[Didymus Much]

Re: Hello from kentucky...

...It's sad, but if that's what God wanted, then so be it...

Wait a minute here. What do you mean by "if"? Is your god omnipotent or not?

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Hello from kentucky...

If people could not commit sins then there would have been no reason for Jesus to die for us.

Even if we're ' born again' we're still sinners because of Adam's curse. The point of being born again is to accept Jesus as our savior and be forgiven of our sins.

We can still sin, however, because we're humans, it's what we do, thanks to Adam...

But the difference is that after we're born again we are supposed to try really hard not to sin, to please God and Jesus, and if we do sin we should confess, ask for God's forgiveness and try harder to follow God's laws.

OK. Obviously there was a need for Jesus to Redeem! The 1 John verse relates to people who have actually chosen Him and become Saved®. What you wrote is about the state before being Saved®. But, let's dig deeper!

• How do you know all this?
• What is this opinion of yours based upon? Where is the evidence material?
• How does this potential evidence material make void the verse below? What makes it better?

1 John 3:9
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.

• What do you usually use as evidence material to test the veracity of a claim? How do you assess its reliability?
• What we have here is your testimony and we appreciate your willingness to give it to us? But how do you know that you've made the correct inference based on whatever evidence material you have?

Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Shadoe_Hare]

Re: Hello from kentucky...

Hi Shadoe,

Can you explain how you came to that conclusion? Why would those people who died in the car crash go to Heaven and not to Hell? According to Matthew 7:14 the latter outcome would be the more plausible one. Can you elaborate on your position?

Kind regards, Roland

'Hell' comes from the Anglo Saxon word 'Hades', which means 'unknown realm' or 'the world below'. It's basically a place for disembodied spirits. The word 'Hades' changed to 'Hell' when Greeks converted to Christianity.


There are different levels of Hades/Hell, but Fire and eternal torment was never mentioned. This makes sense, to me anyway. I couldn't imagine a loving God sending someone to Hell for all eternity for a minor infraction like stealing a candy bar.


Instead, it's believed by many, that you judge yourself via God. When you die, God shows everything good and bad you did in your life. When you do bad, you feel the pain you caused others, thereby understanding, and learning, how awful a person you were.


You might go to Heaven if you've accepted Jesus, but I suppose it's correct in saying that not everyone goes to Heaven, not straight away at least.


Some people who die haven't found God or Jesus so will have to roam the earth as spirits until Christ's return.

[Shadoe_Hare]

Re: Hello from kentucky...

Wait a minute here. What do you mean by "if"? Is your god omnipotent or not?

Hmmm, yes, God is everywhere. It was a real scenario so I guess my 'if' was just the writer in me.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Hello from kentucky...

'Hell' comes from the Anglo Saxon word 'Hades', which means 'unknown realm' or 'the world below'. It's basically a place for disembodied spirits. The word 'Hades' changed to 'Hell' when Greeks converted to Christianity.

Very well, this is a genetic fallacy, the origin of something does not make it correct or real at present. The etymology of a word does not make the concept more real, either. We know very well that words can change their meanings, for instance, thou used to be more or less derogatory spoken to inferiors and it's become a reverent form to address God. Does its usage in between its origin as the singular second person pronoun and archaism make it unsuitable for that? For instance, the word Hell is of the PIE root *kel- (1) "to cover, conceal, save", and Old English got it as a cognate from there.

There are different levels of Hades/Hell, but Fire and eternal torment was never mentioned. This makes sense, to me anyway. I couldn't imagine a loving God sending someone to Hell for all eternity for a minor infraction like stealing a candy bar.

How do you know this? In fact, all sins are equal in the eyes of God!

James 2:10
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Making sense to you is just another example of the appeal to authority, in this case yours. How do you know that you've got it right? Your inability to imagine is the appeal to ignorance fallacy. Some people cannot imagine quantum physics but your computer still works, doesn't it?

Instead, it's believed by many, that you judge yourself via God. When you die, God shows everything good and bad you did in your life. When you do bad, you feel the pain you caused others, thereby understanding, and learning, how awful a person you were.

"By many"? Now this is the ad populum fallacy! Many believe in Allah, does that mean that they are correct? Many believe that Jesus was not a historical person but a story about an angel in outer space (see, for instance, Richard Carrier for more data)? The number of followers does not make a claim true. Only by examining the content can we tell that. Your claim is like the History Channel show Ancient Aliens, a good example of cognitive biases. The narrator there states how "many ancient astronaut theorists believe that..." and afterwards it is taken as factual. In fact, the Bible tells us that "many people" can be wrong.

Matthew 7:14
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

You might go to Heaven if you've accepted Jesus, but I suppose it's correct in saying that not everyone goes to Heaven, not straight away at least.

Some people who die haven't found God or Jesus so will have to roam the earth as spirits until Christ's return.

And what is this "might" based on? In fact, it is just another possilibiter fallacy. Just because you can make up a scenario does not make your scenario correct. In addition, this is an appeal to unknown authorities ("some people") which is even worse than appealing to your own authority as these "some people" cannot be located to question about their evidence.

2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Hello from kentucky...

Hmmm, yes, God is everywhere. It was a real scenario so I guess my 'if' was just the writer in me.

Dear person,

"Omnipotent" means that God is capable of everything. "Omnipresent" is the word for "being everywhere" - you probably got confused.

Have you considered checking your claims from databases (dictionaries, peer-reviewed articles, the Bible) before answering. Fact-checking is hard work. What is your way to test hypotheses and where does your evidence derive if you refuse to do that? The Bible is not against having tangible proof of issues.

Jeremiah 32:11
So I took the evidence of the purchase, both that which was sealed according to the law and custom, and that which was open:


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Shadoe_Hare]

Re: Hello from kentucky...

OK. Obviously there was a need for Jesus to Redeem! The 1 John verse relates to people who have actually chosen Him and become Saved®. What you wrote is about the state before being Saved®. But, let's dig deeper!

• How do you know all this?
• What is this opinion of yours based upon? Where is the evidence material?
• How does this potential evidence material make void the verse below? What makes it better?

1 John 3:9
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.

• What do you usually use as evidence material to test the veracity of a claim? How do you assess its reliability?
• What we have here is your testimony and we appreciate your willingness to give it to us? But how do you know that you've made the correct inference based on whatever evidence material you have?

Yours in Christ,

Elmer

My source is the Bible.


The meaning behind 'man cannot sin' means 'man cannot continually sin' or 'habitually sin.'


It could not mean anything else because otherwise it would contradict John. John is not teaching that all Christians are perfect. In fact, Paul said he was Chief of the Sinners.


It is just as much a sin to say 'I am without sin' than it is to do the act of sin. It's like lying to God.

http://www.letusreason.org

[Shadoe_Hare]

Re: Hello from kentucky...

Hi Shadoe,
The Pastors here have already investigated me and decided that I am on the fast bus to Aeternal Damnation as soon as I perish.

Me too, probably-lol!


Well, before my bus comes I'm having a lot of fun here in the meantime; debating and seeing people's different points of view.


Some viewpoints I find interesting, some are disturbing, and some are downright hilarious.

[Didymus Much]

Re: Hello from kentucky...

My source is the Bible...

No, it's not. It's some apologists trying to explain away stuff they're not comfortable with, like a God who expects His Grace (being saved/born again, finding Jesus, call it what you will) to actually have an effect, as Elmer has pointed out:

...
1 John 3:9
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...

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Hello from kentucky...

My source is the Bible.
The meaning behind 'man cannot sin' means 'man cannot continually sin' or 'habitually sin.'

Very well, where does not "continually" or "habitually" come from? Let us look at the Greek original:

1 John 3:9
Πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ, ὅτι σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ μένει, καὶ οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται.

• ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ =sin not can - nothing about habitual.
• οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν = not can make sin (in fact, cannot continue to make sin as the infinitive gives the issue a permanent basis) - opposite to your claim. Please explain.

It could not mean anything else because otherwise it would contradict John. John is not teaching that all Christians are perfect. In fact, Paul said he was Chief of the Sinners.

How could John contradict John? Please show the contradiction verse by verse. You might also find some data in Matthew, 2 Timothy and Deuteronomy). How would something that Paul said make John contradict against himself? And how do you know that the Bible is correct in the first place? How did you assess that?

It is just as much a sin to say 'I am without sin' than it is to do the act of sin. It's like lying to God.

Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

This refers to past events, not present. What about the Greek original?

• πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ Θεοῦ,
• ἥμαρτον = sinned. This is the aorist indicative, the most usual verb form of koine Greek relating to past events. Please explain.

Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Roland]

Re: Hello from kentucky...

Instead, it's believed by many, that you judge yourself via God. When you die, God shows everything good and bad you did in your life. When you do bad, you feel the pain you caused others, thereby understanding, and learning, how awful a person you were.

Hi Shadoe,

I put some in bold. I find those parts a bit confusing. First you state that I judge myself, then you mentioned the pain I caused others and how awful a person I am are the relevant factors for my fate. This seems very subjective. I do not believe I am awful and if I get to judge myself I would be .

If you would ask any True Christian™ on this forum they would probably say I caused them great pain. Not physical pain but it hurts them that I have been unable to find Jesus as of yet.

As you see, those two positions contradict. How do you think that could be solved if not by just reading the Bible and see where Peter would send me if I show up at the Gates? Matthew 16:18-19

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Hello from kentucky...

Some viewpoints I find interesting, some are disturbing, and some are downright hilarious.

It's of course comfortable if you are having fun, but unfortunately a pleasant life is strongly opposed by Jesus.

Luke 14:26
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Hilarious? Once again, you've stumbled upon a fallacy, this is the ad ridiculum. It is fallacious, as a claim can be true regardless of its ability to make you laugh. Atheist scientists may find the notion of resurrection hilarious or ridiculous but the proof for it is not in its emotional content but evidence. Instead of having fun you might think about your cognitive tools, your epistemology, how do you know what you believe. In fact, you might notice that we do not give you viewpoints but actual information about what the Bible says, the book that is as true in its content as Jesus. Finding some ideas disturbing is exactly what you need to test your epistemology.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[handmaiden]

Re: Hello from kentucky...

My source is the Bible.

Then why aren't you including specific verses in your posts? The most consistent content in your many posts aren't citations from God's word, but the word, "I".
You keep saying "I" this and "I" that, but in between those statements you aren't using many Bible verses.

I get my information from the Bible the same as everyone, but apparently some people tend to interpret it differently.

Essential rule for Bible study:

"Scripture interprets Scripture"

God judges our sins, and yes, we are allowed to judge others, but not be hypocritical about it.

Earlier, you wrote that we weren't supposed to judge others, why have you altered your position on this? And can you point to a specific example of hypocrisy?

Like someone here calling someone else perverted, sick, etc. when they should make sure they're not doing perverted or sick themselves first.

Again, can you be more specific? Do you have any reason for suggesting that someone engaged in this thread is also engaged in practices that meet the standard of perversion? Can you cite a Biblical source that establishes such a standard? Remember that your personal tastes in a particular area does not constitute a valid argument.

There's a lot of hypocrites in this place it seems...

Once more, where is the hypocrisy? Which person, what statements and how is this person a hypocrite?

The tale of Balaam and his ass is my favorite story in the Bible so I know it well.

So, you have a favorite Bible story but you didn't mention it in your initial introduction thread. The clearly posted instructions request that you tell us your favorite Bible verse. You didn't even mention a Bible verse at all until your third post in this thread. You mentioned knitting and your aspirations as writer but not the Bible. At one point, we got an earful about Furries. Then later, we read this:

Yes, I find most people here in the Forum inturpret the Bible very strangely, if not downright crazy.

Your "finding" is that our interpretation of the Bible is "crazy", but at least we are engaged in examining issues through a Biblical lens. Your primary lens is your own opinion.

'Hell' comes from the Anglo Saxon word 'Hades', which means 'unknown realm' or 'the world below'. It's basically a place for disembodied spirits. The word 'Hades' changed to 'Hell' when Greeks converted to Christianity.

Your mention of an Anglo Saxon word indicates that your source here is not Biblical, but at least it is more substantial than your own theorizing about other people here and whether or not they may be hypocrites.

There are different levels of Hades/Hell, but Fire and eternal torment was never mentioned.

Find me a verse, please. Find any Bible source, remembering your earlier statement:

My source is the Bible.

and try to make this stick.

This makes sense, to me anyway. I couldn't imagine a loving God sending someone to Hell for all eternity for a minor infraction like stealing a candy bar.

This is your true source--what makes sense to you, what you can imagine and your personalized concept of what makes a loving God.

You might go to Heaven if you've accepted Jesus,

This statement above reveals a lack of faith in God's Word. . .

but I suppose it's correct in saying that not everyone goes to Heaven, not straight away at least. . .

Some people who die haven't found God or Jesus so will have to roam the earth as spirits until Christ's return.

And these statements demonstrate a lack of knowledge.

At last we come to this final declaration:

Some viewpoints I find interesting, some are disturbing, and some are downright hilarious.

The viewpoints generally being expressed here are that the Bible says what it says, not what we want it to say based on some half-attended exposure to it.

Can you explain what is "disturbing" about this concept? Then please read Judges, chapter 19, and perhaps Deuteronomy 22: 28, 29. Feel free to finish your perusal of the Bible with Hosea 13:16. Then we can discuss which viewpoints offered in this thread meet your standard for "disturbing".

Please note: I am not going to post the actual Bible passages for you here, because I feel that it is very important that you (finally?) pick up a Bible and read it for yourself.

I wish you well in this endeavor.

[Shadoe_Hare]

Re: Hello from kentucky...

It's of course comfortable if you are having fun, but unfortunately a pleasant life is strongly opposed by Jesus.

Luke 14:26
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Hilarious? Once again, you've stumbled upon a fallacy, this is the ad ridiculum. It is fallacious, as a claim can be true regardless of its ability to make you laugh. Atheist scientists may find the notion of resurrection hilarious or ridiculous but the proof for it is not in its emotional content but evidence. Instead of having fun you might think about your cognitive tools, your epistemology, how do you know what you believe. In fact, you might notice that we do not give you viewpoints but actual information about what the Bible says, the book that is as true in its content as Jesus. Finding some ideas disturbing is exactly what you need to test your epistemology.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

I'm not even going to bother explaining it. You guys would contradict an Archbishop, and probably even Jesus.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Hello from kentucky...

I'm not even going to bother explaining it. You guys would contradict an Archbishop, and probably even Jesus.

Thank you, dear, for introducing our readers with yet another fallacy, poisoning the well. With the "I'm not going to bother" you just (in advance) reject all our arguments without looking at the actual content. Hitherto, your posts have consisted of personal opinions and unsupported scenarios and now you seem upset because that strategy has failed to provide you with the kudos that people expect to gain from such un-discussion. Please show me that my assessment is wrong by engaging in actual scrutiny of evidence. Jesus knew about illogical arguments and compared them to venom, as seen below, and I have no reason to contradict Him.

Psalms 140:3
They have sharpened their tongues like a serpent; adders' poison is under their lips. Selah.

The second sentence is just another ad hominem combined with a straw man (a novel fallacy for you - making a hypothetical scenario about us and attacking it instead of our actual arguments). I can actually image quite a few instances where I would contradict most Catholics, including their archbishops, as from our point of view they represent a twisted view on the one and only source of God's Will that we have, the Bible. But I would still look at their evidence and arguments and discuss them.

I'd be thrilled if you proved me wrong and, as stated above, produced an actual reply containing some actual evidence material. Is it possible that your failure to convince us about your viewpoints is not totally our fault? (No, this is not a possibiliter, I allow you to make your case and present it in a rational manner and your might surprise us if you just "bother")


Yours in Christ,

Elmer