Whenever someone condones evil, how can you sit idly by and say you are in approval of such an evil? For example: If someone told you that they raped and murdered and they thought it was okay and justified, would you not condemn their actions and tell them it is wrong? How is it any different if someone tells me that they think it is okay that God's Word approves of people continuing in their sin? Is God unrighteous? Did Jesus really mean what he said when he told the woman caught in the act of adultery to..."sin no more"? If I tell you to stop hitting my arm no more.... what does that mean to you? Does that mean you can keep hitting my arm? When a girl tells a man to stop advancing upon her sexually, does that mean the opposite of what she says? Why is it any different in what Jesus said when he said for the woman caught in the act of adultery to sin no more? What did Jesus say to the invalid man (who was crippled) after he healed him? Behold, you are made whole: "sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto you." Does it sound like there is a consequence to his sin if he continued to keep sinning? You betcha. It sure sounds like that. But you are saying he can keep on sinning? Yet, Jesus said, sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto you. Do you believe Ananais and Sapphirra were saved for lying against the Spirit? I know you think it is was blasphemy. But it really isn't. Blasphemy is speaking bad against the Spirit or God specifically. Lying before God is not blasphemy. It's called lying. For all sin is ultimatley done towards God (Psalm 51:4) (Genesis 20:6). God condemned them both physically and spiritually because He found their lie to be especially heinous and wicked. But my point is that God does not approve of a person continuing in sin. He cannot make an allowance for it because He is holy, just, good, and is not capable of it. For the moment we say God gives us permission to keep on sinning is the moment we drag God down to our sickening level of depravity. I believe such a thing is clearly wrong for those who want to see it; And just like murder, it IS a moral issue that I have a right by God's Word and in my good conscience with the Spirit to condemn such evil.
If you believe in OSAS, please answer a few questions for me.
- Thread starter Jason0047
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Well, first, I find it disrespectful when people use the word "dude" with people they do not know. For one would not say "dude" to someone they desired to be hired by a man who was going to employ them and one would not say "dude" to the father of their girlfriend (That they met for the first time). Second, an opportunity to spread the gospel is an opportunity to spread the gospel (Whereby other people besides myself can read it). But does he care about that? I know I sure do.
Last edited:
First, I am only one person and can only answer so many people at one time. So sometimes I miss people's posts or do not get time to reply to them all. If you feel I have ignored something, then I would be happy to address it. Just give me time to answer it (if there is a lot of points).
Second, condescending is not in disagreeing with a topic and thinking it does not make sense. Condescending is when a person clearly shows that one person is highly superior by putting down another personally. When one thinks that they are awesome and everybody else is pond scum. Condescending is when one uses a lot of fancy words (instead of using the plainless of speech that Paul talked about). Condescending is making a person feel like absolute dirt. It has nothing to do with disagreeing on a topic or expressing how a particular belief is wrong. It is involving the person on a personal level so as to push them down in the mud so that you can laugh at them. Condescending is saying "Look Jimmy." "I remember when I was young and dumb." "It's okay." "But it would be advantageous of you to be quiet and let the big boys talk for a while." "You are out of your element son."
That is an example of condescending; And I never did anything like that.
Second, condescending is not in disagreeing with a topic and thinking it does not make sense. Condescending is when a person clearly shows that one person is highly superior by putting down another personally. When one thinks that they are awesome and everybody else is pond scum. Condescending is when one uses a lot of fancy words (instead of using the plainless of speech that Paul talked about). Condescending is making a person feel like absolute dirt. It has nothing to do with disagreeing on a topic or expressing how a particular belief is wrong. It is involving the person on a personal level so as to push them down in the mud so that you can laugh at them. Condescending is saying "Look Jimmy." "I remember when I was young and dumb." "It's okay." "But it would be advantageous of you to be quiet and let the big boys talk for a while." "You are out of your element son."
That is an example of condescending; And I never did anything like that.
Last edited:
E
he is the master of diverting from the meat of anyone question, and going off on these little side streets. Maybe it makes him feel good about his beliefs or better about himself if he does this? I do not get it.
Anyone knows. a person does not have to have a DESIRE to have an ADDICTION. All he has just done is not only prove what a deciever he is (you call it trolling) but again, how little he really knows about things.
W
Thanks for the definition and example of "condescending", though it was unnecessary, as I already understand what it means to condescend.
I find it condescending, to assume that I do not, or that I do not have the ability to look up the word - or that I misunderstand what it means to condescend someone with speech. But, at this point, it will do no one any good to argue as to whether or not you are condescending. For if someone argues that they perceived you to be condescending - you will argue that their perception is misguided.
I just wish I could truly know whether you are a genuinely sincere person, or whether you are willingly daft. I'm leaning towards the latter, in my personal assessment.
I find it condescending, to assume that I do not, or that I do not have the ability to look up the word - or that I misunderstand what it means to condescend someone with speech. But, at this point, it will do no one any good to argue as to whether or not you are condescending. For if someone argues that they perceived you to be condescending - you will argue that their perception is misguided.
I just wish I could truly know whether you are a genuinely sincere person, or whether you are willingly daft. I'm leaning towards the latter, in my personal assessment.
If nothing is impossible with God then you should be able to stop sinning by Him working in you, no? Did not Jesus say these words in repy to his disciples saying, "Who then can be saved?" in relation to it being easier for a camel to go thru the eye of a needle then for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God? For the disciples were thinking that it almost sounded impossible to be saved by what Christ said here. But Jesus said, with God nothing is impossible. Meaning, God will change the person from the inside and help them to walk in His good ways (even the desire in wanting to be rich). This is what Ezekiel 36:26-27 says. It essentially says God will give you a new heart and a new spirit and God will place His Spirit wihin you so as to cause you to walk in His laws and statutes.
As for 1 Corinthians 6: Totally out of context. It is not talking about sin in general being permissable to believers. If that was the case, then Paul would be contradicting himself because he says in Romans 6 that is forbidden for us to continue in sin so that grace may abound. 1 Corinthians 6:12 is dealing with court law justice as all things being permissiable (See 1 Corinthians 6:1). This is obvious when he says in verse 12 that he will not be brought under the power of any. Meaning, he will not be brought under the power of unbelievers to judge matters of court law when the disputes can be resolved between just the brethren. This is what the chapter is primarily talking about. But Paul wants to clarify that there are sins that are not acceptable or permissable, though. He speaks about how defrauding your brethren is wrong. Lawful? Yes. But if one indulges in minor sins, it can lead to bigger sins that do lead unto spiritual death. For it's why Paul says (in the same chapter), "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."
Did you catch that? Paul lists these sins and then says.... "And such WERE some of you." Meaning, they used to be that way, but they are not that way anymore.
Also, Paul says..... BE NOT DECEIVED. Deceived about what? That the unrighteous will inherit the Kingdom of God (i.e. those type of people who commit those sins that he had listed will not enter God's Kingdom).
As for 1 Corinthians 6: Totally out of context. It is not talking about sin in general being permissable to believers. If that was the case, then Paul would be contradicting himself because he says in Romans 6 that is forbidden for us to continue in sin so that grace may abound. 1 Corinthians 6:12 is dealing with court law justice as all things being permissiable (See 1 Corinthians 6:1). This is obvious when he says in verse 12 that he will not be brought under the power of any. Meaning, he will not be brought under the power of unbelievers to judge matters of court law when the disputes can be resolved between just the brethren. This is what the chapter is primarily talking about. But Paul wants to clarify that there are sins that are not acceptable or permissable, though. He speaks about how defrauding your brethren is wrong. Lawful? Yes. But if one indulges in minor sins, it can lead to bigger sins that do lead unto spiritual death. For it's why Paul says (in the same chapter), "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."
Did you catch that? Paul lists these sins and then says.... "And such WERE some of you." Meaning, they used to be that way, but they are not that way anymore.
Also, Paul says..... BE NOT DECEIVED. Deceived about what? That the unrighteous will inherit the Kingdom of God (i.e. those type of people who commit those sins that he had listed will not enter God's Kingdom).
E
see how deceptive he is, He posts half truths which seem good. But if if he actually took the time to read and think about what he said, instead of speaking either in the moment, or what he is taught. (I still think it is second, he makes to many of the same arguments so many of them do) he would see.
His argument is nothing is impossible for God. thus he can keep people from sinning. and they would be sinless
Yet jesus said that ALL that God gave him, he will lose NOTHING, and that all who come to him, he will by no means cast out. Yet the same argument could be made, If nothing is impossble with God. then no one would ever fall away, and lose salvation.
thats the flaw in legalistic, religious ideology, It says things which sound good. but when you actually get to the meat of it, it falls apart on itself. and does not even need refuted really, it refutes itself based on its lack of merit,
His argument is nothing is impossible for God. thus he can keep people from sinning. and they would be sinless
Yet jesus said that ALL that God gave him, he will lose NOTHING, and that all who come to him, he will by no means cast out. Yet the same argument could be made, If nothing is impossble with God. then no one would ever fall away, and lose salvation.
thats the flaw in legalistic, religious ideology, It says things which sound good. but when you actually get to the meat of it, it falls apart on itself. and does not even need refuted really, it refutes itself based on its lack of merit,
You do not know what condescending actually means because I had to actually tell you and give you an example. You assumed before I was condescending. Disagreeing on a topic is not equated with one being condescending. Please show me where this was the case and we can discuss it like gentlemen instead of you continuing to hurl insults at me.
For you keep attacking me personally instead of attacking the doctrine. Why not stick to the doctrine or the topic of discussion? Do I set out to attack you personally? No. Granted, if you do something wrong, it is not wrong for me to point that out. Why not talk in a third party way like I do? Why make it personal? Well, I do have an answer as to why with Scripture, but I think it is best you do not hear it as this time.
For you keep attacking me personally instead of attacking the doctrine. Why not stick to the doctrine or the topic of discussion? Do I set out to attack you personally? No. Granted, if you do something wrong, it is not wrong for me to point that out. Why not talk in a third party way like I do? Why make it personal? Well, I do have an answer as to why with Scripture, but I think it is best you do not hear it as this time.
Last edited:
W
No, your choice to inform me does not confirm your assumption of me; I did (and do) know what condescending means, and your decision (to go ahead and re-inform me anyway) is not evidence to the contrary.
For the fourth or fifth time, I have already provided a collection of YOUR WORDS which WE FIND to be insulting, personally offensive, and condescending. If you are honestly having troubles finding the thread which I have sent you several times now, PM me.
No, Jason, I am not attacking you personally -- I am challenging your motivation and sincerity. To hold you to the same standard you hold me, what exactly (post references) have I said that has led you to believe that I am attacking you, personally? I have provided, as you requested, several times - you have, not once.
This would be a good question for you to ask yourself (Reference).
Never accused you of this, and not sure why you're bringing this up -- just as I'm not sure why you bring many things up which are outside the main point being discussed. It seems to me, and to others here, that you're simply avoiding the "meat" of the conversation(s) while diverting attention to obscure thoughts which loosely relate to the meat.
Post after post, reply after reply, you IGNORE (fail to address) the MAIN POINT(s) that people are bringing to the table -- you shift the focus to whatever YOU feel like talking about -- which is usually an aside from the main idea, further complicates an already complex issue, and is essentially the same as talking in circles.
I look forward to the day when you see the light -- when WE can see evidence of The Light, in you and through your interactions with others, here on CC. I look forward to the day, when you reply to someone who makes a comment -- and show us that you took the time to UNDERSTAND what they said, and respond with kindness and goodness -- I look forward to the day when I see you building up fellow Believers, in Christ.
For the fourth or fifth time, I have already provided a collection of YOUR WORDS which WE FIND to be insulting, personally offensive, and condescending. If you are honestly having troubles finding the thread which I have sent you several times now, PM me.
No, Jason, I am not attacking you personally -- I am challenging your motivation and sincerity. To hold you to the same standard you hold me, what exactly (post references) have I said that has led you to believe that I am attacking you, personally? I have provided, as you requested, several times - you have, not once.
This would be a good question for you to ask yourself (Reference).
Never accused you of this, and not sure why you're bringing this up -- just as I'm not sure why you bring many things up which are outside the main point being discussed. It seems to me, and to others here, that you're simply avoiding the "meat" of the conversation(s) while diverting attention to obscure thoughts which loosely relate to the meat.
Post after post, reply after reply, you IGNORE (fail to address) the MAIN POINT(s) that people are bringing to the table -- you shift the focus to whatever YOU feel like talking about -- which is usually an aside from the main idea, further complicates an already complex issue, and is essentially the same as talking in circles.
I look forward to the day when you see the light -- when WE can see evidence of The Light, in you and through your interactions with others, here on CC. I look forward to the day, when you reply to someone who makes a comment -- and show us that you took the time to UNDERSTAND what they said, and respond with kindness and goodness -- I look forward to the day when I see you building up fellow Believers, in Christ.
W
You see it. I see it. Several other people see it. Why can't he?
Is it because he's honestly blind to understanding -- or is it because he is willingly difficult?
These people share in our grief: What Makes A Person Always Insist On Contradicting You In Everything? To The Point That They End Up Not Making Any Sense - Find Answers to this Question
Is it because he's honestly blind to understanding -- or is it because he is willingly difficult?
These people share in our grief: What Makes A Person Always Insist On Contradicting You In Everything? To The Point That They End Up Not Making Any Sense - Find Answers to this Question
My correction of you has nothing to do with "trolling." You do not know my heart and thoughts to judge my intentions in what I say. I am not saying things to get you angry as if that was my goal. My goal is to point you to the goodness of God and His Word. If you do not like that, then I cannot help that. But trolling? That implies that I am not really a believer who loves Jesus and who is not seeking your best good (Which is simply not true).
W
No, dude, you're all kinds of wrong here nothing in your response, here, is true except this:
Which is true for both of us (and everyone else).
It is also true, that myself (and others) have attempted to bring this to your attention (on several occasions), but each time YOU IGNORE THE POINT, AND FOCUS ON SOMETHING ELSE.
Such as, let's argue about whether "dude" is disrespectful or offensive instead of addressing the issue at hand: This post.
And now, now that you've been called-out for it (for ignoring the meat and focusing on the crumbs)-- let us focus on the definition of "internet troll" or "trolling", instead of the meat. Let us continue to bicker about crumbs, and ignore the meat (no, I am not seriously implying this -- this last paragraph has the tone of sarcasm, because it is absolutely absurd to consider the notion -- absurd by ANYONE'S definition of the word).
Which is true for both of us (and everyone else).
It is also true, that myself (and others) have attempted to bring this to your attention (on several occasions), but each time YOU IGNORE THE POINT, AND FOCUS ON SOMETHING ELSE.
Such as, let's argue about whether "dude" is disrespectful or offensive instead of addressing the issue at hand: This post.
And now, now that you've been called-out for it (for ignoring the meat and focusing on the crumbs)-- let us focus on the definition of "internet troll" or "trolling", instead of the meat. Let us continue to bicker about crumbs, and ignore the meat (no, I am not seriously implying this -- this last paragraph has the tone of sarcasm, because it is absolutely absurd to consider the notion -- absurd by ANYONE'S definition of the word).
Not true, your failure to provide any post that I said that is condescending shows that you are just playing a game of smoke and mirrors. If I had said something condescending or set out to attack you personally with an insult, I would be more than happy to apologize.
No. No secrets. Show it openly for all to see.
This has to do wtih my reporting your posts that I thought were inappropriate. So now you are on a crusade to attack my words. Again, the burden of proof is on you to show others here that this is the case. You are not God to know my personal motivations. But what I can do is point out wrong beliefs and behaviors. It's not wrong for me to do that. Disagreeing is not the same as one being condescending or being insincere.
But you really don't believe what I said, though? And I fail to see how my position of believing the Bible in what it says plainly has anthying to do with each person's indivudal walk. Many men of God had struggled on their road to walking righteously with God.
What are you talking about?
Please show me where. I would love to address them. For I now many of my points I have made in Scripture have gone ignored many, many times; And they assert their belief (while ingoring or twisting the verses I brought up).
But what if we are not all true believers and there are sheep who are actually wolves inwardly? Should we just ignore them and build them up, too (Even if they are spreading a false gospel and leading others astray)? See. I believe OSAS is a false doctrine and tha tis pure evil. So your mission is to prove with Scripture (and not in attacking me) that your case for OSAS is true. Your mission is to show the love of Christ that an OSAS proponent should have (When I seen the exact opposite time and time again in such debates). Do you not believe me that others had called me horrible names many, many times and made fun of me (without me attacking them personally) from the OSAS side?
No. No secrets. Show it openly for all to see.
This has to do wtih my reporting your posts that I thought were inappropriate. So now you are on a crusade to attack my words. Again, the burden of proof is on you to show others here that this is the case. You are not God to know my personal motivations. But what I can do is point out wrong beliefs and behaviors. It's not wrong for me to do that. Disagreeing is not the same as one being condescending or being insincere.
But you really don't believe what I said, though? And I fail to see how my position of believing the Bible in what it says plainly has anthying to do with each person's indivudal walk. Many men of God had struggled on their road to walking righteously with God.
What are you talking about?
Please show me where. I would love to address them. For I now many of my points I have made in Scripture have gone ignored many, many times; And they assert their belief (while ingoring or twisting the verses I brought up).
But what if we are not all true believers and there are sheep who are actually wolves inwardly? Should we just ignore them and build them up, too (Even if they are spreading a false gospel and leading others astray)? See. I believe OSAS is a false doctrine and tha tis pure evil. So your mission is to prove with Scripture (and not in attacking me) that your case for OSAS is true. Your mission is to show the love of Christ that an OSAS proponent should have (When I seen the exact opposite time and time again in such debates). Do you not believe me that others had called me horrible names many, many times and made fun of me (without me attacking them personally) from the OSAS side?
Last edited:
Okay, now you are calling me "dude", when you know I find that disrespectful. That is not loving nor nice. That would be like drinking in front of someone who you know struggles with alcohol. It is not loving and nice to do such a thing.
Correcting someone on a word that I find inappropriate is no small matter to me or to God.
As for trolling: I do not adhere to slang definitions made up by worldly men. I adhere to God's Word. What you are doing here is called an inquisition. I will not engage in this attack of smoke and mirrors any longer (Unless you can truly show me something concrete that I said that was wrong).
I am moving on.
May God bless you.
And please be well.
Correcting someone on a word that I find inappropriate is no small matter to me or to God.
As for trolling: I do not adhere to slang definitions made up by worldly men. I adhere to God's Word. What you are doing here is called an inquisition. I will not engage in this attack of smoke and mirrors any longer (Unless you can truly show me something concrete that I said that was wrong).
I am moving on.
May God bless you.
And please be well.
Verse 14 is just saying the Living Word of God and the Written Word (Which are his teachings that come forth from Him) is within them because 1 John 1:1 says they touched (handlled) the Word of life (Jesus) and they heard him (i.e. his teachings). But God is not literal words on a page. God is Spirit. God is triune. The Living Word of God is not the same as the Written Word of God or the Spoken Word of God. They are merely words that express His character. God is not actual physical words or letters on a page. Yes, the Living Word is inseparable from the Written and Spoken Word, but they are not quite the same thing.
1 John 1:1 makes that point that they HANDLED and HEARD the Word of life. This is Jesus and it is not talking about the Word of God here. Verse 14 is talking about both. But not 1 John 1:1.
1 John 1:1 makes that point that they HANDLED and HEARD the Word of life. This is Jesus and it is not talking about the Word of God here. Verse 14 is talking about both. But not 1 John 1:1.