Traveler
-
Posts
15848 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
49
Posts posted by Traveler
-
-
Originally posted by Snow+Dec 5 2005, 07:18 PM-->
<!--QuoteBegin-prisonchaplain@Dec 5 2005, 12:57 AM
THE RESULT WILL BE THAT I FORGIVE, THAT I FORSAKING RAPING, MURDERING, LYING, THIEVING, ETC.
Okay, I got that. When one comes unto Christ, they have to really mean it Still people have "come unto Christ" and then wind up somehow raping and murdering, or maybe buying the services of prostitutes (and getting caught and aplogizing and crying about it on TV only to do it again) or if you extend it out to sinning in general, then everybody who comes unto Christ winds up sinning again. Which brings me back to the original question - can one who is saved committ rape or murder.
As I see it, there are three answers:
1. Yes, once saved, always saved and no amount of raping and murdering can change that?
2. No, you cannot rape and murder, after being saved, and still stay saved - obeying God is a condition of staying saved.
3. No, the raping and murdering indicate that the person wasn't really ever saved to begin with - so no matter how sincere they seemed or how their life changed, sin after the fact indicates that it was a false "saved."
Snow: Just so you and I (and anyone else) have a clear understanding of where I stand. I personally believe that coming unto Christ has much more to do with loving your neighbor than it does espousing a doctrine or religion. (Or even getting yourself saved). I do not believe it is about self.
The Traveler
-
Originally posted by sonofpaul@Dec 1 2005, 11:05 PM
Traveler
You stated that understanding from scripture comes partly through the study of it. That is what I am asking you. I want to know if you study the scriptures by looking at the significant words in a passage, the history and culture that the passage was written in, the author's general point behind the writing of the passage, and the big picture of the entire text?
Do you look at the exegetical meaning of passages in the BOM?
Son of Paul
For the most part I try to be as "inclusive" in all my studies as possible. There are some groups I have learned to take with less than a grain of salt. There are many self claiming Christians that criticize the Book of Mormon on term and conditions that if applied to the Bible in the same manner and method would likewise prove the Bible as wrong as they think it proves the Book of Mormon. If you are of such a variety - don't bother.
The Traveler
-
While we are what ifing - What if G-d really does love? What if Jesus was right about children and that we need to become like them? What if all the children in all the world are loved and cared for by G-d and that they are saved through Christ even though the children lever learned to utter the name of Christ let alone believe in him?
What if G-d so loved the world that no one was condemned because no one told them of Christ before they died? What if everyone that was loving and kind went to heaven even if they were Baptist, Mormon Catholic, Jewish, Moslem, Hindu or no religion at all? What if G-d really did judge all according to their works? Can you just imagine all the religious fundamentalist making a fuss because they thought G-d only loved and saved them?
What if there is no loving G-d and the evangelicals are right? What if most of the human family is damned because they lived in places and time when no one could teach them of Christ. What if people that are so compassionate and kind that they would give their lives for other are excluded from heaven because they messed up on doctrine?
Well then I will die thinking and believing in the kind and compassionate and glad to be rid of a G-d that ignores the Good Samaritans that happen to belong to the wrong religion. I would rather be with those that cared more about G-dly works than doctrine.
The Traveler
-
Originally posted by sonofpaul@Dec 3 2005, 08:43 AM
I do agree with you, that evidence is not proof.
So let me restated my question then. Where is your evidence that supports your beliefs?
Son of Paul
Let us begin with some simple facts. As we look at the marvelous variety of life that you have been so happy to point out to be rather complex in how vast it truly is. If we look at the amazing variety of worms and begin to make calculations we come to the startling reality that even in the most liberal definitions of Noah’s ark we realize that the ark, as stated in scripture, is way too small. Even if all the ark had on board to preserve live of just worms it just is not large enough. And that is just worms. We have the same problem with insects. And there are some doubts about birds. That is just the known species today. If you also take into account that 90% of all species discovered by man are no longer living we have a problem.
Oh, but you say it is okay for worms to evolve into other worms that fine and nothing but micro evolution. Except this is beginning to look more and more that you have never really and seriously consider this problem. You see my friend the varieties of worms are as genetically diverse from each other as you are from apes and pigs. This then leaves us with only 3 possibilities as I see it:
1. Macro evolution and the Bible is accurate and correct concerning the flood.
2. The Biblical account of Noah’s Flood is mostly myth and not factual at all.
3. Something else is going on that either science nor scripture reveals.
There may be another possibility that suits your personal beliefs and if so I would consider it.
The Traveler
-
Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Dec 4 2005, 07:47 PM
I've never heard an evangelical say that we are not required to forgive the sins of others. Where are you hearing this? Of course we must forgive. Jesus said if we cannot forgive others he cannot forgive us.
This stems from the question of faith and works. I have asked if any works are necessary and they respond no - all that is required for salvation is to "Believe" that Jesus is the Christ. I ask again are the works of forgiveness required. There response has been - works are not required you can not earn salvation by the works of forgiveness or any other works only by the Atonement of Jesus.
The Traveler
-
Originally posted by sonofpaul@Dec 3 2005, 08:30 AM
In your opinion, is it possible to gain all knowledge?
How then do you address Exodus 20:3-4, two of God's Commandments?
3 You shall have no other gods before me.
4 You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or the earth beneath or in the waters below.
Exodus 20:3-4
First I apologize for not having more time to respond to all your question in several threads. Next I am some what taken back from your questions. I do not believe that there is such a thing as a worthless or stupid question - it is just that you are talking about such basic concepts I have assumed that such matters would be easy for you to see answers.
As to knowledge - Part of my understanding of the “damned” is that they are stopped, limited and are bounded in their knowledge. There is a line that they cannot cross and they are forever confined to finite limitations. All knowledge as you have asked is infinite and unbounded. Consider with me John 8:31-32. Infinite knowledge is freedom. Limited knowledge = Damnation. Infinite knowledge = freedom (salvation).
Now to your question concern the verses in Exodus chapter 20. Many of the conversations I have had with Evangelicals leave me think this religious group does not understand “The Fall”. This is a most important concept and is central to understand the teachings of Christ, his atonement and the scriptures that explain such things as repentance and salvation. The fall removed mankind from G-d the Father and his eternal kingdom of heaven. Because man was cut off he was lost forever - with one possible exception. Jesus Christ the divine mediator between all mankind and the Father. There is only one G-d for fallen man. Other than Jesus Christ (that is also the G-d of the Old Testament and the New Testament) there is no other G-d, savior, redeemer, or help. Adam, Enoch, Abraham, Moses and all other prophets of all ages since the fall must have only one that is their G-d to bring salvation. That one single G-d and divine redeemer is the same Jesus Christ the very Son of The Father.
Jesus is the only “Way” to the “Tree of Life” and only by him and no other G-d or image of G-d can bring man to the Father and the Kingdom of the Father. Exodus chapter 20 is given that we (that are fallen) might be saved by the atonement of Christ - for there is no other way. But who is this Jesus Christ. For one he is L-rd of L-rds and a King of Kings. Do you have any idea what a L-rd of Lords or a King of King is? This has nothing to do with earthy Lords or Kings but pertains to the kingdom of the Father which is in heaven and the children and joint “heirs” of Jesus Christ.
The Traveler
-
It would seem that you do not understand the difference between prof and evidence. For example you talked about atoms as though you believe in them but can you give me any prof they exist (not evidence but prof). As a scientist I can tell you that although there is a lot of evidence but the prof is not complete - conflict in the evidence.
You and I differ somewhat and I do not know if there is agreement on some points. I believe that if something exist G-d created it - but not from nothing but from what was before. In science we know that matter and energy are interchangable. G-d has access to a lot of energy (power) which he used and modified to produce matter.
I believe the creation was a covenant and sacrifice of G-d - it required time to a timeless being and was only done because of his great love.
We see creation still going on today - for G-d is the same and he creates man and all other things now just like he always has.
The Traveler
-
SonofPaul: I will speak for myself. I believe that being born of the spirit is a beginning - similar to your understanding. We then are tutored by G-d through covenants and trials of those covenants. Line upon line upon line upon line we gain understanding of G-d and are made stronger according to our loyalties. The ancient word that is used in our modern scriptures for "Perfect" has direct reference to being loyal and complete to covenants - it does not necessarily mean flawless.
I believe that G-d intends that we become children of G-d to manifest his attributes and take upon ourselves his name (which is also his title) while we are yet living mortal lives. The misuse of his name - or to turn to sin having received his name is the ultimate vain use of his name and extends our fallen state. I also believe the G-d intends man to become even greater than was his initial estate in Eden and that this is why he allowed the fall in the first place. That man could have greater knowledge and be able to take upon themself the very name of G-d which is greater than his image.
The Traveler
-
I believe the greatest example of the characteristics of G-d are displayed by his creation that G-d intended to model him. Men an women that honestly make effort (with all their heart, might, mind and strength) to love their fellow men. I especially appreciate those that make such effort that have not yet learned of Christ (Good Samaritans). It convinces me that man truly is created in the image of G-d.
The Traveler
-
Originally posted by sonofpaul@Dec 1 2005, 10:35 PM
I give you this challenge: Answer my questions from a scienific view point and try to explain them without admitting the need for something or someone that is greater than our understanding.
Son of Paul
SonofPaul: Perhaps if I clarified a few things it might help in our little discussion. I do believe in G-d as the creator. I am an engineer and scientist in the automation and robotics industry somewhat involved with artificial intelligence. I have attempted to have discussions with proponents of Creationism and Intelligent Design to determine what scientific or religious principles I might learn. As you can see with yourself and others on this thread there is a logic “gap”. To be honest you bring nothing to the scientific table that appears of any value, yet you seem adamant that there is an important point concerning ID that can be scientifically demonstrated but I have yet to realize anything from what you have provided. Your failure to deliver concerning scientific constructs related to your ideas in such manners creates doubt concerning your religious opinions.
I (along with all scientist I have personal interface with) do not know all the details concerning the creation or how all things came about. However, I do find evolution as the best explanation so far. You are concerned with missing peaces but so far anything you offer in place of evolution appears to have less detail and a lot more missing peaces. Let me illustrate:
Complexity: I believe your argument is that because G-d is the creator (intelligent designer) there is unexplainable complexity. I do not see this is to be a good argument. As a general rule the more intelligence a design the simpler the implementation and more the result can be comprehended, categorized, demonstrated and redone by duplicating the parameters. The less intelligent the design the more complex and less understandable the result and the more unlikely it can ever be done again. In other words the more difficult to understand and explain something the more likely intelligence was not factored into the design. Random chaos is a lot harder to accurately explain than order and impossible to duplicate.
Why must we as Christians start with the premise that we prove G-d only when there is no other explanation. I call this the worship of the G-d of the gaps. This means as soon as something can be explained we must admit G-d really had nothing to do with it. Holes or gaps in evolution do not prove that G-d is the creator. This would imply the more we understand the less we have any use for G-d. Why should I want to “learn” from a religion that fosters such a doctrine? I believe the opposite is true. Why not consider this as a possibility. “The more we understand of any truth the better we are able to comprehend G-d”? This implies when we are able to understand all truth we will comprehend G-d – isn’t this sort of what Jesus said? (is this not the point of the scripture in Romans you quoted?)
Why believe in micro evolution and think macro evolution impossible? There are LDS that believe this as well so don’t take this personal. I asked you specifically about a mule. Did G-d create every living thing (including the mule) and tell them to reproduce after their own kind? Does this mean that G-d did not really create mules? Does this gap prove G-d is not the creator or least the creator of mules - since such gaps in evolution prove evolution false?
Isaac Newton developed the theory of gravity but there were holes and gaps in the theory. Einstein filled some of those gaps with the theory of special relativity but there are holes and gaps in that theory until quantum mechanics filled more gaps but there are still gaps and holes in that theory. So we do not teach gravity, special relativity and quantum mechanics as truth – we teach that such things should not be believed? The reason we use these theories is so that we can explain what we observe. We can do so and the principles hold true and any can demonstrate the truth of these theories despite the holes.
What is it about creation that is being missed (hole, gape or whatever) in evolution that you are trying to explain and how can the missing details in the gaps be better demonstrated or measured with details that you have to offer? – not pie in the sky theoretical idea stuff but actual physical stuff that by making the measurement will demonstrate your point?
The Traveler
-
Originally posted by Lindy+Dec 2 2005, 02:04 AM-->
So Trav.....tell us what Dr. Duesburg says is the real cause?<!--QuoteBegin-Traveler@Dec 1 2005, 09:12 PM
Dr Peter Duesburg - one of the world leading experts in viruses has some interesting things to say about AIDS and what really ought to be done. 20 years ago he said we would not find a cure until we are willing to consider the real cause. I have followed him for 20 years and all his predictions have proven accurate. It is time to take political correctness out of the mix.
The Traveler
You could visit his web site for details but in essence the use of drugs known to destroy the immune system. (condoms has not prevented spread of AIDS). Because of Dr Duesburg the CDC ordered (late 80's) that unless the HIV virus was present (regardless of symptoms) the cause of death or illness could not be classified as AIDS. Recently in response to Dr Duesburg the claim is that in over 10 years there has not been a single case of AIDS diagnosed without HIV - Duh!.
As to all the cases in Africa? The AIDS symptoms are completely different than any known cases in the USA and are similar to starvation. Because of current politics if a clinic diagnoses someone as starving they will get about $5 aid from the UN and other relief organizations. If they say they have aids they will get about $500. Duh! What would you do if you were a doctor in Africa working with people that have no money?
The Traveler
-
Dr Peter Duesburg - one of the world leading experts in viruses has some interesting things to say about AIDS and what really ought to be done. 20 years ago he said we would not find a cure until we are willing to consider the real cause. I have followed him for 20 years and all his predictions have proven accurate. It is time to take political correctness out of the mix.
The Traveler
-
If a person considers any eternal blessing from G-d (other than remission of sins) as associated to or part of their salvation then works are an essential element of that salvation. If, however, salvation is only considered to be remission of sins then there is no concern of works beyond faith in Jesus Christ, repentance and Baptism.
I am not sure I understand what some are thinking but if anyone desires and seeks the vast opportunities for eternal blessings from G-d they will gladly and willing seek to qualify in every way possible according to the covenants, commands, will and advice of G-d.
Therefore I declare in the spirit to bring blessings to all that desire G-d’s blessings – It is good and beneficial to obey all G-d’s commandments both to those that obey and to all they serve. It is not a good thing to ever reject with any excuse any commandment of G-d. Anyone suggesting G-d can be loved without keeping G-d’s commandments are not telling the truth – nor are they even capable of telling the truth.
The Traveler
-
Originally posted by sonofpaul@Dec 1 2005, 07:51 AM
Both Creationism and ID argue that life is too complex to have developed by mutations that were passed on from one generation to the next.
1) I agree that (micro) evolution exists. I agree with TRAVELER that this well documented and science has proven it, over and over again. I agree that organisms can adjust to their surrounding, allowing them to survive.
2) I disagree with (macro) evolution and I do not believe it exists. This is were a fish over millions or even billions of years, through various mutations, grows legs and has the ability survive on land.
Life is too complex and there had to be someone that provided a structure for it.
Question: How can one explain the differences between plant and animal life without some form of a structure? Did they evolve separately?
Son of Paul
Is a mule an example of micro evolution or a beginning of macro evolution?
As for your question. Evolution has more detail in how plants and animals are different than either traditional Creationism (coming out of the Dark Ages) or ID - the modern equilivent of Creationism that adds not a single detail to understanding the process.
-
Originally posted by sonofpaul@Dec 1 2005, 08:26 AM
No I don't - They are not used in scripture, they are not in my dictionary nor are they used in any religious setting with which I am familiar.
The Traveler
Exegesis (from the Greek ἐξηγεῖσθαι 'to lead out') means "to draw the meaning out of" a given text.
Traditional exegesis requires the following:
1. Analysis of significant words in the text in regard to translation
2. Examination of the general historical and cultural context
3. Confirmation of the limits of the passage
4. Examination of the context within the text.
Eisegesis means to read one's own interpretation into a given text.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis
When you use verses from the Bible, do you follow the Exegetical Meaning of that verse or do you bring your own interpretation to the verses?
Son of Paul
I believe scripture is not “THE” source of truth but a “means” of introducing truth.
The truth of scripture is dimensional and hidden from the world. It can only be understood: First by study (seek and you shall find), second by covenant, third by trial and forth through manifestations of the spirit. When I say dimensional I mean at least two things: That is “type and shadow” where keys of past open future and vise versa (see Ecel 1:9-10) and second parallel or layered like an onion. Beyond one understanding is another or line upon line upon line upon line.
Example Malachi 3:10. By study we learn of tithing. By covenant we make a plan and a promise to “prove G-d”. By trial we establish our tithing (during good times and difficult times). Then and only then can the manifestation of the spirit reveal the “windows of heaven” and blessing granted by G-d. Then as we continue to study, covenant, remain loyal in trial we continue to a new level of manifestation of G-d’s love pronouncing blessings and knowledge of tithing. Those that say they understand Malachi 3:10 but do not tithe cannot possibly be telling the truth regardless of how smart or cleaver they are concerning the words, text and structure of the scripture.
The Traveler
-
Originally posted by sonofpaul@Dec 1 2005, 04:01 AM
Hello All,
I am new to this conversation. It is interesting up to now.
I have one question for Traveler.
Do you know what the terms Exegesis and Eisegesis mean?
Thanks
Son of Paul
No I don't - They are not used in scripture, they are not in my dictionary nor are they used in any religious setting with which I am familiar.
The Traveler
-
Originally posted by Setheus@Nov 30 2005, 09:46 PM
I think it is not easy to be a repentant christian...if it were we wouldnt be having this conversation. I do believe that its esier the more you want it and the harder you strive towards it.
Thank you for responding - It appears that you are the only "repentant Christian" that would consider making a comment. Mostly I agree with you post. If there is a difference in our opinions it is this. I believe that when the spirit of G-d is with a person they do not even have a desire to sin. In order to sin we must drive the spirit of G-d away. Once we have done that it is very difficult to get it back. The more use to sin we become the more difficult it is to repent (have a change of mind and heart)
The Traveler
-
BTW - my little pocket English "Oxford American Dictionary" has the word "adieu" in it??? Who made this up to be a problem?
The Traveler
-
Inactivex: I will leave you with a couple of Bible scriptures to think about concerning this manner. The first is Ecclesiastes 1:9-10.
Now why should this also refer to scripture? Now read Genesis 41:25 not read verse 32 of that chapter. G-d repeats things for a reason – you ought to pay attention.
The Traveler
-
Originally posted by paul6150+Nov 30 2005, 07:31 AM-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Snow@Nov 29 2005, 07:52 PM
Paul,
So a Mormon can just as likely be saved as a baptist provided they accept Christ and repent.
That's a straight forward anwer.
The rest of your post is really irrelevant to the issue of salivation - that once saved God will reveal to Mormons that the Book of Mormon is false, etc. It doesn't matter if he does or he doesn't because we are talking about salvation, not knowledge of scripture or apocrypha and pseudopigrapha. For that matter God could reveal that the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and other unique LDS beliefs and practices are true and correct - and of course millions of Mormons would testify that he has - but at any rate all that is irrelevant to salvation.
So - what's all the hub bub, bub? I don't know what you yourself personally think but why do so many from your faith tradition attack and denigrate Mormonism when it brings people to Christ and urges them towards salvation.
SNOW
If you truly have accepted the Lord as you say then why do you all still teach that His sacrifice on the cross is not enough for salvation. If He is able to die for all the sins of all the people who ever lived even before we were born then WHY ISN'T HE ABLE TO COMPLETE WHAT HE STARTED IN EACH OF THOSE WHO HAVE BELIEVED. Mormonism teaches that even after all the holding onto the rod and reaching the tree of life and eating its fruit people can still fall away (Lehi's dream). Which is saying that we have to work for our salvation and even after doing all that is required still falling away.
I refer to Romans 4:19-22 and Philippians 1:6 where in the 1st passage it says od Abraham that he believed even in his old age and then Paul says in the 2nd passage that he was confidant that what God had started He was able to complete it until the day of Jesus Christ.
To me the Gospel of Grace glorifies the Almighty God where the Gospel of Works makes it something people can boast about (look what I have done) which is contrary to Ephesians 2:8-10 and many other scriptures.
SO IF YOU ACCEPTED THE GOD OF ALL TRUTH HE WILL SHOW YOU TRUTH FROM ERROR. All of us need to be asking God to show us the "fine points of deception" and to reveal all the facets of truth about Him. The Holy Spirit will honor that prayer and gradually show you as He has shown me those areas in my life that I had as untruth or sin. Once He reveals these untruths He asks that we believe Him above the traditions and beliefs we have held for so long and He will set us free. I had to jettison many beliefs from the "church of my youth" and follow Him rather than tradition and untruth. You must allow Him to do the same for you and Mormonism.
IF YOU ACCEPTED THE G-D OF ALL TRUTH HE WILL SHOW YOU TRUTH FROM ERROR - Wow, how can someone that accepts G-d - sin after G-d has shown him the truth from error? Since the time that "He has shown me those areas in my life that I had as untruth or sin" (Your words) - have you sined? Even just a little one where you got mad at someone that did not deserve it? If your current church and religion has set you and everyone else there stright (ended devorce among its menbers - ended pride and envy and everything else bad) please send me the location where you all are - I'll be there Sunday to check it out.
The Traveler
The Traveler
-
I believe there are two kinds of sins or levels of sin if you will. The first type of sin I call the stupid ignorant sin. This is the most common of sins and is the result of a lot of dumb things, including not paying attention. We just get all caught up in the excitement of the moment, try it you like it mentality, sometimes called the error of youth or boys will be boys or girls just want to have fun mentality. Usually, us low life sinners, really do not mean any harm. We are not looking for a way to get into Hell. Call it a oops or whatever you like; in scripture this is addressed in a most interesting manner along the lines – the times of ignorance G-d winked at but now commands everyone to repent. I concur with scripture – repent –repentance is not that hard (see thread - is being a Christian easy or hard?)
That aside there is to my understanding a whole different level of sin but before I tell you what I think it is, you have to understand something else first. You have to understand the power of G-d in your life and how it can change you from a low-life sinner to something rather grand and wonderful. Someone filled with the spirit of G-d with full knowledge of his love, mercy, grace and compassion. Someone with the understanding, acceptance and knowledge of Jesus and his great sacrifice for our sins. Someone aware of Jesus’ agony at Gethsemane, his pain on the cross and his broken heart at his death. Our evangelical friends call this born again and I agree in part with that assessment. This then brings me to the different type or next level of sin. Someone that has knowledge of G-d’s love, mercy, grace and compassion; someone that realizes the great cost redeemed by Christ in paying for our sins; someone that knows what agony our sins cause G-d; someone who walks with their hand in G-d’s hand; someone that is surrounded in G-d’s spirit to guide their very step. Someone that with full knowledge and G-d beside them chooses in their heart to commit to go against G-d’s will in order to sin. This I call the sin of knowledge and light – a sin of intelligence as apposed to the sin of ignorance type. This is no oops like the lower level sin, this is not a sin of stupidity, it is not a just a sin against your fellow man – it is an open full knowledge deliberate sin against G-d and it is a sin against the holy spirit of G-d.
Not very many can commit the second type of sin. I do not dare say any individual who I think can do a second level sin. But I am quite concerned with those Christians that claim they are eligible (prime candidates), then excuse their sins against G-d as non consequential nothing sins because they are saved and do not need to even consider repentance (change of heart towards G-d and/or their fellow man) from their choice to sin.
Let me just say one thing – what ever your type of sin is, what ever occurred in your heart to allow you to sin and not care. You need to make a change of your heart and that change is called repentance – it is something you have control over and something you must do. If you do not repent your heart will remain unchanged and able to excuse sin. And if you can sin while holding on to G-d’s hand; something is more wrong than you may want to consider thinking about. Perhaps you should consider a “more excellent way”.
And so I ask an old question again in a slightly different manner – is it easy to be a repentant Christian?
The Traveler
-
Originally posted by Snow+Nov 27 2005, 08:27 PM-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Traveler@Nov 27 2005, 04:33 PM
LDS believe that the atonement of Christ is an infinite atonement and paid for all sins. G-d’s part is a done deal and finished but we must repent for the atonement to have effect on our hearts. The evangelical arguments on this matter convince me that they have no concept what the atonement or repentance is. As near as I can tell they think in “me” terms or “I” terms and they see the atonement strictly on selfish terms. They will see only their sins as being paid. Their belief in Christ is for a personal savior and they do not see or care about anything beyond that. Forgive others? Not a requirement they say, salvation cannot be earned. What I do not understand is how they think they can believe in Christ and believed that Christ suffered for sins and still believe that other’s sins are not part of the deal. They only believe Jesus paid for their personal sins and since other’s sins are not paid for they do not have to forgive. I think they are nuts. I cannot see how anyone can believe in the atonement of Christ and not know that they must forgive others because Christ paid for sin so we could be free of sin - not just the selfish our sins but free of other’s sins as well
The Traveler
Nicely said Traveler
Thank you Snow - I think this goes in the record books for you and I seeing something in the same light :)
The Traveler
-
Is being a Christian hard or is it easy?
The Traveler
-
Originally posted by paul6150@Nov 27 2005, 07:21 AM
You are pretty close to my understanding in that repentance of sin is necessary because if there is no repentance of sin then the one asking God to forgive them is only fooling themself.
The place that we differ yet is that you say that if you do not repent of one sin you are again guilty of them all. The Bible is clear that once we repent, turn to God and accept Jesus as savior we are a new creation in Christ Jesus the old has past away. All the sins of are past are "as far as the east is from the west" out of God's mind. Future sins are covered by the blood of Jesus however He does want us to recognize we have again failed and ask for forgiveness of these sins though (1 John).
This is where the Holy Spirit convicts us when we do sin and helps us recognize the sin.
Thanks for your explanation of the G-d thing that you use. Interesting.
Paul
I could play the little game of my favorite scriptures are better than your favorite scriptures. But since Jesus had no better success playing this game with the Pharisees or with Satan (Luke chapter 4) and since Jesus, the Pharisees and Satan are a lot smarter and better with the scriptures than me, I see no point. You and I are both quite capable of reading scriptures and getting something quite different from them. If you really want and really think it will make a difference I will come with my truck load of scriptures and dump them on your ideas and you can continue to do the same with me. I will however drop one little, not so important, scripture – James 2:10. This is because James is going over the guilty of anything you are guilty of breaking the whole law thing. But since you already don’t believe it you can play the scripture switch game and continue on your merry way.
What I don’t get about your post is the notion that G-d is only going to punish those that really do not know any better. This is not my idea of a just and merciful G-d and makes zero sense to me. The one’s that have the spirit making sure they know all the good stuff to do and the bad stuff not to do – it really does not matter for them because G-d just does not care if those types sin or not because they performed the special ritual and incantation and they are forever off the hook??? They know tons more than anyone else but G-d does not care because he is pleased beyond belief only with the said ritual and incantation thing and nothing else so they have a back door pass (only allowable pass) into heaven??? I think it is quite an accomplishment that this is the main point of creation and human experience that you have gleaned from the scriptures. However, this is about 180 degrees out of whack with my take of the scriptures – including, as an example, the parable of the Good Samaritan. The Samaritans were not the saved-by-ritual-and-incantation group if ever there was one. Jesus would not even go to teach that bunch of slime-crud. The priest and Levite are supposed to be the privileged-if-there-is-a-selected-saved of G-d group.
You can bet your soul on whatever ideas you want and you can quote whatever scripture you want to excuse it. As for me I plan on doing the Good Samaritan thing plus for every oops thing I plan on doing the lowly publican thing of begging for forgiveness every chance I get right up to when I have to make an account of my “works” before G-d. Good luck with your plan – if we get a chance, let’s get together after all the mortal dust settles, you let me know how it turns out for you and I’ll do the same about me for you.
The Traveler
What If...
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
Are you kidding??? Can you say Pharisees and Scribes? Do you think for one minute that there are no modern Pharisees and Scribes?
The Traveler