How do we know a sinner when we see one?

[Argenta]

A sinner is one who transgresses God’s law. But what is God’s law? Would any two Christians agree on exactly what this law is? Presumably, the Ten Commandments are included but what about the laws set out in Deuteronomy et al? Is wearing a garment made of two fibres a sin? Am I a sinner if I refuse to stone my unruly child? If we could agree what God’s law is we may be able to establish if all humans really are sinners.

Christianity teaches that all humans are sinners as a principle when in fact it is a question that admits of an empirical answer. Does Christianity say this because those who are free of sin do not need Jesus Christ?

If only the Ten Commandments are included it may be that some people are free of sin. The truth is we cannot know until we define god’s laws explicitly. Can we compile a comprehensive list of sins? And if we can, I wonder if anyone would truly wish to be sin-free?

Argenta

[East of Eden]

I will state again that I believe homosexuality is sin. That was my position from the beggining. Darias then went on to clearly state that holding that position leads to the worst kind of evil. He states and i copy his own quote.

My whole point is that homosexuality isn't a sin -- anymore than uncovered, talking women in church are sins. Far too many homosexual individuals have been shunned and treated as if they were diseased. Far too many Christians have not shown love to the LGBT community whatsoever. They have been made to feel as if they are the worst of sinners, when we ourselves are also disobeying the commands of Paul; it's hypocrisy of the worst degree. And it's wrong.

Such thinking has produced the worst institutions known to man, chiefly, the Westboro Baptist Church, who's entire platform is "Gays doom nations." They picket the funerals of fallen soldiers. they tried to picket the funeral of the girl who died in Arizona. They believe that gays are "beasts" and that our nation is under God's wrath for tolerating homosexuals.

Here Darias that His position is that homosexuality is not sin and then goes on a rant revealing what comes from people who hold the opposing view. That Homosexuality is sin. That is my position. So without any doubt here Darias is saying that I one who believe homosexuality is sin is part of evils such as the Westboro Baptist Church. Remember Darias was clearly in a back and forth debate with me at the time. He was using the old guilt by association ploy to position me with the Westboro Baptist Church and like radicals. There can be no other interpretation.

So Darias can duck and weave all he wants but he has said what he has said and it was projected onto me.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

I would again invite you and others to check out my response to your claims and your misrepresentation of me and what I said in that post.

I'm not hiding, I was clear with what I said, and I in no way equated you to that of WBC, even though that is exactly what you did to me.

I did not claim that the idea that homosexuality is a sin = WBC, either. My own parents believe homosexuality is a sin; and I don't equate them with WBC.

I was quite clear, that the idea that homosexuality is the worst of sins, the idea that gays are diseased, cursed, beasts that doom nations -- that's exactly WBC's position on homosexuality. Even if you did believe all of those things I just listed, that still doesn't make you a WBC member. But it cannot be denied that those specific priori assumptions have lead to the creation of groups who profess that type of ideology, namely the WBC.

To take that, and say that I was calling you a WBC member, or that I somehow deserved your insults about me being equally as bad as WBC, a pied piper of death, etc. -- that's overstepping it a bit.

I think it's pretty clear to everyone what was said. But I will be the first to apologize for any misunderstanding/mis-communication that may have arisen from my postings. I certainly had neither the will nor intent to insult or hurt you.

I don't believe homosexual activity is the worst sin, but it is the one where the church is being forced to compromise today, just as in past times the blind spot was racial discrimination. Martin Luther said if you preach the Gospel in all areas except the one that is controversial in your age, you aren't really being faithful.

[East of Eden]

As I see it, everything Adstar ascribes to God is actually "human thinking" (those humans who wrote the Bible).

You've got it backwards, there is a similarity because we are made in God's image.

No, it's the reverse. Bronze-age men made their god in their image.

To not recognize this and say it's God and it's OK is one of the most mistaken, wrong headed, backward, and vile things I have ever encountered. I find it hard to believe that people walk the earth who think this way.

Relatively few people don't believe in a God. I consider that ignorant, not vile. Why do you care so strongly what others believe?

That's a very sweeping statement. I would suggest that most of the 6.5 billion people don't believe or are complacent about the theory and haven't bothered to think about it at all.

According to this, only 2.5% of the world's population are atheists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

Empty churches demonstrate that most people just attended church out of custom and fashion.

What empty churches? I have trouble finding a parking spot at mine. I suspect you mean empty liberal churches. For example, the liberal US Episcopal Church is the most rapidly declining church in the US, while the 70,000,000 worldwide Anglican Communion is mainly orthodox and growing rapidly. There has never been a time in history when more people are coming to faith in Christ than today.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 283:

I will state again that I believe homosexuality is sin...

You can say it all you want, but you have yet to show it to be the case...

You are ostensibly presenting a theological argument, where you have accepted the claims in the Bible, however, you have presented no reason to accept the Bible's claims as accurate regarding the thoughts of a god on the doings of humans.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 289:

How might Jesus be a "Bible-believer", when the Bible was compose decades to centuries after his death?

Have you not heard of the Old Testament?...

Have you not heard of the New Testament?

The Bible is a collection of both.

To say someone would believe in a book put together after they're dead, unless it was composed during the period they were dead for a few days, can not be directly supported.

[Goat]

If you can show me where in the New Testament Jesus commands His followers to commit murder or condones the act of murder by His followers prior to His second coming, then you will have a point. If you cannot, then the "other" person's view is invalid irrespective of his opinion, and your argument falls apart.

Luke 19:27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"

That would be a parable, with fictional characters. But even if it were skewed to be taken literally, notice I qualified it with, "prior to His second coming." In order for modern believers to kill them in front of Him, He has to be present.

Next?

Yes, it's a parable. Parables are lessons. The lesson here is a summation of the parable. It is a specific statement. Show how it means something other than what it says, using the words of the parable. Can you do it? I have challenged many people to that, and no one has been able to come up with 'It is a parable'. Some of come up with alternate reasons for it to be other than what it says, but they have not been able to justify their claims in context with the rest of the parable.

You didn't address the rest of my defense. What I originally said is that if he could produce a passage of Scripture in the New Testament where Jesus commands His followers to commit murder or condones the act of murder by His followers, prior to His second coming, then he would have a point. I then said, in answer to the parable you posted, that this doesn't apply, because in order for modern believers to "kill them," as the passage says, in front of Him, He has to be present, and His second coming hasn't yet occurred. Thus, due to my original qualifier, your parable is not applicable to my argument.

I disagree. A parable is a lesson that is instructions to the followers. This parable was in response to a rich man's question 'How do I get to heaven'. The last sentence of the parable before Jesus goes to Jerusalem to get crucified was 'Bring me my enemies before me and slay them'. This parable directly applies. He is commanding his followers to kill those people who don't accept him to reign over them. That is condoning murder , that is ORDERING murder.

The fact you wish to dismiss it and try to find excuses it reeks of 'moving of goal posts' and cafeteria Christianity. Just because you hand wave it away and say 'it doesn't apply' doesn't stop that passage from existing, and giving the lesson of "Kill those who don't want me to reign over them'.

[gegraptai]

If you can show me where in the New Testament Jesus commands His followers to commit murder or condones the act of murder by His followers prior to His second coming, then you will have a point. If you cannot, then the "other" person's view is invalid irrespective of his opinion, and your argument falls apart.

Luke 19:27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"

That would be a parable, with fictional characters. But even if it were skewed to be taken literally, notice I qualified it with, "prior to His second coming." In order for modern believers to kill them in front of Him, He has to be present.

Next?

Yes, it's a parable. Parables are lessons. The lesson here is a summation of the parable. It is a specific statement. Show how it means something other than what it says, using the words of the parable. Can you do it? I have challenged many people to that, and no one has been able to come up with 'It is a parable'. Some of come up with alternate reasons for it to be other than what it says, but they have not been able to justify their claims in context with the rest of the parable.

You didn't address the rest of my defense. What I originally said is that if he could produce a passage of Scripture in the New Testament where Jesus commands His followers to commit murder or condones the act of murder by His followers, prior to His second coming, then he would have a point. I then said, in answer to the parable you posted, that this doesn't apply, because in order for modern believers to "kill them," as the passage says, in front of Him, He has to be present, and His second coming hasn't yet occurred. Thus, due to my original qualifier, your parable is not applicable to my argument.

I disagree. A parable is a lesson that is instructions to the followers. This parable was in response to a rich man's question 'How do I get to heaven'. The last sentence of the parable before Jesus goes to Jerusalem to get crucified was 'Bring me my enemies before me and slay them'. This parable directly applies. He is commanding his followers to kill those people who don't accept him to reign over them. That is condoning murder , that is ORDERING murder.

The fact you wish to dismiss it and try to find excuses it reeks of 'moving of goal posts' and cafeteria Christianity. Just because you hand wave it away and say 'it doesn't apply' doesn't stop that passage from existing, and giving the lesson of "Kill those who don't want me to reign over them'.

You are the one moving the goalpoasts by continuing to ignore the implications for modern believers in the very important words, "Bring them here and kill them in front of me." Do I need to repeat my explanation a third time in order for you to address it? Christ is not here, so how can we bring people to Him and kill them in front of Him? Since you insist on taking this parable literally, then why didn't Jesus and His disciples take it literally? Why didn't they obey this supposed command and slay His enemies before Him? The answer is obvious: They understood it to be parabolic. This alone destroys your argument.

Cafeteria Christianity? Why are you using pejoratives to describe your perception of my religion? Have I done this to you? Have I attacked your ostensibly conflicting position of simultaneously being an Atheist and a Jew, calling it Cafeteria Judaism? No, I haven't, because that is your business. So how about toning down the rhetoric, pal? I do not arbitrarily pick and choose what to believe.

[Goat]

http://jonreichartgallery.angelfire.com/road.htm. If you cannot, then the "other" person's view is invalid irrespective of his opinion, and your argument falls apart.

Luke 19:27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"

That would be a parable, with fictional characters. But even if it were skewed to be taken literally, notice I qualified it with, "prior to His second coming." In order for modern believers to kill them in front of Him, He has to be present.

Next?

Yes, it's a parable. Parables are lessons. The lesson here is a summation of the parable. It is a specific statement. Show how it means something other than what it says, using the words of the parable. Can you do it? I have challenged many people to that, and no one has been able to come up with 'It is a parable'. Some of come up with alternate reasons for it to be other than what it says, but they have not been able to justify their claims in context with the rest of the parable.

You didn't address the rest of my defense. What I originally said is that if he could produce a passage of Scripture in the New Testament where Jesus commands His followers to commit murder or condones the act of murder by His followers, prior to His second coming, then he would have a point. I then said, in answer to the parable you posted, that this doesn't apply, because in order for modern believers to "kill them," as the passage says, in front of Him, He has to be present, and His second coming hasn't yet occurred. Thus, due to my original qualifier, your parable is not applicable to my argument.

I disagree. A parable is a lesson that is instructions to the followers. This parable was in response to a rich man's question 'How do I get to heaven'. The last sentence of the parable before Jesus goes to Jerusalem to get crucified was 'Bring me my enemies before me and slay them'. This parable directly applies. He is commanding his followers to kill those people who don't accept him to reign over them. That is condoning murder , that is ORDERING murder.

The fact you wish to dismiss it and try to find excuses it reeks of 'moving of goal posts' and cafeteria Christianity. Just because you hand wave it away and say 'it doesn't apply' doesn't stop that passage from existing, and giving the lesson of "Kill those who don't want me to reign over them'.

You are the one moving the goalpoasts by continuing to ignore the implications for modern believers in the very important words, "Bring them here and kill them in front of me." Do I need to repeat my explanation a third time in order for you to address it? Christ is not here, so how can we bring people to Him and kill them in front of Him? Since you insist on taking this parable literally, then why didn't Jesus and His disciples take it literally? Why didn't they obey this supposed command and slay His enemies before Him? The answer is obvious: They understood it to be parabolic. This alone destroys your argument.

Cafeteria Christianity? Why are you using pejoratives to describe your perception of my religion? Have I done this to you? Have I attacked your ostensibly conflicting position of simultaneously being an Atheist and a Jew, calling it Cafeteria Judaism? No, I haven't, because that is your business. So how about toning down the rhetoric, pal? I do not arbitrarily pick and choose what to believe.

Nope.. not moving the goal posts at all. The challenge was 'If you can show me where in the New Testament Jesus commands His followers to commit murder or condones the act of murder by His followers prior to His second coming, then you will have a point. '

Where is 'modern' in that?

And , it might not be 'arbitrarily pick and choose', but pick and choose you do never the less.

You reject much of the Mitzvahs in the Jewish scripture, and you are ignoring the implications of this parable. That is picking and choosing. Everyone does it, it is just that many KNOW they do it.

As for Judaism, well, one of the study methods is that you take a Torah or Talmud passage, and then surround the passage with commentary to go off into different directions or 'leafs' to come up with an interpretation that has personal meaning. It's very foundation is acknowledging the variety and personal meaning of interpretation.

I noticed other than trying to ignore the existence of that passage, dismissing it as a 'parable', you are unable to give any reasonable explanation for it, and show how it means other than what it says.

[gegraptai]

http://jonreichartgallery.angelfire.com/road.htm. If you cannot, then the "other" person's view is invalid irrespective of his opinion, and your argument falls apart.

Luke 19:27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"

That would be a parable, with fictional characters. But even if it were skewed to be taken literally, notice I qualified it with, "prior to His second coming." In order for modern believers to kill them in front of Him, He has to be present.

Next?

Yes, it's a parable. Parables are lessons. The lesson here is a summation of the parable. It is a specific statement. Show how it means something other than what it says, using the words of the parable. Can you do it? I have challenged many people to that, and no one has been able to come up with 'It is a parable'. Some of come up with alternate reasons for it to be other than what it says, but they have not been able to justify their claims in context with the rest of the parable.

You didn't address the rest of my defense. What I originally said is that if he could produce a passage of Scripture in the New Testament where Jesus commands His followers to commit murder or condones the act of murder by His followers, prior to His second coming, then he would have a point. I then said, in answer to the parable you posted, that this doesn't apply, because in order for modern believers to "kill them," as the passage says, in front of Him, He has to be present, and His second coming hasn't yet occurred. Thus, due to my original qualifier, your parable is not applicable to my argument.

I disagree. A parable is a lesson that is instructions to the followers. This parable was in response to a rich man's question 'How do I get to heaven'. The last sentence of the parable before Jesus goes to Jerusalem to get crucified was 'Bring me my enemies before me and slay them'. This parable directly applies. He is commanding his followers to kill those people who don't accept him to reign over them. That is condoning murder , that is ORDERING murder.

The fact you wish to dismiss it and try to find excuses it reeks of 'moving of goal posts' and cafeteria Christianity. Just because you hand wave it away and say 'it doesn't apply' doesn't stop that passage from existing, and giving the lesson of "Kill those who don't want me to reign over them'.

You are the one moving the goalpoasts by continuing to ignore the implications for modern believers in the very important words, "Bring them here and kill them in front of me." Do I need to repeat my explanation a third time in order for you to address it? Christ is not here, so how can we bring people to Him and kill them in front of Him? Since you insist on taking this parable literally, then why didn't Jesus and His disciples take it literally? Why didn't they obey this supposed command and slay His enemies before Him? The answer is obvious: They understood it to be parabolic. This alone destroys your argument.

Cafeteria Christianity? Why are you using pejoratives to describe your perception of my religion? Have I done this to you? Have I attacked your ostensibly conflicting position of simultaneously being an Atheist and a Jew, calling it Cafeteria Judaism? No, I haven't, because that is your business. So how about toning down the rhetoric, pal? I do not arbitrarily pick and choose what to believe.

Nope.. not moving the goal posts at all. The challenge was 'If you can show me where in the New Testament Jesus commands His followers to commit murder or condones the act of murder by His followers prior to His second coming, then you will have a point. '

Where is 'modern' in that?

And , it might not be 'arbitrarily pick and choose', but pick and choose you do never the less.

You reject much of the Mitzvahs in the Jewish scripture, and you are ignoring the implications of this parable. That is picking and choosing. Everyone does it, it is just that many KNOW they do it.

As for Judaism, well, one of the study methods is that you take a Torah or Talmud passage, and then surround the passage with commentary to go off into different directions or 'leafs' to come up with an interpretation that has personal meaning. It's very foundation is acknowledging the variety and personal meaning of interpretation.

I noticed other than trying to ignore the existence of that passage, dismissing it as a 'parable', you are unable to give any reasonable explanation for it, and show how it means other than what it says.

You are sidestepping here, Goat. I'll ask a fourth time: my original challenge was regarding how someone today could be a Christian and commit murder. I was then told that it all depends on how one interprets Scripture. I then issued the challenge for someone to produce a passage of Scripture where Jesus commands His followers to commit murder prior to His second coming. My refutation to the passage that you produced was that it could not apply to us, because He has to be present, and His second coming has not yet occurred. This challenge was all about modern believers finding Biblical justification to murder. You are attempting to alter the context of my challenge.

[gegraptai]

Sorry. Double post.

[Goat]

You are sidestepping here, Goat. I'll ask a fourth time: my original challenge was regarding how someone today could be a Christian and commit murder. I was then told that it all depends on how one interprets Scripture. I then issued the challenge for someone to produce a passage of Scripture where Jesus commands His followers to commit murder prior to His second coming. My refutation to the passage that you produced was that it could not apply to us, because He has to be present, and His second coming has not yet occurred. This challenge was all about modern believers finding Biblical justification to murder. You are attempting to alter the context of my challenge.

By following the scripture "Bring me my enemies before me, those who will not let me reign over them, and slay them"

Since it is a parable, in response to the question 'What must I do to get to heaven', it can very well be interpreted as 'Kill the unbeliever'.

So, for a Christian today to justify murder , all they have to do is follow the New Testament.