Are all sins equal?

[bluethread]

Given the events of the last year is it wrong to condemn all lawless violence, and acceptable to permit some forms of lawless violence while viewing other forms of lawless violence as absolutely unacceptable to the exclusion of all other forms of lawless violence?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 20 by ttruscott]

And if that person changes his mind? The verses suggest that he will still be damned even if he repent.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 20 by ttruscott]

And if that person changes his mind? The verses suggest that he will still be damned even if he repent.

In post #20 I wrote: It is the sin that creates the choosers character, his nature, as eternally sinful, not because it is the worst sin but because it rejects YHWH for being a force of evil, the creator of evil and motivated by evil...which separates the chooser from HIS mercy and grace and from HIS promise of salvation for all sin.

What is there about the words eternally sinful that suggests I believe they can ever repent? To me that is asking me to discuss an utterly fallacious fantasy like what if gravity quit working or what if all men became women and all women became men in the same instant!

The GOD who is the embodiment of righteous loving holiness could not eternally damn anyone who can repent. Period. If they are not eternally sinful and can repent, then HE will do whatever is necessary to help them to repent. Hell itself proves that they cannot be saved from judgement; either by saving themselves or by accepting HIS help to become righteous. Hell proves that their choice put them outside of HIS mercy and loving kindness for eternity by their own free will decision. That is the only way hell can exist given GOD's attributes of loving kindness.

[Bust Nak]

What is there about the words eternally sinful that suggests I believe they can ever repent?

I never saw them as related in the first place. Eternally sinful implies it can never be undone, that doesn't stop one from repenting, it just mean repenting is useless. Think of a criminal who is showing remorse, that doesn't necessarily mean his sentence would be lessened, especially if the crime is serious enough.

The GOD who is the embodiment of righteous loving holiness could not eternally damn anyone who can repent. Period. If they are not eternally sinful and can repent, then HE will do whatever is necessary to help them to repent...

You know my usual reply to that by now. Your thesis doesn't gel with omnipotence, nor does it deal with our sense of self preservation, who, upon realizing the actual consequence of rejecting God, would not put his pride aside? Let me suggest there are very few.

[ttruscott]

The GOD who is the embodiment of righteous loving holiness could not eternally damn anyone who can repent. Period. If they are not eternally sinful and can repent, then HE will do whatever is necessary to help them to repent...

You know my usual reply to that by now. Your thesis doesn't gel with omnipotence, nor does it deal with our sense of self preservation, who, upon realizing the actual consequence of rejecting God, would not put his pride aside? Let me suggest there are very few.

You contend for the omnipotence of GOD but refuse to allow HIM to be a person who holds the free will decisions of HIS creation as sacrosanct. HIS omnipotence does not allow HIM to lie. HIS omnipotence does not allow HIM to break a promise. HIS moral nature rules HIM, not HIS power.

The elect showed great presence of mind in their self preservation by choosing to accept HIS offer of salvation THEN rebelling against HIM. And it is exactly the lack of self preservation found in the Satanic decision that suggests to me the incorrigible commitment to antipathy to YHWH and to their rejection of HIM as very powerful.


As for post rebellion when they realized the actual consequence of rejecting God, you ask "would not [he] put his pride aside"? ignoring the Christian definition of sin as enslaving and addictive so once a person choses to be evil, he cannot break his own addiction to it by himself. This was the great warning of YHWH, not hell, but the eternal nature of the sinner as evil if he is not under the promise of salvation by GOD.

You say it is illogical to not turn away from destruction; I claim the bible supports evil as an unbreakable addiction. Even the far lesser addictive nature of dope kills people who know the danger but can't stop.

[Bust Nak]

You contend for the omnipotence of GOD but refuse to allow HIM to be a person who holds the free will decisions of HIS creation as sacrosanct. HIS omnipotence does not allow HIM to lie. HIS omnipotence does not allow HIM to break a promise. HIS moral nature rules HIM, not HIS power.

You know my usual response to that charge too: I am allowing God to be a person who holds the free will decisions of HIS creation as sacrosanct. I have consistently maintained that God can convince us 100% of his godhood without trampling over our freewill, without lying, without breaking a promise, i.e. without negatively impacting on his goal of heavenly marriage.

The elect showed great presence of mind in their self preservation by choosing to accept HIS offer of salvation THEN rebelling against HIM. And it is exactly the lack of self preservation found in the Satanic decision that suggests to me the incorrigible commitment to antipathy to YHWH and to their rejection of HIM as very powerful.

Right, what of everyone else? I believe you said all were equal at the point of creation, all were innocent in their nature, a decision then changed their nature, but why did they make the incorrect decision?

As for post rebellion when they realized the actual consequence of rejecting God, you ask "would not [he] put his pride aside"? ignoring the Christian definition of sin as enslaving and addictive so once a person choses to be evil, he cannot break his own addiction to it by himself. This was the great warning of YHWH, not hell, but the eternal nature of the sinner as evil if he is not under the promise of salvation by GOD.

You say it is illogical to not turn away from destruction; I claim the bible supports evil as an unbreakable addiction. Even the far lesser addictive nature of dope kills people who know the danger but can't stop.

That's why God would have made it obvious from the beginning before there is any addiction, and hence my continual objection against your theory re: omnipotence.

[ttruscott]

I believe you said all were equal at the point of creation, all were innocent in their nature, a decision then changed their nature, but why did they make the incorrect decision?

I do not remember having discussed this with them... Does the fact I don't know implied they did not have a reason? Or could not have had a reason?

[ttruscott]

...You say it is illogical to not turn away from destruction; I claim the bible supports evil as an unbreakable addiction. Even the far lesser addictive nature of dope kills people who know the danger but can't stop.

That's why God would have made it obvious from the beginning before there is any addiction, and hence my continual objection against your theory re: omnipotence.

So back to before their choice... At no time did HIS omnipotence give HIM the power to force their wills and yet still reap the benefits of giving them a free will, the ability to have a true loving marriage... HE is not a GOD of logical contradictions and no, HE cannot make a rock HE can't lift nor a square circle either.

IF HE forced them, then they have no free will and there can be no true love nor any true marriage. You have expressed your admiration of that state of coerced goodness in favour of no free will so there would be no evil and no suffering before and I reject no free will as not better nor is it HIS reality or evil could not be found.

So, IF before they all chose HE gave any proof of HIS deity or the certainty of hell, this proof would have coerced our decisions and forced us to side for HIM but in a meaningless way as it would not be our own free choice. But in keeping with HIS revealed attributes HE would have given us all the possible knowledge and warnings HE could, short of coercing our choices. Therefore in keeping with HIS chosen method of filling heaven with those who wanted to be there and to be HIS Bride by their free will, HE could not have proven their bad choice obviously as bad (as you suggest) or they would be coerced, not free.

[Bust Nak]

I do not remember having discussed this with them... Does the fact I don't know implied they did not have a reason? Or could not have had a reason?

No, the fact that you don't know does not imply that. However the assumption that they were created equally innocent and given all possible information required to make an informed decision, does imply they could not have had a reason. It is random who is elected and is not.

So back to before their choice... At no time did HIS omnipotence give HIM the power to force their wills and yet still reap the benefits of giving them a free will, the ability to have a true loving marriage... HE is not a GOD of logical contradictions and no, HE cannot make a rock HE can't lift nor a square circle either.

Granted. The problem is God had no need to force their wills and still reap the benefits of giving them a free will, the ability to have a true loving marriage... without a single non-elected. 100% success rate is not a logical contradictions and no, and does not requires making a rock HE can't lift nor a square circle either.

IF HE forced them, then they have no free will and there can be no true love nor any true marriage.

Yes, that's moot since God does not need to force anyone and still get 100% success.

You have expressed your admiration of that state of coerced goodness in favour of no free will so there would be no evil and no suffering before and I reject no free will as not better nor is it HIS reality or evil could not be found.

That's another point of discussion and would be entirely moot if God had no need to coerce goodness. This was presented as an alternate scenario that's still better than people going to hell.

So, IF before they all chose HE gave any proof of HIS deity or the certainty of hell, this proof would have coerced our decisions and forced us to side for HIM but in a meaningless way as it would not be our own free choice.

That is where I disagree strongly.

1) Hell is not presented as a threat but a warning. Coerce is defined as persuading an unwilling person to do something by using force or threats. "Don't play with fire or you'll get burn" is very different to "don't play with fire or I will burn you."

2) There are people who is certain of God's deity and still choose to reject him, they would grudgingly face hell rather than submit to God. This alone is enough to refute that certainty would force people to side with God.

But in keeping with HIS revealed attributes HE would have given us all the possible knowledge and warnings HE could, short of coercing our choices. Therefore in keeping with HIS chosen method of filling heaven with those who wanted to be there and to be HIS Bride by their free will, HE could not have proven their bad choice obviously as bad (as you suggest) or they would be coerced, not free.

A side note that's related to the first point rather than my main point here. We supposedly were all created equal, and given all possible knowledge and warning. i.e. all things were equal yet people choose differently, which just goes to prove my first point, it is random who is elected and who is not.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by bluethread]

I would condemn all forms of lawless violence. I also condemn the man who incites violence in his followers against peaceful protest, who brags about committing violence against women and who calls the KKK and neo-nazis fine people. The most dishonest president ever, who falsely claims that there has been violence on both sides.

The Presidential honoesty question aside, do you think Antifah is a peaceful organization?

[ttruscott]

I do not remember having discussed this with them... Does the fact I don't know implied they did not have a reason? Or could not have had a reason?

No, the fact that you don't know does not imply that. However the assumption that they were created equally innocent and given all possible information required to make an informed decision, does imply they could not have had a reason. It is random who is elected and is not.

People being created with an equal ability and opportunity to chose to accept GOD or to reject HIM does not necessarily mean any differences in choice must be due to randomness and not preference unless our lives were also perfectly equal which is not yet proven.

So back to before their choice... At no time did HIS omnipotence give HIM the power to force their wills and yet still reap the benefits of giving them a free will, the ability to have a true loving marriage... HE is not a GOD of logical contradictions and no, HE cannot make a rock HE can't lift nor a square circle either.

Granted. The problem is God had no need to force their wills and still reap the benefits of giving them a free will, the ability to have a true loving marriage... without a single non-elected. 100% success rate is not a logical contradictions and no, and does not requires making a rock HE can't lift nor a square circle either.

Yes, this is my contention. 100% success rate is possible without any logical contradiction.