the propitiatory sacrifice of the christ

Originally posted by knightmeister
Jesus clearly had very stringent ideas on sin (eg " if a man so much looks at another man's wife he has committed adultery" )

The implications of this are that even a stray thought of any sinful kind can be regarded as sin . This logically means that ToO's theory logically requires a level of perfection so incredible that no human could live by it.

I am not convinced, nor clear about your definition.
I personally would not judge that statement by Jesus so harshly. I personally would allow the possibility that he was referring to desiring another mans wife and that 'stray thoughts' though often unavoidable should be combated.

To what extent is sin unavoidable and is it always willful? To what extent is negligence sin?

If a man has converted then (according to ToO) he has left sin behind and has no need of the sacrifice of christ , but what happens if he has a bad day or is tired and has a little shout at his kids or glances at a woman passing him in the street? Is he hellbound then? According to ToO this would be evidence that he is not a follower. To me he just needs to confess and receive forgiveness.
And to me the whole confession system looks like a cop out. If I was a Christian I would strive to do the best I could for the sake of doing good not through a fear of hell. You seem to be saying that Christians can be relaxed and sin a little as needed then just go and ask for forgiveness. Its the old forgiveness is easier to ask for than permission ploy.
I never expect my son to ask me for forgiveness. I try to teach him to do the right thing and when he doesn't I am displeased but it is not about forgiveness. If you make a big show of forgiving your child every time he does something wrong pretty soon he thinks that he can get away with anything, and worse thinks that doing right and wrong are for your sake. We must teach our children that right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of whether their parents are around or forgiveness is available.

Unless I am mistaken, when Jesus was asked who would get to heaven he did not say "those that I have forgiven", he said, those that genuinely cared about others.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not convinced, nor clear about your definition.
I personally would not judge that statement by Jesus so harshly. I personally would allow the possibility that he was referring to desiring another mans wife and that 'stray thoughts' though often unavoidable should be combated.

To what extent is sin unavoidable and is it always willful? To what ext ...[text shortened]... did not say "those that I have forgiven", he said, those that genuinely cared about others.

Unless I am mistaken, when Jesus was asked who would get to heaven he did not say "those that I have forgiven", he said, those that genuinely cared about others.
---------------ToO--------------------------------------

But he did make forgiveness a big part of the Lord's prayer. He built in a mechanism whereby we ask God for forgiveness daily.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Although I don't entirely agree with ThinkOfOnes argument so far, I think he has made a good point regarding the impossibility of identifying people who are following Christs word and are sinless. I do not think you have made a counter argument at all yet you continue to demand the impossible. Further ThinkOfOne stated that such people would be few and fa ...[text shortened]... pply that to Christianity could we not? Reality is not a function of its usefulness to you.

I think he has made a good point regarding the impossibility of identifying people who are following Christs word and are sinless.
---------------------ToO---------------------

If you are familiar with his posts you will know one of his favourite phrases is " why are Christians no more moral than the general public?". He seems to be able to make a sweeping judgement on the moral charactor of Christianity and countless individuals within it but when it comes to finding individuals who support his theory the silence is deafening.

If it's not possible to identify sinless individuals (not even one) then how is he able to identify and spot those who are "immoral"?

I also reject his interpretation of the narrow gate verses.

At the very least one might expect a small but vocal counter- movement preaching ToOne's Gospel to the world (as Jesus demanded). Where are these people ? Why are they keeping their secret to themselves? If they really are able to become sinless and perfect I want to hear from them so that I can be saved myself - then I wouldn't have to bother having any relationship with Christ nor bother with confession. I would never have to humble myself before God again !

Originally posted by knightmeister
I think he has made a good point regarding the impossibility of identifying people who are following Christs word and are sinless.
---------------------ToO---------------------

If you are familiar with his posts you will know one of his favourite phrases is " why are Christians no more moral than the general public?". He seems to be able to make a ...[text shortened]... Christ nor bother with confession. I would never have to humble myself before God again !

edit:
"If you are familiar with his posts you will know one of his favourite phrases is " why are Christians no more moral than the general public?". He seems to be able to make a sweeping judgement on the moral charactor of Christianity and countless individuals within it but when it comes to finding individuals who support his theory the silence is deafening."

Could you please comment a bit further over this? I think that the Christians are no more and no less moral than the general public, because morality has nothing to do with the concept of religion although there are religious doctrines too about morality.

What is your thesis, and what is ToO' opinion?

Originally posted by knightmeister
But he did make forgiveness a big part of the Lord's prayer. He built in a mechanism whereby we ask God for forgiveness daily.

That is only if you choose to take that interpretation. I would have no major problem with my son saying "sorry if I offended you today", without making the conclusion that his very existence is offensive to me, or that he regularly offends me, or that I necessarily consider any of his actions to be offensive, or deliberately offensive (sinful).
This is why I want a discussion about what you consider to be sin. If I am not mistaken it is possible to "trespass" against God without committing sin under some interpretations. After all the Lords prayer does not say "forgive my sins" does it?

Originally posted by knightmeister
If you are familiar with his posts you will know one of his favourite phrases is " why are Christians no more moral than the general public?". He seems to be able to make a sweeping judgement on the moral charactor of Christianity and countless individuals within it but when it comes to finding individuals who support his theory the silence is deafening.

And I too have made the same observation but I really don't see how it is relevant.

If it's not possible to identify sinless individuals (not even one) then how is he able to identify and spot those who are "immoral"?
Isn't it obvious? I must be missing something.

At the very least one might expect a small but vocal counter- movement preaching ToOne's Gospel to the world (as Jesus demanded). Where are these people ? Why are they keeping their secret to themselves?
Well you have clearly met one of them (ThinkOfOne). I am not convince by your argument that they must be vocal, well known or even exist in the first place. Your argument seems to be that Jesus would have only said things in such a way that he would have many vocal followers. What if very few people ever actually got his message?
For over 500 years after the death of Jesus, most of the world never heard the name 'Jesus' in their life. Was that proof to them that Christianity did not exist? Do you see the problem with your argument?

If they really are able to become sinless and perfect I want to hear from them so that I can be saved myself - then I wouldn't have to bother having any relationship with Christ nor bother with confession. I would never have to humble myself before God again !
Do you take that attitude with your own beliefs? Do you discard Christs message in favor of someone else selling something more appetizing? Pauls for example? Why is Christianity all about selfishness to you when Christs message focused on selflessness?

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I too have made the same observation but I really don't see how it is relevant.

[b]If it's not possible to identify sinless individuals (not even one) then how is he able to identify and spot those who are "immoral"?
Isn't it obvious? I must be missing something.

At the very least one might expect a small but vocal counter- movement pre ...[text shortened]... Christianity all about selfishness to you when Christs message focused on selflessness?

Well you have clearly met one of them (ThinkOfOne).
------------------Whitey--------------------

Duh? I have asked him a myriad of times but he will not say if he is perfect or sinless. He will not even say if he believes in God at all. I don't know who it is I have "met".

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I too have made the same observation but I really don't see how it is relevant.

[b]If it's not possible to identify sinless individuals (not even one) then how is he able to identify and spot those who are "immoral"?
Isn't it obvious? I must be missing something.

At the very least one might expect a small but vocal counter- movement pre ...[text shortened]... Christianity all about selfishness to you when Christs message focused on selflessness?

If they really are able to become sinless and perfect I want to hear from them so that I can be saved myself - then I wouldn't have to bother having any relationship with Christ nor bother with confession. I would never have to humble myself before God again !
----------------------------KM----------------------

I assume you could hear the irony in the above......?

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is only if you choose to take that interpretation. I would have no major problem with my son saying "sorry if I offended you today", without making the conclusion that his very existence is offensive to me, or that he regularly offends me, or that I necessarily consider any of his actions to be offensive, or deliberately offensive (sinful).
This is ...[text shortened]... r some interpretations. After all the Lords prayer does not say "forgive my sins" does it?

Our existence is not offensive to God , where did you get that from? The point about sin is that every day we trespass against the law of the spirit. Our hearts are contaminated with sin. Even the most loving individuals do not always show love and care 100% of the time.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Duh? I have asked him a myriad of times but he will not say if he is perfect or sinless. He will not even say if he believes in God at all. I don't know who it is I have "met".

So if you are incapable of telling whether he is sinless, why do you demand that he be able to do better?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I assume you could hear the irony in the above......?

No, I missed it. Care to repeat it without irony?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Our existence is not offensive to God , where did you get that from? The point about sin is that every day we trespass against the law of the spirit. Our hearts are contaminated with sin. Even the most loving individuals do not always show love and care 100% of the time.

I cannot see how what you are saying can be anything but self contradictory.
If 'sin' is offensive to God and our hearts are contaminated with sin, then it follows that our existence is offensive to God.
But I did not claim that our existence was offensive to God anyway.
But we are wasting time and it is getting boring. Neither of you has yet given and explanation of what constitutes sin and until that happens you will continue to argue about two different things whilst pretending that it is really the same thing you are arguing about. Its like each of us arguing over how high our pet pink unicorns can jump.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Our existence is not offensive to God , where did you get that from? The point about sin is that every day we trespass against the law of the spirit. Our hearts are contaminated with sin. Even the most loving individuals do not always show love and care 100% of the time.

===============================
Our existence is not offensive to God , where did you get that from?
===================================

As I have suggested before. Twhitehead is probably projecting.

It is the existence of God which the atheist finds offensive. Many of the complaints of the atheist are just due to his projecting his own problems in the soul onto God.


"As face answers to face in water so the mind of the man reflects the man. "

Originally posted by jaywill
As I have suggested before. Twhitehead is probably projecting.

It is [b]the existence of God which the atheist finds offensive. Many of the complaints of the atheist are just due to his projecting his own problems in the soul onto God.

"As face answers to face in water so the mind of the man reflects the man. "[/b]

Ha ha ha. You have just caught yourself in your own argument. Thats two projections in one post!
I never claimed that our existence was offensive to God, that was a projection on knightmeisters part.
Your ridiculous projection thats atheist find God offensive only shows your ridiculous refusal to accept the fact that atheists such as myself simply don't believe in God and the resulting dilemma that leave you in ie how to explain why someone who believes in God doesn't worship him as you do - hence the need to invent reasons and project onto us all sorts of psychological issues.
At some point in these forums we have to realize that mind reading can only take us so far.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I do not have the time nor inclination to read the whole new Testament or even just the Gospels just to reply to a post. I made it quite clear that I was taking the verses at face value and I stand by my claim that I know it is not the only interpretation, I was merely stating that presenting the verses in isolation did not prove your point.

[b]Why did that this implies that people who do not 'work iniquity' are totally sinless.

[/b]Maybe it'll help for you to see the relationship between the two passages. I was hoping that steering you toward asking yourself incisive questions would help, but maybe I need to lay it all out. Seems to me that your objections to each respective passage are answered by the other.

"...everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever...if you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."

Who is a slave of sin? Everyone who commits sin.

Who does not "remain in the house forever"? Slaves of sin. Therefore everyone who commits sin.

How can they be freed from the slavery of committing sin? By following the teachings of Jesus which will reveal truths that will free them from this slavery.

Does this freedom mean that they will "totally stop sinning"? Let's see. Those who commit sin are slaves. Following the teachings of Jesus will free them from this slavery. I have to think the answer is "Yes".

"Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven...Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'"

What is the criteria for entering Heaven at the final judgement? Following the will of His Father.

Who is not doing the will of His Father? Those who work iniquity. Iniquity is synonymous with sin. Therefore, those who continue to commit sin are not doing the will of His Father. Therefore, those who continue to commit sin will not enter Heaven.

Hope this helps. Let me know if you still have any objections.