Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Here 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.

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 tau ...[text shortened]... rt to worship the God of truth. Instead they worship the God of feeling a sense of well-being.

While neither Jaywill nor Epiphinehas has treated me with much kindness, stating openly that we are to be considered anti Christ, when in fact we are simply worshippers of the father, i am loathe to see them treated in this way. Is it not the case that God , in his love should comfort and provide a sense of well being to any man who comes to him with a sincere heart? Indeed, the scriptures make this quite plain.

(2 Thessalonians 2:16-17) . . .Moreover, may our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who loved us and gave everlasting comfort and good hope by means of undeserved kindness,  comfort your hearts and make you firm in every good deed and word.

(2 Corinthians 1:3-7) . . .Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of tender mercies and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort those in any sort of tribulation through the comfort with which we ourselves are being comforted by God.  For just as the sufferings for the Christ abound in us, so the comfort we get also abounds through the Christ.  Now whether we are in tribulation, it is for your comfort and salvation; or whether we are being comforted, it is for your comfort that operates to make you endure the same sufferings that we also suffer.  And so our hope for you is unwavering, knowing as we do that, just as you are sharers of the sufferings, in the same way you will also share the comfort.

(Romans 15:4-6) . . .For all the things that were written aforetime were written for our instruction, that through our endurance and through the comfort from the Scriptures we might have hope.  

Indeed its hard to imagine how a worshipper of the father could fail to have a sense of well being when being a recipient of his love, as expressed through his generosity and through the love of Christ the son. This accusing and bitter personal contentiousness, strikes me as entirely unchristian and accomplishes very little except to separate people, one from another.

(John 10:10) . . .. I have come that they might have life and might have it in abundance.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
While neither Jaywill nor Epiphinehas has treated me with much kindness, stating openly that we are to be considered anti Christ, when in fact we are simply worshippers of the father, i am loathe to see them treated in this way. Is it not the case that God , in his love should comfort and provide a sense of well being to any man who comes to him wit ...[text shortened]... er.

(John 10:10) . . .. I have come that they might have life and might have it in abundance.

There is a distinction to be made between "sense of well-being" and actual well-being. Placing attaining a "sense of well-being" above attaining truth leads to delusion. Placing seeking "feeling good" above seeking truth, love, justice, etc. leads to most, if not all, transgressions of man against man.

This accusing and bitter personal contentiousness, strikes me as entirely unchristian and accomplishes very little except to separate people, one from another.

This seems odd coming from you considering your behavior towards me as well as others.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
yes indeed.
if it is wrong, it will come out in the wash.

Well, hopefully it eventually comes "out in the wash", but the stronger the conviction, the less likely that it will.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
For anyone who wonders how those in delusion manage to hold onto irrational beliefs, this is a prime example.

Take the following argument:
[quote]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 r ...[text shortened]... g up the germane points, but they always manage to find a way to avoid it.

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.

Your points aren't "germane" because your premise is flawed. There is no reason for me to address them as if they were relevant, because I reject the premises which gave rise to them; that is, I don't need to defend the 'incoherent' position you've pinned on me, because I reject the premise that Christ taught sinless perfectionism. On the contrary, it is you who need to answer for the incoherence your position produces, not me.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
There is a distinction to be made between "sense of well-being" and actual well-being. Placing attaining a "sense of well-being" above attaining truth leads to delusion. Seeking "feeling good" above seeking truth, love, justice, etc. leads to most, if not all, transgressions of man against man.

(Ecclesiastes 3:12-13) . . .I have come to know that there is nothing better for them than to rejoice and to do good during one’s life; and also that every man should eat and indeed drink and see good for all his hard work. It is the gift of God.

What are you saying thinkofone, that this gift of God, has been denied to Jaywill and his friend Epiphinehas?

I have changed, I hope, in that i am no longer so contentious as i was previously and even then i was only measuring out what was measured out to me.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]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.

Your points aren't "germane" ntrary, it is you who need to answer for the incoherence your position produces, not me.[/b]

Our discussion is regarding the examples of irrational thought given in the OP. You defended them as rational. The points are "germane" because they directly address this topic of discussion. It is you that have not only gone off topic, but built a straw man in doing so. If you were thinking rationally, you'd recognize this instead of continuing to try to do so.

For example:

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.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
(Ecclesiastes 3:12-13) . . .I have come to know that there is nothing better for them than to rejoice and to do good during one’s life; and also that every man should eat and indeed drink and see good for all his hard work. It is the gift of God.

What are you saying thinkofone, that this gift of God, has been denied to Jaywill and his friend Epip ...[text shortened]... tentious as i was previously and even then i was only measuring out what was measured out to me.

Try reading my posts again. You seem to have missed the points.

Seems like you've "turned over a new leaf" a number of times.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Our discussion is regarding the examples of irrational thought given in the OP. You defended them as rational. The points are "germane" because they directly address this topic of discussion. It is you that have not only gone off topic, but built a straw man in doing so. If you were thinking rationally, you'd recognize this instead of continuing to do so. ...[text shortened]... t is not reasonable to continue to defend such a position, yet you persist.
[/quote]

Our discussion is regarding the examples of irrational thought given in the OP. You defended them as rational. The points are "germane" because they directly address this topic of discussion.

Your three points may directly address the topic of this thread, but that doesn't make them germane. I'll say it again, the 'incoherency' you've highlighted is a product of your interpretation of scripture (an interpretation which I reject). If I reject your interpretation of scripture, that Christ taught sinless perfectionism, how is it my responsibility to address the incoherency which arises as a result of adopting such a position?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Our discussion is regarding the examples of irrational thought given in the OP. You defended them as rational. The points are "germane" because they directly address this topic of discussion.

Your three points may directly address the topic of this thread, but that doesn't make them germane. I'll say it again, the 'incoherency' you've highligh ...[text shortened]... sibility to address the incoherency which arises as a result of adopting such a position?[/b]

Your position is incoherent by any measure of reason as shown below:

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.

You continue to try to go off topic and with a straw man at that.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Your position is incoherent by any measure of reason as shown below:

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) I persist.

You continue to try to go off topic and with a straw man at that.

Breaking one of His commandments and then subsequently following a different commandment does not change the fact that His commandment was broken.

OK, I'll bite. Yes, it doesn't change the fact that a commandment was broken. True. What is less clear is the significance of the point you're making. Does breaking a commandment necessarily mean that a believer isn't a true follower of Christ, born again of the Spirit and saved through faith? Not at all.

Consider that Christ's commandments extend even into the thought realm. Gazing lustfully at a woman who you aren't married to, for example, even for the most fleeting of moments, is a violation of one of his commandments. An individual must not only be outwardly perfect, but inwardly. Even Christ's most ardent followers aren't capable of that level of perfection. It is no wonder, then, that Christ teaches his followers to confess their sins to the Lord whenever they pray (which ought to be daily), because they will never be without sins as long as they live.

So, even though a believer may occasionally sin, if they confess their sin, God forgives. It is the forgiveness and mercy of God which makes the confessed sins inconsequential. That is why it can be said that a believer is still keeping Christ's commandments even though he has done so imperfectly, technically speaking. The Lord's Prayer proves this, as I've already shown.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Well, hopefully it eventually comes "out in the wash", but the stronger the conviction, the less likely that it will.

Think about it.

I can see your viewpoint.
I'm not about adding new viewpoints, I'm about taking them away,stripping back people to their "origonal faces".
A stronger conviction may lead to a harder, swifter fall. Perhaps.

Happy Easter Sunday from down under,ThinkOfOne. All the best

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Try reading my posts again. You seem to have missed the points.

Seems like you've "turned over a new leaf" a number of times.

no, i think reading your posts once is quite enough for any man, the best thing i can do, is stay away from contentious people, cya.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Breaking one of His commandments and then subsequently following a different commandment does not change the fact that His commandment was broken.

OK, I'll bite. Yes, it doesn't change the fact that a commandment was broken. True. What is less clear is the significance of the point you're making. Does breaking a commandment necessarily mean erfectly, technically speaking. The Lord's Prayer proves this, as I've already shown.[/b

=============================
Consider that Christ's commandments extend even into the thought realm. Gazing lustfully at a woman who you aren't married to, for example, even for the most fleeting of moments, is a violation of one of his commandments. An individual must not only be outwardly perfect, but inwardly. Even Christ's most ardent followers aren't capable of that level of perfection.
================================ [/b]

First of all, I am with you and not with ToO.

Yes, in ourselves this level of purity is really hard. But it is precisely here that I have emphasized that the resurrection of Jesus is so germane to the whole topic of obeying the commandments of Christ.

The thought life of the one filled with the Spirit of Christ can be regulated to such a degree. But this calls for a belief in a resurrected and indwelling Savior, which I am sure ToO vehmently opposes (yet only secretively).

His or her every thought can be taken captive to the obedience of Christ, or else Paul's words are vanity:

"For the weopons of our warfare are not fleshly but powerful before God for the overthrowing of strongholds,

As we overthrow reasonings and every high thing rising up against the knowledge of God, and take captive every thought unto the obedience of Christ." (2 Cor. 10:4,5)

The realm of spiritual warfare reach into the thought life and "every thought". And those led by the Spirit of the resurrected Christ surrender deeper and deeper levels of their soul to God's control.

The book of Matthew reveals how deeply we need Christ Himself to be our grace impowering.

oops I have to go.

Originally posted by Green Paladin
Being dull-witted is considered a positive boon in Christianity.

Just think of the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden. According to the myth, the serpent convinced Eve to eat the fruit from this tree with the promise that doing so would bring her wisdom. This act brought evil into the world. Ever since, knowledge has been associated with evil ...[text shortened]... very core of the bible and embracing it is considered a positive expression of one's faith.

In context it was not just, "knowledge", but, "and the tree of knowledge of
good and evil." (Genesis 2:9) it was evil that was introduced that was not
in this world before. Knowledge is a good thing, but taking something that
was pure up to that time and soiling it, caused all of this grief.
Kelly

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Breaking one of His commandments and then subsequently following a different commandment does not change the fact that His commandment was broken.

OK, I'll bite. Yes, it doesn't change the fact that a commandment was broken. True. What is less clear is the significance of the point you're making. Does breaking a commandment necessarily mean rfectly, technically speaking. The Lord's Prayer proves this, as I've already shown.[/b]

The absurdity continues. Yet another prime example for anyone who wonders how those in delusion manage to hold onto irrational beliefs.

Once again, the topic of discussion is your following assertion:

"a sinner could be said to be keeping Christ's commandments if he repents, even though he had sinned"

Once again, I made the following counter argument:

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.

What you have posted here once again does not address any of the three counter-arguments.

Not only that, your response does not even address your original assertion at all. "Repentance" is not even mentioned. What's more, your off topic discussion on "confession/forgiveness" fails to the same three counter-arguments.

The following two off topic claims are so absurd that they demand a response

Consider that Christ's commandments extend even into the thought realm. Gazing lustfully at a woman who you aren't married to, for example, even for the most fleeting of moments, is a violation of one of his commandments. An individual must not only be outwardly perfect, but inwardly. Even Christ's most ardent followers aren't capable of that level of perfection.

I assume you are referring to the following in Mathew 5:
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

You claim that " even Christ's most ardent followers aren't capable of that level of perfection". However Jesus says otherwise. Jesus states in the strongest possible terms that this commandment is to be followed in the verses that follow:
29 “If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 “If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.

So, even though a believer may occasionally sin, if they confess their sin, God forgives. It is the forgiveness and mercy of God which makes the confessed sins inconsequential. That is why it can be said that a believer is still keeping Christ's commandments even though he has done so imperfectly, technically speaking.

Inconsequential? What a ridiculously self-centered position to take. This is yet another prime example for the topic of this thread. Evidently you believe that the only thing of consequence is whether or not you believe YOUR "salvation" is in jeopardy. Even if forgiveness is granted, it does not change the fact that the "believer" did not keep His commandments in the first place. One has to be arrogantly self-centered to believe that being granted forgiveness means that a transgression has not occurred.

If you were to be unfaithful to your wife and she were to forgive you, would you believe that you had never been unfaithful to her because there were no "consequences" for YOU? Doubtless the "consequences" for her would be extremely painful.