The Only Sin that God Cannot Forgive

Originally posted by @sonship
I addressed directly the OP about perverseness.
And you say an apology is owed you.

You made some statements to which I conversationally engaged the one about perverseness. And you say then I cannot keep more than one thing on my mind and you need an apology.

You can "C'mon" until you're blue in the face.
You can whine about me not holding more ...[text shortened]... can say I'm dishonest as much as you want to.

The "perversity" is coming from your reactions.

Focus jaywill. Here you've responded to a post that I addressed to another poster as if I'd addressed it to you.

And you can't fathom my comment about your "seeming inability to keep more than one thing in your mind"?

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Focus jaywill. Here you've responded to a post that I addressed to another poster as if I'd addressed it to you.

And you can't fathom my comment about your "seeming inability to keep more than one thing in your mind"?

When I focus on one of your errors, which is important to the thread, it is understandable that you might complain about my focus. Perhaps you prefer that some things that you believe would go unnoticed.

Originally posted by @sonship
When I focus on one of your errors, which is important to the thread, it is understandable that you might complain about my focus.

In case you missed it, my main response to you was the last post on the prior page.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
In case you missed it, my main response to you was the last post on the prior page.

I knew that one post of yours above to another poster, I was writing to you a response, in case that is what you mean.

Originally posted by @sonship
I knew that one post to another poster, I was writing to you a response, in case that is what you mean.

Just read and address the last post on the prior page

Originally posted by @thinkofone
This is a different topic than that of this thread.

Why don't you start another thread if you want to discuss this topic? I'll join in.

Why don't you address the topic of this thread?

This is a different topic than that of this thread.

Why don't you start another thread if you want to discuss this topic? I'll join in.

Why don't you address the topic of this thread?

Not intended for me sonship.
A little sloppy of me to respond directly to this, as I did.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
You "stand by" your dishonesty?

Since you refuse to own up to your dishonesty, I'll once again lay out exactly where you were dishonest. I'll try lay it out as simply as I can.

This is what you wrote that is dishonest:
[quote]It is you who will not be candid about some matters like rejecting... the authority of the New Testament. Your method of ki ...[text shortened]... of moral fiber. You underhandedly continue to make the same false accusation and "stand by" it.

My dealings with you on this Forum are recollected clearly.
Based on encounters we have had, in which it was very difficult to get from you exactly what you considered the portion of the New Testament that you considered authoritative, I stand by my remembrance of those discussions.

And I recall that I was not the only one who had a hard time pinpointing what you meant posturing yourself to be a New Testament believer.

Case in point:
Instead of coming right out and saying Christ is not alive and did not rise from the dead, you usually if not always opted for the subtle denial - "Jesus while He walked the earth".

In the early days I was quite annoyed and unflattering. I think I recall saying something about a wolf in sheep's clothing.

I don't quickly use strong phrases like that.
I don't delight to have to say things like that.
The need was there.

It may be that there were threads I did not read in which you were more straightforward about your rejection of the major tenets of the New Testament.

With this poster it was like pulling teeth.
That was my recollection which I have no intention to renounce as "dishonest' as you complain.

If you have changed your methods since then, so be it.

Originally posted by @sonship
My dealings with you on this Forum are recollected clearly.
Based on encounters we have had, in which it was very difficult to get from you exactly what you considered the portion of the New Testament that you considered authoritative, I stand by my remembrance of those discussions.

And I recall that I was not the only one who had a hard tim ...[text shortened]... ounce as "dishonest' as you complain.

If you have changed your methods since then, so be it.

Setting aside your "recollections" of your dealings with me in the distant past, the fact remains that the following accusation you made on this thread is in the present tense.:

It is you who will not be candid about some matters like rejecting... the authority of the New Testament. Your method of kind of hoping no one will notice such momentous negations of the Gospel I consider huge side-stepping in a covert way...Where is the post from you directly stepping into an admission of rejecting probably 80% of the New Testament as a myth?

As I've shown, the fact remains that it is a false accusation. The fact remains that it is dishonest. It is not only an ad hominem attack, it is a lie.

in 2016 Suzziana also found that you tend to conceal what you really mean.

Just say what you mean without the circumlocution.

"Christianity is self-centered."

Oh, I see now why you did it that way. It does sound kinda stupid when you just blurt out what you mean.

https://www.chessatwork.com/forum/spirituality/moral-codes-and-self-centered-beliefs-regarding-adherence.165452

Originally posted by @sonship
In the early days I was quite annoyed and unflattering. I think I recall saying something about a wolf in sheep's clothing.

I don't quickly use strong phrases like that.
I don't delight to have to say things like that.
The need was there.

In the "early days"? It was only a week or so ago that you said a fellow follower of Jesus was engaged in "demonic activity". Was the need there?

Originally posted by @sonship
in [b] 2016 Suzziana also found that you tend to conceal what you really mean.

Just say what you mean without the circumlocution.

"Christianity is self-centered."

Oh, I see now why you did it that way. It does sound kinda stupid when you just blurt out what you mean.

https://www.chessatwork.com/forum/spirituality/moral-codes-and-self-centered-beliefs-regarding-adherence.165452[/b]

My recollection of figuring out ToO's "filter" brings to mind the stealth of his style of teaching the NT.

2015 Engaging ThinkOfOne .

https://www.chessatwork.com/forum/spirituality/engaging-thinkofone.165627

To be fair to ToO, this comment to googlefudge in 2015 revealed some transparency about the NT which I recall he quotes as being authoritative BUT in a selective way.

Much of what Jesus taught while He walked the Earth is heavily steeped in metaphor and abstraction. As such, it's foolhardy to take snippets out of context and take them at face-value. To understand any given teaching, it's imperative to have first analyzed the entirety of His teachings while He walked the Earth and derived the underlying themes and concepts . Unless one has done this, it's pretty easy to misconstrue His meaning as you've done here. From what I can tell, since Christianity is built upon the teaching of Paul and his followers rather than the teachings of Jesus when He walked the Earth, the vast majority of Christians haven't bothered to do it. As a matter of fact, it's been my experience that it's difficult to get Christians to bother to undertake the endeavor. Why don't you give it a go?

Read The Whole Thing Dammit! 2015

https://www.chessatwork.com/forum/spirituality/read-the-whole-thing--dammit.164777

Originally posted by @sonship
in [b] 2016 Suzziana also found that you tend to conceal what you really mean.

Just say what you mean without the circumlocution.

"Christianity is self-centered."

Oh, I see now why you did it that way. It does sound kinda stupid when you just blurt out what you mean.

https://www.chessatwork.com/forum/spirituality/moral-codes-and-self-centered-beliefs-regarding-adherence.165452[/b]

Do you think that Suzianne's opinion of something I posted somehow negates the fact that you made a false accusation? The fact that it was dishonest?

For the record, this is the post to which Suzianne responded:

Seems most religions have a set of moral codes to be followed. Ostensibly "believers" would adhere to them simply because they believe that they are right.

Of course, for most if not all religions it's not that simple. There are all manner of interesting self-centered beliefs when it comes to adherence.

The most basic set of self-centered beliefs involve the gaining of "rewards": reciprocity, e. g., karma; afterlife, e. g., nirvana, "heaven", "eternal life"; et al.

And of course the counterpart of the gaining of "rewards" which is the avoidance of "punishments" such as "hell".

Even more self-centered is the set of beliefs involving the concept of being able to gain the "rewards" and avoid the "punishments" via "substitution" . This usually entails making some type of personal "sacrifice" in lieu of adherence - be it food, animals, or what have you. Essentially the "believer" chooses the less burdensome of adherence and personal "sacrifice".

Perhaps the most self-centered belief of all involves "believers" gaining the "rewards" and avoiding the "punishments" via "substitution" with God making the "sacrifice" for them. Essentially the "believer" chooses the less burdensome of adherence, personal "sacrifice" and the "free gift".

EDIT: Also quite self-centered is the belief that it's impossible to adhere to the moral code which serves to relieve the "believer" of guilt.

There was nothing underhanded about this post, whatever Suzianne's opinion about "circumlocution". The post was about ALL religions that offer self-centered beliefs when it comes to adherence of moral codes to be followed. Of course, Christianity is one of them and one of the most self-centered, but that's only part of the picture. Evidently Suzianne framed it that way as a way to cast aspersions while avoiding having to actually address the topic of my post.

Just as you chose to cast aspersions while avoiding having to actually address the topic of my post on this thread. The difference being that Suzianne's was based on a half-truth and yours on an outright lie.

Originally posted by @sonship
My recollection of figuring out ToO's "filter" brings to mind the stealth of his style of teaching the NT.

2015 [b]Engaging ThinkOfOne .

https://www.chessatwork.com/forum/spirituality/engaging-thinkofone.165627

To be fair to ToO, this comment to googlefudge in 2015 revealed some transparency about the NT which I recall he quotes as being auth ...[text shortened]... /b] 2015

https://www.chessatwork.com/forum/spirituality/read-the-whole-thing--dammit.164777[/b]

And there was this which I posted in 2012:

I certainly don't see the Bible as "the inerrant word of God" or even that all words/actions attributed to Jesus were spoken/done by him.

However, I do believe that, by and large, the words that were attributed to Him while he walked the Earth are reasonably sound and reasonably coherent within themselves and that many of them fly in the face of the mythology and beliefs that have been created around Him since His death. The retired pastor acknowledged that in order to resolve those conflicts, he revises and/or dismisses the words of Jesus. (Hence his acknowledgement that in doing so, he "essentially [makes] the New Testament/Bible his 'Lord' rather than Jesus." ) From what I can tell, this is what the vast majority of Christians do. This despite the fact that Jesus repeatedly said to follow HIS words, HIS commandments, etc. They should be revising/dismissing the words of the the NT writers around His instead.

https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/intellectual-honesty-from-a-christian.145588/page-2

Over the years I have made many similar posts.

Face it jaywill, you made a false accusation. It was dishonest. And evidently you lack the moral fiber to admit it and apologize.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
And there was this which I posted in 2012:
[quote] I certainly don't see the Bible as "the inerrant word of God" or even that all words/actions attributed to Jesus were spoken/done by him.

However, I do believe that, by and large, the words that were attributed to Him while he walked the Earth are reasonably sound and reasonably coherent within them ...[text shortened]... accusation. It was dishonest. And evidently you lack the moral fiber to admit it and apologize.

No, You face it.

No dishonesty on my part in this.
And you get no apology.

Anytime you come to me thumping on John 8:35,36 as if to say it is so authoritative, and so binding, and so much the final undeliable word of Jesus, and so representative of the essence of the Gospel and holding close to your vest that a huge percent of other sayings of Christ and of the apostles are to be discarded, I will call you stealthful, not forthright, a false teacher of the Gospel - a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Forget about an apology from me for how you dealt with this Christian. And I wish I could tell it to your face.

Originally posted by @sonship
No, You face it.

No dishonesty on my part in this.
And you get no apology.

Anytime you come to me thumping on [b]John 8:35,36 as if to say it is so authoritative, and so binding, and so much the final undeliable word of Jesus, and so representative of the essence of the Gospel and holding close to your vest tha ...[text shortened]... y from me for how you dealt with this Christian. And I wish I could tell it to your face.[/b]

I cant help but wonder what in this passage from Christ:

Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. (John 8:34-36 KJV)

.. is in conflict with the rest of the Gospel? Nothing here is saying that there is a huge percent of other sayings that need to be discarded. To me this falls in line with everything Jesus and the Apostles preached.

Simply put, Jesus is saying that those who continue with a life of sin cannot enter the Kingdom of God. Paul and all the Apostles said the very same thing.

Can you provide some examples of what you are saying?