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?

[tam]

Peace to you all!

I've been away for a bit (family came and visited for the first time since Covid began), but while I did respond way back at the start of this thread (as far as I know that post did not garner a response), I just wanted to point something out about the following quote.

(I'm quoting Tcg, but others have made similar points, so Tcg just happens to be the latest post.)

Biblically sin is not inevitable and sinners do not have to be tolerated indefinitely.

The author of Romans disagrees with you:

Romans 3:10 as it is written:

“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.”

Please note the universal terms:

"None"

"not one"

"no one"

"All"

"not even one"

According to the Bible, sin is indeed inevitable.



Tcg

The same author also says this (Romans 2):

For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but it is the doers of the law who will be declared righteous. 14Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15So they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them...


And more important than that, from Christ (sheep and goats parable, Matt 25):

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’


It doesn't mean that those people never sinned, of course. (some have their sins covered over by the blood of Christ, and some have their sins covered by love; see Proverbs 4:8; 1Peter 4:8)

But just because no one was righteous (at the time the original author wrote that) does not mean that no one will ever be righteous, or be declared righteous. Same with sin. Just because all sin (now) does not mean that all will continue to sin. It is not logical to suggest otherwise, is it?




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

[Purple Knight]

As a kid I cured myself of thumb-sucking. But having shed a habit I was still me.

You cured yourself. The change, the desire to change, arose internally. If you were dragged kicking and screaming into a box where you were hit with a laser beam and came out no longer wanting to suck your thumb, I would have my doubts as to whether you were still you. See below.

If such an arena exists, I doubt everyone is allowed, who wants in. Seems as though some criteria need to be met, and many will not meet them? You can metaphorically wait at the door, but maybe you will not be let in.

I agree that not everybody will be let in, but the way I make sense of this canon, is that this is because not everyone wants in. Not everyone wants to change... genuinely. Most of us are the forever-abusive drunk always worming his way back into his spouse's good graces by promising to change, but... he doesn't mean it. When he says he want to do better, wants to change, he is lying. He may not even be fully aware he's lying and this is further complicated by the fact that some people may actually want to change and still fail to overcome their physical addiction.

But I digress, point is, this fellow lies when he says he wants to change. So if God takes him up on his false desire to be better, this is the fellow having tricked himself into the box with the laser beam. What comes out isn't him. The desire to be better didn't arise from within himself. He lied to a bunch of people and because of his lie, he got forcefully changed into another person.

But if he genuinely wants to change, maybe then, God can take him up on it, offer him a little boost, and it's still him because he's at least genuinely trying to get up the mountain on his own.

My interpretation of this is that to still be yourself, you can't be stripped of sin involuntarily, which is the point the topic makes and I agree. However, you do have to open up your fist and let go of sin, so it can be taken away.

Yes, and as I already stated, using the Bible, you really cannot prove any of it...

No you can't, but if you're seeking to disprove it, you have to look at the canon that is there.

Further still, you can read a seemingly axiomatic Verse, and another Christian, whom has had extensive study in hermeneutics, can tell you that your translation is wrong.

This is frankly a good point and something that bothers me as well. It can be so bad that there are fundamentally two almost diametrically opposed types of Christians. Jehovah's Witnesses and even Christian Identity are actually the reasonable type here, thinking that no, you don't have to let people do anything and everything to you and just be all zen and pacifist about it. JWs will kick you out if your behaviour is bad. CIs will give you a lecture about how turn-the-other-cheek means something completely different than what we think it means. Then there are the infinite forgiveness Christians, who say it is your obligation to let people walk all over you and simply forgive them because that's what Jesus wanted. Even if the latter is scriptural, the former is reasonable behaviour and the latter is simply insanity. And ultimately, we do have to ask ourselves about the worth of scriptures that two reasonable people can easily take completely diametrically opposite meanings from.

And I would well expect that of something that's been translated from Hebrew into Greek into English.

This is a case where Christians will say, well, part of the canon is that this is all God's word and God will make sure it came out clear on the other side. Except that this is an instance where their canon is making a statement about our reality, and we can check that, and no, it actually didn't. It didn't come out clear on the other side because there are so many different interpretations and if you look at them honestly, you will see how each person could come away with the meaning they've come away with.

Getting back on point, if God needs to change you, in some way, shape, or form, then just allow all in, right? Why? Because you will always be a sinner, and you will possess empathy for the unchosen who burn. Unless your argument is that there will be people in heaven who lie, steal, and cry for their unchosen loved ones? And if so, WHY call it Heaven?

My argument is none of this is actually lorebreaking or contradictory because:

1) Some of it can be explained by simply the gain of information. You learn more, you become more moral, and you stop sympathising with immoral people. We sympathise because we don't know. Our hearts go out to people who do evil perhaps because we're unsure it's evil. Imagine having ultimate moral knowledge dumped on you and all those suffering people become Hitler in your eyes. Yes, you stop giving a fish for them. I would bloody assume, anyway.

2) If God changes you involuntarily, against your will, then you're really not you any longer and he won't do that, but if you genuinely want the change, and you can't be lying about it or he'll know, and most people who say they want to be rid of their sins probably are lying, but if you really truly open up your stubborn fist and wish to let go of your sin, since the desire to change originated internally, you can still be you. There is no break in consciousness. A voluntarily changes to B. Not A wants to remain A and is destroyed and replaced with B.

3) No, I don't think people will lie and steal in Heaven. What are they going to steal? Ferraris? Diamonds? Money? Gold? What are they going to lie about if we all have infinite information? I actually think JW is mistaken on a minor point. Satan is called the deceiver but he deceives limited-information humans on the material plane. I don't think he lies to God or even to the other angels. Tries to persuade, sure. Outright lie? Well I don't see it. There won't be needs in Heaven so there will be just one reason for conflict: Ideological differences.

[brunumb]

My interpretation of this is that to still be yourself, you can't be stripped of sin involuntarily, which is the point the topic makes and I agree. However, you do have to open up your fist and let go of sin, so it can be taken away.

All of a sudden I became confused. How do you remove sin? If you have sinned, it is in your past and you can't undo that. What is there to remove? If it is your sin nature that will cause you to sin in the future, then surely your free will has to be violated in order to remove that. it's not like sin is a tangible thing. It's more a concept if anything.

[Purple Knight]

My interpretation of this is that to still be yourself, you can't be stripped of sin involuntarily, which is the point the topic makes and I agree. However, you do have to open up your fist and let go of sin, so it can be taken away.

All of a sudden I became confused. How do you remove sin? If you have sinned, it is in your past and you can't undo that. What is there to remove? If it is your sin nature that will cause you to sin in the future, then surely your free will has to be violated in order to remove that. it's not like sin is a tangible thing. It's more a concept if anything.

I've been holding on to the concept during this thread that "sin" in this context is the desire to sin. You can see this in my picture of the abusive drunk who constantly worms his way back into his spouse's graces by lying about wanting to change. His self in the now isn't sinful because he's currently drinking or because he drank in the past (information in the universe is not lost so we'd all be SOL then), but because he's still holding onto the want to drink. He's thinking to himself, on some level, "When can I get away with drinking again?" because he likes drinking and wants to continue doing so.

And as to the free will being violated, no. If you want it gone, no. I don't violate my own free will when I kick a habit. I don't violate my own free will when I have my bestie chain me to a radiator and not let me go, no matter how much I plead, until the next day. I asked for that. But if I'm dragged kicking and screaming into a box and hit with a laser beam that makes me not want to do it anymore? Well yes, that's a violation.

[JehovahsWitness]

Seems inevitable that we would, over the course of enough time, as did Adam and Eve.

As for whether sin is inevitable, the question has been settled by Jesus, who has existed both as a human and a spirit and lived a life without sin; that life being billions of years long. Biblically sin is not inevitable and sinners do not have to be tolerated indefinitely.

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

[brunumb]

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?

[TRANSPONDER]

As a kid I cured myself of thumb-sucking. But having shed a habit I was still me.

You cured yourself. The change, the desire to change, arose internally. If you were dragged kicking and screaming into a box where you were hit with a laser beam and came out no longer wanting to suck your thumb, I would have my doubts as to whether you were still you. See below.

If such an arena exists, I doubt everyone is allowed, who wants in. Seems as though some criteria need to be met, and many will not meet them? You can metaphorically wait at the door, but maybe you will not be let in.

I agree that not everybody will be let in, but the way I make sense of this canon, is that this is because not everyone wants in. Not everyone wants to change... genuinely. Most of us are the forever-abusive drunk always worming his way back into his spouse's good graces by promising to change, but... he doesn't mean it. When he says he want to do better, wants to change, he is lying. He may not even be fully aware he's lying and this is further complicated by the fact that some people may actually want to change and still fail to overcome their physical addiction.

But I digress, point is, this fellow lies when he says he wants to change. So if God takes him up on his false desire to be better, this is the fellow having tricked himself into the box with the laser beam. What comes out isn't him. The desire to be better didn't arise from within himself. He lied to a bunch of people and because of his lie, he got forcefully changed into another person.

But if he genuinely wants to change, maybe then, God can take him up on it, offer him a little boost, and it's still him because he's at least genuinely trying to get up the mountain on his own.

My interpretation of this is that to still be yourself, you can't be stripped of sin involuntarily, which is the point the topic makes and I agree. However, you do have to open up your fist and let go of sin, so it can be taken away.

Yes, and as I already stated, using the Bible, you really cannot prove any of it...

No you can't, but if you're seeking to disprove it, you have to look at the canon that is there.

Further still, you can read a seemingly axiomatic Verse, and another Christian, whom has had extensive study in hermeneutics, can tell you that your translation is wrong.

This is frankly a good point and something that bothers me as well. It can be so bad that there are fundamentally two almost diametrically opposed types of Christians. Jehovah's Witnesses and even Christian Identity are actually the reasonable type here, thinking that no, you don't have to let people do anything and everything to you and just be all zen and pacifist about it. JWs will kick you out if your behaviour is bad. CIs will give you a lecture about how turn-the-other-cheek means something completely different than what we think it means. Then there are the infinite forgiveness Christians, who say it is your obligation to let people walk all over you and simply forgive them because that's what Jesus wanted. Even if the latter is scriptural, the former is reasonable behaviour and the latter is simply insanity. And ultimately, we do have to ask ourselves about the worth of scriptures that two reasonable people can easily take completely diametrically opposite meanings from.

And I would well expect that of something that's been translated from Hebrew into Greek into English.

This is a case where Christians will say, well, part of the canon is that this is all God's word and God will make sure it came out clear on the other side. Except that this is an instance where their canon is making a statement about our reality, and we can check that, and no, it actually didn't. It didn't come out clear on the other side because there are so many different interpretations and if you look at them honestly, you will see how each person could come away with the meaning they've come away with.

Getting back on point, if God needs to change you, in some way, shape, or form, then just allow all in, right? Why? Because you will always be a sinner, and you will possess empathy for the unchosen who burn. Unless your argument is that there will be people in heaven who lie, steal, and cry for their unchosen loved ones? And if so, WHY call it Heaven?

My argument is none of this is actually lorebreaking or contradictory because:

1) Some of it can be explained by simply the gain of information. You learn more, you become more moral, and you stop sympathising with immoral people. We sympathise because we don't know. Our hearts go out to people who do evil perhaps because we're unsure it's evil. Imagine having ultimate moral knowledge dumped on you and all those suffering people become Hitler in your eyes. Yes, you stop giving a fish for them. I would bloody assume, anyway.

2) If God changes you involuntarily, against your will, then you're really not you any longer and he won't do that, but if you genuinely want the change, and you can't be lying about it or he'll know, and most people who say they want to be rid of their sins probably are lying, but if you really truly open up your stubborn fist and wish to let go of your sin, since the desire to change originated internally, you can still be you. There is no break in consciousness. A voluntarily changes to B. Not A wants to remain A and is destroyed and replaced with B.

3) No, I don't think people will lie and steal in Heaven. What are they going to steal? Ferraris? Diamonds? Money? Gold? What are they going to lie about if we all have infinite information? I actually think JW is mistaken on a minor point. Satan is called the deceiver but he deceives limited-information humans on the material plane. I don't think he lies to God or even to the other angels. Tries to persuade, sure. Outright lie? Well I don't see it. There won't be needs in Heaven so there will be just one reason for conflict: Ideological differences.

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 ufferring 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.

[JoeyKnothead]

We all gotta know what Miss tam has to allow...

Peace to you all!

And pizza for everybody!

I've been away for a bit (family came and visited for the first time since Covid began), but while I did respond way back at the start of this thread (as far as I know that post did not garner a response), I just wanted to point something out about the following quote.

Your absence was not authorized, however acceptable it may be. In the future you must message me a request for leave. This is a hard and fast rule, and will be strictly enforced.

But here's hoping the visit was a good'n, and that hugs and smiles and laughter ruled. And all necessary social distancings were distanced.

“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.

The same author also says this (Romans 2):
For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but it is the doers of the law who will be declared righteous. 14Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15So they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them...

I think this is the most reasonable and rational argument if we consider an all knowing god who loves his children, fallible though they may be.

And more important than that, from Christ (sheep and goats parable, Matt 25):
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

The problem here is that with parables, we're left to individual interpretationings...

It doesn't mean that those people never sinned, of course. (some have their sins covered over by the blood of Christ, and some have their sins covered by love; see Proverbs 4:8; 1Peter 4:8)
But just because no one was righteous (at the time the original author wrote that) does not mean that no one will ever be righteous, or be declared righteous. Same with sin. Just because all sin (now) does not mean that all will continue to sin. It is not logical to suggest otherwise, is it?

...but I do think you've got you the best of it.

In human fallibility, there must surely be a godly understanding that what's in one's heart is more important than what's in their comparatively minor failings.

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

Glad to see ya back, ma'am

Please report to HR with documentary evidence to defend yourself from your unexcused absence

[POI]

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.

Thank you for "trimming the fat" so eloquently! You appear to have pushed the conversation forward.

This was a point I was also trying to make a while back, in the midst of all the additional noise. Thus... For all the interested....

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. Such a God-provided change includes no longer sinning, and no longer mourning the unchosen loved ones burning in hell eternally. Follow up questions:

1. If you are no longer capable of sinning, and no longer capable of mourning, because it was God who has to change you, are you still you?

Or, if your position is that God applies no changes to you...

2. If God merely elects the willing, to change on their own, but He knows they will fall short on their own, does He let them in without any safeguards to the Heavenly realm in place?

Or, if your position is that Heaven is a place which allows mourning when you arrive there, then your position is objectively debunked (via Rev. 21).

I'll stop here for now...

[POI]

As a kid I cured myself of thumb-sucking. But having shed a habit I was still me.

You cured yourself. The change, the desire to change, arose internally. If you were dragged kicking and screaming into a box where you were hit with a laser beam and came out no longer wanting to suck your thumb, I would have my doubts as to whether you were still you. See below.

If such an arena exists, I doubt everyone is allowed, who wants in. Seems as though some criteria need to be met, and many will not meet them? You can metaphorically wait at the door, but maybe you will not be let in.

I agree that not everybody will be let in, but the way I make sense of this canon, is that this is because not everyone wants in. Not everyone wants to change... genuinely. Most of us are the forever-abusive drunk always worming his way back into his spouse's good graces by promising to change, but... he doesn't mean it. When he says he want to do better, wants to change, he is lying. He may not even be fully aware he's lying and this is further complicated by the fact that some people may actually want to change and still fail to overcome their physical addiction.

But I digress, point is, this fellow lies when he says he wants to change. So if God takes him up on his false desire to be better, this is the fellow having tricked himself into the box with the laser beam. What comes out isn't him. The desire to be better didn't arise from within himself. He lied to a bunch of people and because of his lie, he got forcefully changed into another person.

But if he genuinely wants to change, maybe then, God can take him up on it, offer him a little boost, and it's still him because he's at least genuinely trying to get up the mountain on his own.

My interpretation of this is that to still be yourself, you can't be stripped of sin involuntarily, which is the point the topic makes and I agree. However, you do have to open up your fist and let go of sin, so it can be taken away.

Yes, and as I already stated, using the Bible, you really cannot prove any of it...

No you can't, but if you're seeking to disprove it, you have to look at the canon that is there.

Further still, you can read a seemingly axiomatic Verse, and another Christian, whom has had extensive study in hermeneutics, can tell you that your translation is wrong.

This is frankly a good point and something that bothers me as well. It can be so bad that there are fundamentally two almost diametrically opposed types of Christians. Jehovah's Witnesses and even Christian Identity are actually the reasonable type here, thinking that no, you don't have to let people do anything and everything to you and just be all zen and pacifist about it. JWs will kick you out if your behaviour is bad. CIs will give you a lecture about how turn-the-other-cheek means something completely different than what we think it means. Then there are the infinite forgiveness Christians, who say it is your obligation to let people walk all over you and simply forgive them because that's what Jesus wanted. Even if the latter is scriptural, the former is reasonable behaviour and the latter is simply insanity. And ultimately, we do have to ask ourselves about the worth of scriptures that two reasonable people can easily take completely diametrically opposite meanings from.

And I would well expect that of something that's been translated from Hebrew into Greek into English.

This is a case where Christians will say, well, part of the canon is that this is all God's word and God will make sure it came out clear on the other side. Except that this is an instance where their canon is making a statement about our reality, and we can check that, and no, it actually didn't. It didn't come out clear on the other side because there are so many different interpretations and if you look at them honestly, you will see how each person could come away with the meaning they've come away with.

Getting back on point, if God needs to change you, in some way, shape, or form, then just allow all in, right? Why? Because you will always be a sinner, and you will possess empathy for the unchosen who burn. Unless your argument is that there will be people in heaven who lie, steal, and cry for their unchosen loved ones? And if so, WHY call it Heaven?

My argument is none of this is actually lorebreaking or contradictory because:

1) Some of it can be explained by simply the gain of information. You learn more, you become more moral, and you stop sympathising with immoral people. We sympathise because we don't know. Our hearts go out to people who do evil perhaps because we're unsure it's evil. Imagine having ultimate moral knowledge dumped on you and all those suffering people become Hitler in your eyes. Yes, you stop giving a fish for them. I would bloody assume, anyway.

2) If God changes you involuntarily, against your will, then you're really not you any longer and he won't do that, but if you genuinely want the change, and you can't be lying about it or he'll know, and most people who say they want to be rid of their sins probably are lying, but if you really truly open up your stubborn fist and wish to let go of your sin, since the desire to change originated internally, you can still be you. There is no break in consciousness. A voluntarily changes to B. Not A wants to remain A and is destroyed and replaced with B.

3) No, I don't think people will lie and steal in Heaven. What are they going to steal? Ferraris? Diamonds? Money? Gold? What are they going to lie about if we all have infinite information? I actually think JW is mistaken on a minor point. Satan is called the deceiver but he deceives limited-information humans on the material plane. I don't think he lies to God or even to the other angels. Tries to persuade, sure. Outright lie? Well I don't see it. There won't be needs in Heaven so there will be just one reason for conflict: Ideological differences.

I appreciate your response, and might reply later.?.? But, I have just submitted a follow-up to post #159. Based upon your position there, we may or may not even need to address any further in this particular conversation