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

[Darias]

It is a great Honor for me to have the opportunity to stand up for the truth of the God of Abraham and face hate and persecution for my Love of the Truth. I know the WORD of God will not be changed by men. I have eternal victory through the Messiah Immanuel.


Acts 5
40 And they agreed with him, and when they had called for the apostles and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. 41 So they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name.





All Praise The Ancient Of Days

What does this have to do with our debate? What hate have I sent your way? None.

Yet in all my debates with you, I've received less that loving words from you. I've ignored them up until this point because I didn't want to derail the thread. So far you've told me what I believe, told me what I hate and what I don't. You've tried to define me and tell me where to go. You called me a deceiver and a pied piper of death. But, I haven't said anything about it until now.

Then you claim that you're being persecuted and hated when someone disagrees with you?

You proclaimed first that beliefs that i hold are what caused the westboro baptist church, you where the very first person to throw mud and insinuate i was like them and indeed i was some kind of supporter. That was an back handed slap across the face. A great injustice to me. So don't come across as a poor little innocent victim. When you where the first one to start throwing mud.

Matthew 5
11 “Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

[center][font=Georgia]I will address your claims point by point. [/font][/center]

[font=Impact]Claim 1.[/font]

You proclaimed first that beliefs that i hold are what caused the westboro baptist church . . .

First, I would invite everyone to review the post to which Adstar is refering: Post 75, page 8 of this thread; created on Sun Jan 16, 2011 7:26 pm.

The second half of my post mentions Westboro Baptist Church, the notorious body that pickets funerals, etc. We all know who they are.

I will present an excerpt of my original post below. Now in order to demonstrate what context I was using when mentioning WBC, I will add emphasis to my points. I invite the debaters here to decide for themselves whether emphasis makes a difference, or whether my original point is clear -- at least I invite them to decide for themselves whether Adstar's claim is true or not.

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.

I think that the church, the real church, should try to be as least like this band of homophobic hate-mongers as possible.
_____
SOURCE

As you can clearly see, I did not address Adstar directly here. I did not say "Adstar's thinking." In fact, when I said "such thinking" I was referring to the points I made in the previous paragraph. I stand by these statements because they are true.

As per wiki:

The church runs numerous Web sites such as GodHatesFags.com, GodHatesAmerica.com and others expressing condemnation of homosexuality.

The group bases its work around the belief expressed by its best known slogan and the address of its primary Web site, God Hates Fags, asserting that every tragedy in the world is linked to homosexuality—specifically society's increasing tolerance and acceptance of the so-called homosexual agenda. The group maintains that God hates gays above all other kinds of "sinners"[57] and that homosexuality should be a capital crime.[58]
_____
SOURCE

I certainly do not maintain that Adstar believes gays deserve capital punishment or that they are hated by God. I don't now and I didn't when I first wrote that post.



[font=Impact]Claim 2.[/font]

. . . you where the very first person to throw mud. . . . So don't come across as a poor little innocent victim. When you where the first one to start throwing mud.

Long before the post on page 10, Adstar has repeatedly attacked my character instead of my arguments.

In Post 51, page 6, created Fri Jan 14, 2011 6:03 am, Adstar accuses me of slandering a biblical character for merely arguing the possibility that said person might have been gay; I do not think homosexuality is something shameful and I wouldn't consider it slanderous to ask a question.

But people bring forth despicable slander, false accusers shall one day be made to answer for their lies. Even slander to a man who died thousands of years ago. A beloved of God.
_____
SOURCE

In Post 179, page 18, created Fri Jan 21, 2011 8:56 pm, in a response to a video I posted to lighten the thread, Adstar used it as an opportunity to belittle my faith personally.

The figure representing the Christian in this verse is a smorgasbord Christian. The faith of such people almost inevitably falls away when someone confronts them with the more server action of God in the Bible.

Reminds me of you Darius. I'd say you where once like that christian.
_____
SOURCE

He does it again in Post 186, page 19, created Sat Jan 22, 2011 10:48 pm

As i said a smorgasboard christian.
_____
SOURCE

.

In Post 191, page 20, created on Sun Jan 23, 2011 5:23 am, Adstar effectively equivocates me with Satan simply because I quoted a few passages in the Bible that speak of rape as either a Divine order made by Moses, or as a direct result of God's wrath.

He never ordered any rape. Thats just an acusation of accusers of God. Like satan is.
_____
SOURCE

And there are other things Adstar has said which have been recently been recognized in this thread and I see no need to bring them up.


[font=Impact]Claim 3.[/font]

. . . you where the very first person to . . . insinuate i was like them and indeed i was some kind of supporter.

That is not evidenced whatsoever in my original post; that was certainly not my intent.

However, in Adstar's reply: Post 96, page 10 of this thread; created Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:31 pm, he didn't simply say that I was like WBC, he said that I, personally, was equally as bad as them:

And you are equal to the Westboro Baptist Church because you are on the other extreme. Your preaching that Homosexuality os ok and not sin is a sweet sounding eternal death sentence to anyone who believes it. Your a pied piper of death leading homosexuals to the Lake of Fire. The Westboro Baptist Church chant that "God Hates Fags" is just as toxic as the chant "Homosexuality is cool with God".
_____
SOURCE

In conclusion, not only are Adstar's claims unfounded, but it is clear that he has done the very things that he falsely accuses me of doing.

[gegraptai]

I fully agree. But the minute we say something like this, they hide behind the "No True Scotsman" accusation and dismiss it out of hand.

Wait for it...wait for it...here it comes.

Yeah, cause its a logical fallacy...

That's where you are wrong. It is not a logical fallacy to say that Jesus taught non-violence, and if a professing Christian attempts to distort Christianity and make it support murder and thus commit murder, then logically they are not a true Christian. The No True Scotsman fallacy simply does not apply as a blanket statement every single time someone uses the term, "true Christian."

That is my point.

The no true scotsman argument is a logical fallacy.

Yes, I know this. Please show me where I said the No True Scotsman argument wasn't a logical fallacy.

It is not a logical fallacy to say that Jesus taught non-violence, and if a professing Christian attempts to distort Christianity and make it support murder and thus commit murder, then logically they are not a true Christian.

This is just your own interpretation. The other person probably doesnt view you as a true christian either. So which perspective is right?

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.

[Board]

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.

I'll do you one better... Hows about you show me where anything written in the New Testament regarding Jesus can be taken as fact. (Or anything in it for that matter)

Guess what... you can't. You have your interpretation of what you feel the Christian religion is. You are no more right than any other person interpreting scripture. You can continue to claim all you want that no true Scotsman does not apply but it does. No matter how many times you claim it does not it STILL applies.

[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.'"

[Darias]

I would just like to reply to gegraptai here, because the other thread was closed. And what I wish to discuss relates perfectly to this thread.

Darias. I wasn't cheering because of the name-calling. I cheered because I find "pied piper of death" to be a perfectly fitting analogy. Here is why. If one takes the Bible literally, then homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God. You encourage homosexuals to continue in their sin unrepentant, telling them essentially that the Bible is wrong and Darias is right. If a homosexual was on the fence about this, then stumbled accross your many posts harmonizing homosexuality and Christianity, and they decided because of this validation that they would continue committing homosexual acts the rest of their life, thus forfeitting their salvation, then guess who would be partially accountable for this before God? You would. That is why it is a fitting analogy, and I cheered because Adstar had the guts to say what needed to be said. It wasn't because it was name-calling. That would be petty and childish, and I am neither.

It is not a loving act to lead people to eternal destruction, whether it is intentional or not. The loving comes into play when the truth is spoken, warning others that their actions are condemned. This love is concerned with eternal consequences rather than temporal pleasure.

If you didn't claim to be a Christian, your words would be harmless. But since you do claim to be a Christian, it is my firm belief that your words have the potential to lead many to destruction. And that makes you dangerous.
_____
SOURCE

1.) The "Pied Piper" analogy was simply a way of saying "you're going to hell and you're willingly taking others with you."

It was made in the attempts to shut down an argument. It was made because Adstar either refused or could not provide a sufficient rebuttal to my many points regarding orientation in relation to other "sins" including having women uncovered and speaking in church. The NT clearly says that all sins are equally punishable, except for blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (exactly what that entails is for another debate; I don't have time to discuss it here). Given this fact, I find it un-Biblical, never mind unreasonable, to suggest that gay people are going to hell, either because they are in a relationship or because they have feelings for the same sex which cannot be ignored or suppressed.

I find it un-Biblical to claim that this is the worst of all sins, or that it can void God's grace and Christ's blood, thus damning one's soul.

While by fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible, homosexual sex is a sin, I find it perplexing as to why so many Christians love to condemn it specifically, whilst allowing their women to sing/preach/testify/speak in church, dress as skimpy/glamorously as they please in church, and wear their hair as short as they want it in church. All those things being a clear violation of Paul's command for all the churches of the saints -- one of many commands that Paul claimed came from God himself.

Yet, apologists claim that this was just cultural, and or temporary for that time; they shout Context Context, and claim that Paul was just speaking his mind/ it was just a cultural custom at that time. The same argument is used when Paul speaks well of slavery/refuses to condemn it/declares that a good master|slave relationship was a good witnessing tool for Christianity.

Not many Christians today are accepting those commands and words, as is, much less treating them as if they were God's holy utterances.

But, when it comes to homosexuality -- context no longer becomes an issue. The fact that Paul or Moses were the authors of their books matters not -- for it was God who "spoke through them." It doesn't matter what time or place. Christians will often quote key phrases in the OT whenever it refers to homosexuality, but never will they treat the other laws in an equal light. They will quote English translations of Paul condemning it -- direct quotes. Yet they don't care about the fact that the sexual behavior he was condemning was either prostitutional pedophilia or orgies within churches themselves. Those facts become irrelevant. All of a sudden context doesn't matter anymore; for these are "God's perfect words."

And that is hypocritical. If homosexuality, either the relationship or orientation, is a damnable lifestyle, then how is uncovered, sexily dressed, talkative, short haired females in church not an unrepentant lifestyle? How is that any less worthy of damnation than homosexuality?

I submit to you again, that the acceptance of both are cultural issues. They are not soul issues. They are not salvation issues.

To say otherwise, to hold fast to the claim that "gays will burn but we won't, our lifestyles aren't sinful at all." This is not only unBiblical, it's a double standard by even fundamentalist standards. This is all very subjective.

The reason why many condemn homosexuality today is because it has long been viewed by many cultures as taboo, mainly because it wasn't understood, etc.

Using the Bible to support the inequality and unfair treatment of gays is wrong because that same text is not adhered to when it comes to other commands.

And it is obvious to me that some in the church have giant telephone poles in their eyes, running around condemning to hell everyone who has an eyelash in theirs.


2.) In light of that, the analogy is absurd. It assumes that I'm leading people to hell because I've got a pretty solid, reasonable argument against a traditional doctrinal assumption.

Many may view the Bible as infallible and inpsired and inerrant, but know this -- interpretation of the Bible is none of those things, and doctrine is just an assemblage of interpretations.


3.) I am a Christian. I am not ashamed of it. If I'm "dangerous" because I have a good argument and you have nothing but a bucket of ad hominems, then so be it.

If you have strong beliefs regarding this issue, that's fine, but don't be surprised if people don't accept those doctrinal assumptions, especially when they are indefensible.

[JoeyKnothead]

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.'"

LOL

I've come to think Goat will tear apart any argument if you'll just offer him a text to examine.

(edit for clarity)

[gegraptai]

I would just like to reply to gegraptai here, because the other thread was closed. And what I wish to discuss relates perfectly to this thread.

Yes, I'm sure you do feel C&A is the perfect subforum in which to discuss matters of theology. Of course you do. But I'm not going to do it. My point was solely regarding Adstar's pied piper comment. It would be absolutely pointless for me to engage in a debate with you over matters of theology, as you disparage the Bible every chance you get. If you believed the Bible to be God-breathed, then we would have a common footing on which to begin a fruitful debate, but you don't, so we can't. You and I have absolutely zero common ground.

I find it incredulous that you would bring my post into this thread where it can be deliberated amongst unbelievers.

Have fun with that.

[Darias]

I would just like to reply to gegraptai here, because the other thread was closed. And what I wish to discuss relates perfectly to this thread.

Yes, I'm sure you do feel C&A is the perfect subforum in which to discuss matters of theology. Of course you do. But I'm not going to do it. My point was solely regarding Adstar's pied piper comment. It would be absolutely pointless for me to engage in a debate with you over matters of theology, as you disparage the Bible every chance you get. If you believed the Bible to be God-breathed, then we would have a common footing on which to begin a fruitful debate, but you don't, so we can't. You and I have absolutely zero common ground.

I find it incredulous that you would bring my post into this thread where it can be deliberated amongst unbelievers.

Have fun with that.

1.) I didn't realize your post was in the Holy Huddle sub-forum. I only posted here because the thread was closed there, and this is particular thread is the thread where Adstar's comments originated, and where we have debated about homosexuality. I wasn't thinking the sub-forum as an issue, I just wanted to reply to your post.

2.) You do realize that anyone can read what is posted in any forum? So it's not like you should be embarrassed by your remarks here, because people already saw them in the other forum.

3.) My arguments regarding homosexuality are made using the reasoning of Biblical inerrancy. I use Biblical passages to illustrate clearly how things Christians are doing today are against the commands of the Bible, by the same standards which you condemn homosexuality.

There's a big difference between that kind of argument and your characterization of my argument, which looks like this: "Homosexuality is okay and the Bible is wrong, cause Darias says so."

4.) By "disparage" do you mean contextualize and critically examine? Of course I use satire sometimes, but how is viewing the Bible as not "God-breathed" disparaging?

5.) You are basically saying that because we don't agree, we can't have a fruitful debate. If we agreed, we'd have no reason to debate now would we? Debate is about two different points of view about a topic being discussed. If you would like, we can start a debate in the Holy Huddle sub-forum, to discuss the "sin" of homosexuality. I will only go there to debate; that means that there must be a civil argument. I will not join so I can be personally attacked, whilst you "cheer" with joy.

[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?

[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.