Christians Don't Sin

[Sparko]

Well if you admit this, then you admit also that you didn't inherit your fallen nature from Adam, you inherited it, just like Adam did, from God. Adam didn't fall, he was human, no different from you.

seems like you are determined to twist my words and take things out of context.

Adam and Eve sinned. Their nature was then corrupted. They no longer had eternal life, and they had a sin nature. Naturally, any offspring they had would inherit their nature from them. Simple genetics if nothing else.

No you are using your own definition, the religious definition. Thats what you believe sin is, disobedience to a God, a God who commanded his people to commit the very acts he enacted as sins.

"Sin" is a religious term, dumbass. Of course I am using the religious definition.

No I do not "need" her forgiveness, I only "need" to forgive myself. If you recognize that what you've done is wrong and are truly sorry for it, then it doesn't matter if the one you've offended forgives you or not. Thats their choice.

So you are a sociopath after all. Your posts make more sense now.

No, it not besides the point, i am trusting my own senses rather than trusting the someone who is telling me differently. If you see the light is red, and someone warns you that it is okay, keep going, the light is green, are you going to trust your own eyes and stop or are you going to run the light based on what someone else tells you?

Again, you are bound and determined to "not get" the analogy.

OK new analogy: Instead of a man telling you their is a cliff ahead, you see a sign saying "beware hidden cliff ahead" - now you can either believe that sign and not run off the cliff, or you can ignore the sign and end up running off the cliff to your death.

I chose to believe and trust the sign, you choose to ignore it. Do you think it is unfair that you end up dying and I don't, just because I believed the sign?

So when you look at your loved ones, you see evil people that deserve to burn in hell.

Romans 3: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith.

Well, maybe in your case. Just kidding, In my opinion such a God can not be defined as love because true love is unconditional not vengeful.

God is not vengeful. He offers salvation to everyone. Freely. You seem to be whining because it is too easy.

Well for one thing, because they don't reject him, they don't know him or believe he exists, and more so than that, because he loves them.

Have you READ your own posts? You reject him. You call him vengful, a psychopath, and say you will argue with him when you stand before him, if he even exists. Yes, you reject him, you hate him, and that is evil. So why would he let you spend eternity with him, especially since you would not want to spend eternity with him?

Sparko, non-believers are not rejecting your God, they can not reject what they don't believe to exist. You, in my opinion, are playing this imaginary game in your head with an imaginary God who you believe to be talking to you and forgiving you, but in reality you are talking to and forgiving yourself.

Or maybe it is you who are playing an imaginary game claiming there is no God. I guess one day we will both find out. Just don't say you weren't warned ahead of time.

Well, which is God, merciful or Just? If he is merciful then he is not being just, and if he is just then he is not merciful. So which is it?

He is both.

Right, so the govenor can either be merciful or he can be just, but he can't be both.

sure he can. He can offer mercy to those who are willing to change and follow him, and justice to those who refuse.

Well that assumes that such a psychopath of a God exists, which I have no doubt that he does not. Why would anyone want to spend eternity with a jealous, vengeful, tyrannous, psychopath of a God anyway? I'll bet if your own father were like that you'd get the hell away from him as soon as you could.

See? as I said above, if you feel that way about God, then maybe he is doing you a favor by not making you spend eternity with him. You will get what you claim you want.

Again, that is just dumb. You can't reject or disobey that which you don't even believe to exists.

You apparently are doing just that. See above.

Dumb, dumb, dumb, you are accepting your own mercy, your own forgiveness, and attributing it to your imaginary God. But that is your choice.

Well if you are right and there is no God, then I am no worse off believing than you are not believing in God. We will both cease to exist. If I am right, then I get to enjoy eternity with God, whom you reject. So either we both lose, or only you lose. Sounds good to me.

Probably because you were never a real atheist.

Again, not my belief, yours. And unlike you I have no fear of God, because if he exists and is evil, I want nothing to do with him, and if he exists and is good, then i have nothing to fear from him.

If he exists and is good, then your rejection of him is evil. A good God would punish evil. So maybe you should rethink that.

Whatever you want to believe. But personally, and I don't mean to be mean, but I think you people are silly to believe such nonsense. And as for believers, believe me I know and have known many christians in my life, and most all of them have very little knowledge of what it is (the Bible) that they profess to believe in.

Your problem is that you think YOU know what the bible teaches, so when someone tells you different, you claim they don't know the bible. The fact is, you don't know.

[37818]

Well no, you do not have to be a Christian to understand that the NT teaches salvation by grace and not works - whether one believes it or not, or applies it to their life, is another story.

Not believing in it is not to understand that God's grace is true. So not believing God's grace is true is effectively having the gospel hid to them. Otherwise explain how you understand 2 Corinthians 4:3-4.

[37818]

Well, which is God, merciful or Just? If he is merciful then he is not being just, and if he is just then he is not merciful. So which is it?

The whole point of the gospel, the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross for sins, is so God can be both just and merciful. Only the God of Christ is both just and merciful. All other god claims cannot and so are not.

[JimL]

seems like you are determined to twist my words and take things out of context.

Adam and Eve sinned. Their nature was then corrupted. They no longer had eternal life, and they had a sin nature. Naturally, any offspring they had would inherit their nature from them. Simple genetics if nothing else.

If their nature wasn't corrupted prior to their sin, then how is it that they sinned. What you inherited is a human nature no different than Adam and Eve had from the git go! There was no fall.

"Sin" is a religious term, dumbass. Of course I am using the religious definition.

Hmm, you were actually trying to be civil for a while there Sparky. Sin can be understood in the same sense as morality, either from a religious or a secular perspective.

So you are a sociopath after all. Your posts make more sense now.

And you were doing so good there for a while. I didn't say that I don't have empathy for others, I said in order to be forgiven one has to forgive themselves. If you don't forgive your own faults then someone else forgiving you doesn't resolve the issue does it?

Again, you are bound and determined to "not get" the analogy.

OK new analogy: Instead of a man telling you their is a cliff ahead, you see a sign saying "beware hidden cliff ahead" - now you can either believe that sign and not run off the cliff, or you can ignore the sign and end up running off the cliff to your death.

I chose to believe and trust the sign, you choose to ignore it. Do you think it is unfair that you end up dying and I don't, just because I believed the sign?

You didn't choose to trust the sign until you saw it for yourself, not because someone told you. Geesh!

Romans 3: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith.

So as I said, when you look at your loved ones, what you see is evil people who deserve to burn in hell. And you call me a sociopath!

God is not vengeful. He offers salvation to everyone. Freely. You seem to be whining because it is too easy.

Vengence is the Lords!

Have you READ your own posts? You reject him. You call him vengful, a psychopath, and say you will argue with him when you stand before him, if he even exists. Yes, you reject him, you hate him, and that is evil. So why would he let you spend eternity with him, especially since you would not want to spend eternity with him?

Don't be silly. As I said many times, one can't reject, hate or belittle that which he doesn't even believe exists. I'm not belittling God, I'm describing the (to me) fictional character that you believe to be real.

Or maybe it is you who are playing an imaginary game claiming there is no God. I guess one day we will both find out. Just don't say you weren't warned ahead of time.

I'm not playing anything, I've not interacted with imaginary beings since I was a child.

He is both.

Contradiction.

sure he can. He can offer mercy to those who are willing to change and follow him, and justice to those who refuse.

No he can't. He can do either, but only if he is neither.



See? as I said above, if you feel that way about God, then maybe he is doing you a favor by not making you spend eternity with him. You will get what you claim you want.
When I say that I have no doubt that such a God does not exist, then how does that equate with feeling disgust for God? You need to comprehend what you are reading before responding. I don't feel that way about God, I don't believe in a God, I feel that way about what I believe to be a fictional God that "you" believe to be real.

You apparently are doing just that. See above.

You'll catch on eventually, I'm sure.

Well if you are right and there is no God, then I am no worse off believing than you are not believing in God. We will both cease to exist. If I am right, then I get to enjoy eternity with God, whom you reject. So either we both lose, or only you lose. Sounds good to me.

Nope, if I am right and there is no God we may both cease to exist, but if you are right and "your" God exists, then you get to spend eternity with a vengful, tyrranous, psychopath whom I reject. Sounds more like hell for you than for me. But as I said, I have no doubt that such a god does not exist, so don't worry yourself over such a future to much.

Why did you reject God in the first place then Sparko?

If he exists and is good, then your rejection of him is evil. A good God would punish evil. So maybe you should rethink that.

Yes, except that I don't reject goodness, I only reject evilness, so I have no fear. Don't get me wrong, I fear death just as much as anyone else, or not really death, but the thought of death, but I have no fear of a God, because the way I figure it is that if God is better than me, then I have nothing to fear, and if he is not, well, then he probably doesn't exist.

Your problem is that you think YOU know what the bible teaches, so when someone tells you different, you claim they don't know the bible. The fact is, you don't know.

Duh! They not only don't know what the Bible teaches, they don't know the Bible period. They've never read it, or barely read it.

[Tassman]

Ah . . . You're presenting more claims. The common account the family relationship describes Horus as the son of Isis and Osiris. Do you have any archeological references?

The point being made is that of the pre-scientific mindset in a credulous era whereby miraculous occurrences such as virgin births were commonplace and perfectly acceptable, unlike today. There are scores of examples of which I previously outlined just a few.

And she had to put Osiris back together like a puzzle(Egyptian gods were like lego apparently), but one of the pieces was missing...

Quaint and amusing certainly, but is it any more so than the notion of a god/man being born of a virgin who had been overshadowed by the third person of a triune deity? Not really. They're all myths of a similar type and designed to emphasise the special nature of the god or king being promoted.

[JimL]

The whole point of the gospel, the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross for sins, is so God can be both just and merciful. Only the God of Christ is both just and merciful. All other god claims cannot and so are not.

You mean to say that if that didn't happen, the sacrificial death, that God would have had no choice but to have been just, and condemned all of his creation? Think about it!

[37818]

You mean to say that if that didn't happen, the sacrificial death, that God would have had no choice but to have been just, and condemned all of his creation? Think about it!

No. God is just. The whole of creation was going to be changed regardless of the fall of man whom He created in His image. If God had not provided any redemption for men, none would be part of the new heavens and earth to come. Not that I can see.

[Michael]

The above is replete with contradictions. "Christians can't sin because they are not under the law" "But if a Christian should sin he has an advocate to attain forgiveness." Both can't be true!

Correct. But it will work this way, though: Because Christians don't sin, if you're a Christian, and then you sin, guess what you no longer are? HOWEVER, repent (meaning to turn away from) and do not repeat, and you will have an advocate to recover what was lost. If you do not repent, or redefine repent as something other than repenting just so you can claim to have repented, then you have not recovered what you have lost (your salvation). Exemplified in Ez. 18:19-24, explicit in v.24.

The Bible is literally brimming over with verses that make this clear. Start reading it with no assumption as to the inevitability of sin, and this will became explicitly (for most, painfully) blatant. Then, the FEW verses which may APPEAR to contradict, can be looked at contextually (etc.) to show that they don't.

The obviousness is even found in the professions of most. They acknowledge that God does not change. Yet somehow in the OT He has NO tolerance for sin, and in the NT, all is fine, as long as you made a "profession." The Jews had this, and Jesus told them that they were of their father--the devil (BLASPHEMY in His day, as this will surely, by most ppl, be considered in this day). It's all about "faith," not sin, but Jesus Himself said that all will be judged by their deeds. ("many will say, Lord, Lord ..., etc.).

The problem is that when you have sinners who love their sin too much to even try to quit sinning, who are trying to defend their "right" to sin (claiming "inability"), they have chosen a stance, a stronghold, and do not seek to overcome it but rather to justify it, nor do they seek for Christ to overcome it in them; they don't truly want to quit. The lust of their flesh, the lust of their eyes, and their pride of life, and their desire to protect their "right" to serve these same, won't let them even think of or comprehend the possibility of overcoming it. How weak such a Christ is, who cannot overcome sin; they have a failing, weak Christ, rather than admit that the failing is in themselves and their sincerity of belief and subsequent effort. HOW real is God? And just HOW important is THAT to you? God HATES sin; so WHO would seek to justify it? Why would they spend SO much time and effort attempting to justify their "right" (by default of their alleged "inability") to continue in it? Give it your ALL, ALL the time, before claiming it can't be done. The Bible is ad infinitum against sin; so who is FOR it? It is this rampant hypocrisy which confuses and drives away many. "Can't help it" ("not my fault"). Then say that we are responsible ("my fault"), creating an irrational, unjust God of confusion or myth. "It's my fault," but, "I can't help it" is contradictory. If Christians could not live without sin, then wouldn't non-Christians doing it prove that they are just insincere, rather than incapable? (Phiippians 3:5-6, the rich young ruler, etc.)

These promoters of lusts and sin will say, religiously (like the Pharisees did in their day), that the Bible is the Word of God, then use Bible to refute Bible (by misquoting, pulling out of context, etc.). They are effectively calling God either confused, a liar, or someone who changes with the wind (no substance or solidity); they create unbelief that the Bible is the Word of God, and (to them) sobeit, so long as they "get" to continue to serve the lust of their flesh, the lust of their eyes, and their pride of life. These slaves of lusts and sin will claim that Christ has set them free. But, as the Jews in their day, who also claimed to Jesus to be free, JESUS told them that they were slaves of what they DID. Again, the Bible is rampant with this, if one doesn't start with a stronghold to protect; if one wants Truth, He can be found there. They will claim that they can't help it ["It's in (meaning allegedly inherent) the flesh!"], misusing Paul's Rom. 7 because they start it with a stronghold and take it out of context. However, this creates two MASSIVE problems. First, Jesus had flesh, so now they have sinless-Jesus with inborn/inherent sin. They try to get around this with a verse about the "likeness" of flesh, but denying then the verse (misusing the Bible, to now have the Bible refuting the Bible; see the list at the end, of the type of gods that they create), which explicitly states that anyone who denies that Jesus came in the flesh (UH OH)... Secondly, Paul answers the questions he poses: How can I overcome this body of sin? And he answers it immediately: Thanks be to God, THROUGH (VIA) JESUS CHRIST. But, if like most verses, you stop reading where it's convenient, or where it conflicts with the men you listen to today, then just ignore God's Word (the Bible), disregard it at not being God's Word, just as you would disregard Christ, if He were real (see following explanation; I am not saying that Christ is not real!), and standing right beside you, as you committed your sins. I bring this up, because some of the most common professions include that God is real, omnipresent, omniscient, sincere (not a liar nor deceiver), relevant (even all-important), etc., and yet when I've asked ppl if they would have committed their sins if Jesus was standing right next to them at the time, the response is usually, "No way" or the such (the exceptions being the more proficient liars who see the point coming and lie to try to continue to protect their stronghold). But this means that they either didn't believe Jesus was there (not omnipresent/omniscient), that He didn't mean what He said about sin (lying), doesn't care Himself what He said (insincere), or just not really really real.

All the sincere ppl I talk to admit that their "effort" to quit is minimal to nonexistent. All arguments I have ever heard which promote "sinning Christians" either self-negate, or are circular. The have God lying, uncaring, insidious, confused, mythological, dumb, hypocritical, mean, arbitrary, disingenuous, WEAK, etc. The original Christians took this seriously; they were martyred by the droves for refusing to budge, to even tell a "little" "white" lie. Jesus took it serious; He DIED for it. The Apostles took it serious too; they also DIED for it. Nowadays, you can't hardly find anyone who PROFESSES Christ, who actually POSSESSES Christ. If you knew your very life depended on it, right here, and right now, would it change the value you put on it, the outcome of it? Would you stop NO MATTER WHAT, if the consequences were a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER? If you stepped off a cliff, you wouldn't be thinking of which sin you wanted to focus on; you'd be thinking something WAY different. Treat it like it's REAL, like GOD is REAL, like GOD MATTERS, and He MEANS what He says, and go from PRETENDING you care what He says, to CARING what He says. How? Desire for TRUTH, sincerity. Eyes on CHRIST (like Peter on the boat; take them off and SINK!). What IS the most important thing in your life and how does it compare to what you SAY is the most important thing in your life? (They praise me all the day long with their lips, BUT their HEARTS are FAR from me.) Hearts on God HATE sin, can't STAND the UGLY VILE ETC. of it; CAN'T MAKE THEM DO IT. Hearts on lusts and pride LOVE sine, "can't" stop doing it; CAN'T MAKE THEM QUIT. WHO is in YOUR heart, your Father God, or your father the devil? Choose THIS day whom you WILL serve (NOT "try" ... "occasionally" ... "when it's convenient" ... or maybe even a little more religious, like the "better" Pharisees, like the rich young ruler, but also like the rich young ruler, NOT ALL-OUT.)

[Jedidiah]

When I was in college, there was a fairly notorious itinerant preacher named "Brother Jed" who would come by a few times a year. He claimed that he had not sinned since 1969. However, I could see clear evidence to the contrary with his false judgments of people. One example was how he once yelled at a male and female walking to class together, accusing them of fornication... when they were actually a brother and sister.

Was not me. I have yet to reach a point where I can say I have not sinned since 1969. I struggle and stumble, but I hold on to Christ.

[Michael]

I don't think any Christian really believes that, or if they do, you've likely misunderstood what they mean when they say it. Maybe somewhere out there in this great big goofy world of ours someone is saying it and means it in the way you understand it, but if so, they're clearly in the extreme minority.

They are; always have been. You'll get PERSECUTED for doing so, possibly/probably even killed, just like Jesus, just like the Apostles. You better not telling anyone they are doing wrong, I guess. Anyone believing that all or most ppl who profess Christianity today are legit, has the path very very wide and plentiful. I wonder what JESUS said about the width of the path and the number on it? "Narrow is the path and FEW ..." wasn't it?

[Michael]

And following the dietary laws are not going to make us the light of the world. No one is going to look at someone refusing to eat pork and proclaim: "Look at that man, what a righteous soul he is for refusing to eat pork, I can really see the love of God emanating from him."

I saw that, and agree.

[Michael]

Another case of unintentional irony. You're claiming that Holding lacks comprehension, and then immediately after you accuse him of habitually using the ad hominem fallacy, which is manifestly false, which can be proven simply by reading his writings. Insulting someone during a debate/discussion is not the same as committing the ad hominem fallacy, you harebrained idiot. (See? I just insulted you without committing any fallacy what so ever.)

It appears that you missed something; He commits an ad hominem in his criticism of another using ad hominisms, by calling them "goons."

[Michael]

And don't think for a minute that your apathy is impressive. No one is impressed when someone shrugs his shoulders when asked about established science that human beings nobly struggled to extract from the world and from which you benefit daily.

I'm just curious as to exactly what benefits science gives us from old earth theories. All of the benefits I can think of come from science based on current chemistry, physics, engineering, whatnot. I can't figure out how the alleged length of time the universe has existed has benefited science or our daily lives technologically. I'm drawing a blank, but it's very late and me very tired.

[Michael]

Non-believers will see your ignorance as a fundamental lack of curiosity, which bespeaks a fear of--or stubborn unwillingness to process--that basic fact.

You chose all religious topics, so I naturally I assumed you meant dogma. What matters to you besides religion that's more fascinating than scientific epistemology--a fairly basic concept to grasp?

No you can't, since your animal nature is specifically apelike and apes have protomorality and violent, territorial, war-like behaviors--and sexuality--similar to ours. By assuming centipedes are as similar to human beings as apes, our closest relatives, are, you reveal your lack of skill to deal with these issues with potential converts. You'd be a poor evangelist in the most challenging circumstances, IOW.

Who was complaining about ad hominem attacks before? Here's a few above to look at.

[tabibito]

Back to the first few posts ...

Is this a parody? Because John even says that if someone claims to be without sin, he's a liar, or something like that. Here's a verse.

The critical points of Romans 3:22:
for

directs attention to the reason for a foregoing statement, which in this case is found in Romans 3:20a (itself arising from the conditions stated in verse 19) and traces a series of reasons including that stated in verse 22.

all have sinned

sinned: ἥμαρτον hémarton - tense, aorist - signifies event completed before the time of the main verb.

and fall short (the main verb)

lack: hũsterountai - voice, passive/middle - signifies being acted upon (by themselves ^{if middle}) so as to want for.

The synopsised statement then is
_20a by deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight, ₂₂ for all sinned and thereby fall short of the glory of God.

1 John 1:8 does say "if we say we have no sin .... the truth is not in us" but verses 9 and 10 are part of the same topic. Interpreting this passage as referring to a claim to have never sinned is entirely appropriate.