following a different commandment does not change the fact that His commandment was broken.
Your position is completely incoherent. It is not reasonable to continue to defend such a position, yet you persist.
Instead of addressing the germane points of the argument, Epi quotes a portion of one of the points and doesn't even address that, no less the argument as a whole. Instead he builds an unrelated straw man and attacks it. There is no rational way to defend the incoherence of his position, so he avoids it completely.
He continues to attack the straw man in response to this minor side point:
To top it off, your counter argument using Matthew 6:12 not only does not at all address the incoherence of your position, your assertion that it shows that "Christ demands daily repentance for sins as they arise" also fails. You have taken a single verse from a prayer that Jesus gave as an example of how one may pray and somehow have read all manner of things into it that can only be described as absurd.
Matthew 6
12 And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
When addressing the following, he uses a different tactic by avoiding his original claim that "the seed...that God plants within the believer cannot sin" by substituting some basic high-level Christian dogma; since, once again, there is no rational way to defend the incoherence of his position.:
You make the following claim:
"The seed (1 John 3:9) that God plants within the believer cannot sin (that is what it means when it is said that a Christian cannot sin)"
However 1 John 3:9 does not say that it is the "seed" that cannot sin, but the believer himself. In order to prop up your beliefs, you have to stoop to changing the very meaning of the verse. If it meant that the "seed cannot sin" it would have said so instead of saying that "he [one born of God] cannot sin".
1 John 3:9
King James
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Young's Literal Translation
every one who hath been begotten of God, sin he doth not, because his seed in him doth remain, and he is not able to sin, because of God he hath been begotten.
Evidently these types of avoidance not only allow him to keep his irrational beliefs (that the examples in the OP were sound) intact, but are essential for doing so. It is clear by the tone of his response that his ego and the accompanying delusions are very strong.
Does anyone have suggestions for keeping them on point? In the past I've tried repeatedly bringing up the germane points, but they always manage to find a way to avoid it.
03 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillHere JW recites ego affirming dogma in order to console himself. As part of it, the "believer" is convinced that his delusions are in fact rational regardless of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Epi,
Thanks for the "volumes" you have shared on the subject.
I don't think it is possible for the natural mind to understanding the merging of one life into another life. Yet that is the new covenant. This is especially true of the one who is determine to hone in what he feels is a good case against the Gospel.
ToO is only interested in per Bible speaking of the dispensing of God's life into the vessel of the human life.
The most tragic thing in all this is that those who believe as JW does, embrace a self-centered belief system that runs contrary to the selflessness taught by Jesus. A self-centered belief system that not only encourages, but requires one to live outside reality which is ironic considering that they purport to worship the God of truth. Instead they worship the God of feeling a sense of well-being.