You Are No Longer You!

[POI]

If God selects you into His Kingdom of Heaven, you are no longer you. Why?

1) You will no longer sin in Heaven, as Heaven is a sinless environment. Hence, you must have a portion of your freewill stripped from you (in some capacity).
2) You will not mourn for any of your loved ones, which do not also make it into Heaven; as Heaven has no mourning, as it is Heaven after all.

Which begs a follow up question....

Whoever God chooses, He must change, in preparation for such a divine space/arena. Humans are deemed perpetual sinners. Thus, if God must change all, for whom He elects, why not just allow ALL into Heaven?

[Zerilos]

Is Jesus capable of sinning?

Biblically sin is breaking Gods law or principles; all free moral agents are capable of sinning so, yes Jesus is capable of sinning.

JW

So, we have no reason to believe that Jesus is still in heaven. He could have sinned by now.

[Tcg]

Is Jesus capable of sinning?

Biblically sin is breaking Gods law or principles; all free moral agents are capable of sinning so, yes Jesus is capable of sinning.

JW

So, we have no reason to believe that Jesus is still in heaven. He could have sinned by now.

That's a very good point. And if God is considered a free moral agent then he too might have sinned by now. Heaven could be a very empty place.


Tcg

[Purple Knight]

I've been holding on to the concept during this thread that "sin" in this context is the desire to sin.

If sin nature can be removed, and people are willing to have it removed, why won't God make the world a better place by doing it now?

Precisely because if sin nature was removed by force, you really would no longer be you. God won't drag you kicking and screaming into a box where you're hit with a laser beam and utterly changed on a fundamental level forever.

I admit this is a lot of me doing reverse-nitpicking on the Biblical canon, but to me this is the only way it makes sense, and the identity issue this thread brings up is very real, and it is the reason you have to change yourself, or at least, take the first steps yourself.

Yes. I agree that I was the one who wanted to change. But that doesn't make it different from wanting to be changed so as to get into heaven. Imagine wanting to get into a playground group that will not accept thumb -suckers and if you aren't in it you get worked over in the schoolyard every day (metaphor of heaven and hell) and the boss of the school gang offers a cure for thumb -sucking. You'll take it, won't you? That's not the point. The point is whether making you totally sinlesss and able to live in heaven forever without concern about those suffering on earth and in hell could only be done by removing everything that is you and leaving you a mindless bubble of bliss. That's the question.

As I told Brunumb, I'm basically trying to fit the pieces together so they make a logical puzzle. So I wonder about the motivation issue, because your metaphor is particularly good. One thing I will say is that I don't see all sins as equal, and I don't see as how adulterers or thumb-suckers ought to be stuck with murderers, rapists, or the physically violent. Let adulterers be stuck with other adulterers and if that becomes Hell, because everyone is always feeling betrayed because nobody bothers not to cheat, well, they've no one to blame but themselves.

I don't think just wanting to get into Heaven to be away from other people hurting you is a good enough motivation. An animal can do that. If being human is being better than that, and you take a pill to make you stop sinning not because you want to stop, but because you're trying to get into the club, that probably doesn't count. I'm not sure about this but I also take this stance because the opposite stance, that you can just be after the reward, is not compatible with very few people getting into Heaven.

But I did already surmise that if the desire to change arises internally, then it's still you, so I have to think on this more.

A willing participant genuinely wants to change. However, God states that even the completely willing will fall short on their own. Thus, it seems the change must come from God to change you, beyond your own willingness to change. Meaning, you want to change, but your own efforts will not be enough. You are still a sinner. Moving forward, God selects the ones for which He deems fit.

So as I told the other, I'm trying to fit this puzzle together so it works. The only way I can make it work is that you want the change, but you can't do it yourself, so you ask for help, really actually super-duper genuinely wanting it, and then you get a boost, and it still counts as you doing it. We all get boosts. I'm getting a boost from a computer, without which I could not write this post. But it's still me writing it, ne?

[tam]

Peace to you Joey!

I am duly reprimanded for unsanctioned time away ; )

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #158]

“None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands; no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”

This implies Jesus didn't do a good.

Neither the quote from Paul in Romans or the original scriptures that his quotes are taken from (Psalms, etc) are speaking of Christ. Obviously Paul is not referring to Christ.

A - Christ is the Righteous One.

B - Christ did not turn away from God, does understand (Him being the Truth and all), certainly is not worthless since His life was worth enough to ransom all life back from Death. His life for our lives. Life for life.

The rest of the quote was as follows:

13
“Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”[c]
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”[d]
14
“Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”[e]

Christ is the Truth and spoke only truth. (I am the Way, the Truth and the Life) This cannot be referring to Him. Some people might want to (erroneously) disagree with that, but Paul, who wrote Romans, would not have been referring to Christ.

15
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16
ruin and misery mark their ways,

Christ shed no blood (only His own blood was willingly shed), and He even healed others even from their injuries and sicknesses.

17
and the way of peace they do not know.”[f]
18
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”[g]

Likewise with the above, these cannot be referring to Christ. Christ leaves us His peace (real peace), not peace as the world gives it (which is not true peace), but peace from Him, peace that is based on truth.


So... these verses are not referring to Christ.



Peace again to you!
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[JehovahsWitness]

Is Jesus capable of sinning?

Biblically sin is breaking Gods law or principles; all free moral agents are capable of sinning so, yes Jesus is capable of sinning.

JW

So, we have no reason to believe that Jesus is still in heaven. He could have sinned by now.

The information in the bible is seen by many millions as reason to believe things. Biblically Jesus is spoken of as being in heaven at Gods right hand side up to this our present age and he is prophecied as being loyal to God up to a thousand years future from now. Scripturally then we have every reason to believe not only that Jesus has not sinned by now, but that he never will.




JW

[Tcg]

The information in the bible is seen by many millions as reason to believe things.
JW

We see this argument time and time again. It is of course a fallacy




Not surprisingly, some individuals and some groups rely on it given that they can't provide verifiable evidence that their claims are valid.


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

We see this argument time and time again. It is of course a fallacy


Tcg

You may see it a lot but you have not seen it in my post since I never make them. I made a statement of fact:

The information in the bible is seen by many millions as reason to believe things...

It would only be a fallacy (argumentum ad populum) if I were to suggest it is TRUE because it is a popular position. I did not do so.

- many people think Julia Roberts is pretty (statement of fact)
- many people think Julia Roberts is pretty ... so it must be TRUE (argumentum ad populum)

You're welcome.





JW

FALLACIES
https://www.informationisbeautiful.net/ ... fallacies/



RELATED POSTS

What is "argumentum ad populum"?
viewtopic.php?p=1048524#p1048524

What is Ad hoc fallacy?
viewtopic.php?p=1058581#p1058581

What is Ad hominem?
viewtopic.php?p=1068290#p1068290

What is circular reasoning [begging the question]?
viewtopic.php?p=1027604#p1027604

What is the fallacy of equivocation [first & last] ?
viewtopic.php?p=1020274#p1020274

What is the fallacy of special pleading ?
viewtopic.php?p=1072425#p1072425

What is the fallacy of the consequent?
viewtopic.php?p=1073114#p1073114

What is the fallacy of "false equivalence"?
viewtopic.php?p=1074577#p1074577

What is the fallacy of composition [true christian]?
viewtopic.php?p=1026784#p1026784

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

LOGIC , FALLACIES and ... EVIDENCE

[Tcg]

No it is a statement of fact. It would only be a fallacy if I were to suggest it is TRUE because it is a popular position. I did not say so.

Of course it is not a statement of fact. You did indeed imply that it was true based on the number of people who believe it. Why else would you have stated that millions believe it?




Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

You did indeed imply that it was true based on the number of people who believe it. Why else would you have stated that millions believe it?

Because I often like to include relevant factual information in my posts. If I wanted readers to conclude it is true because of this fact I would have said so; I did not.

Your assumptions are your own and I take no ownership of them,


JW

[Tcg]

Because I often like to include relevant factual information in my posts.
JW

The only way the claims stated here would be "relevant factual information" is if one considered an Ad Populum argument valid.


Tcg