Those who sin are not born of God

a reply to: dffrntkndfnml

I'm not sure, it depends on the person, but believing you are a sinner who is always prone to sin and who sins everyday is one roadblock to forgiving oneself in my opinion.

My understanding of this issue, from being raised a Catholic and being immersed in it my entire youth, is that God made at least three covenants (I read that as "Memos Of Understanding") with his peoples.

The first was with Adam and Eve - "Don't eat the forbidden fruit". I'm not sure exactly what the fruit was, or if it was even food. It could be something as simple as enjoying sex, or something as broad stroked as being too curious about their surroundings. There's not enough info to tell.

The second was through Moses with the ten commandments. Many of the people following Moses were only following him because their owners (they were slaves, right?) forced them out due to the perceived issues (plagues) they were experiencing. Most of them didn't follow the "Jewish God" so they set rules in place to "keep the peace" and create a basic set of rules to create a community and society. This was for those that followed Moses and their descendants.

The third was through Jesus with his "Do unto others...". This is a generalization. More of a "Be good to each other". This was for everyone from Judaism and on up through the various sects that hold Jesus to be either a Rabbi, a Prophet or a Messiah. The ten commandments still applied, but were topped up. Kinda of a softening of the "Fire and Brimstone" the commandments. Like how you first scold a child, then reinforce it with a touch of kindness.

Since these were really the only rules that mattered, they were the sins that were spoken of.

Everything else is just re- (or mis-) interpretations of it

Breaking a "Human Law" isn't necessarily a sin.

Each one was meant for a larger group of people.

Forgive yourself
Know yourself
Go deep within your self
And you will find the Self

Religion is blinding the masses. Only you can free yourself of this blindness

We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

Romans 7:14-24

/end thread.


While there's nothing wrong with expounding on a single passage, it's a mistake to use a single passage as the be-all and end-all of your context. The Bible says that "Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." (2 Corinthians 13:1), and that's true of the Bible itself. Multiple passages will provide you with a much clearer context than a single passage will, and it will also ensure that you yourself stay free from error.

The distinction in Scripture is pretty clear, and what you're dealing with is ultimately both an issue of semantics, and an issue of context. As Paul says "it is no longer I that sin, but sin living in me that does it". This is the same essential point made when he likewise says that we are to be "dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus" (Romans 6:11). This is again mirrored in Romans 8, which says:

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.…

In this way, God condemned sin in sinful man, and put to death in us that which was taken by Christ upon the cross. This is the point: that Christ, in His humanity and His deity, took both our sin, and the punishment for our sin, and bore it Himself. This is why Paul can say "it is no longer I that sin, but sin living in me that does it". We're not freed from the temporal bonds of sin (yet); that time is still future (1 Corinthians 15), but we are freed from the consequence, and from the ownership of it... until He comes.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

With today's words and meanings some things seem to get greatly misinterpreted, Hebrew : Sin = to miss, go wrong.

now how vague is that ? to miss or go wrong in other words to make a mistake, to miss the mark so to speak, to sway from the path etc...

I believe mistakes are not the problem peoples lack of ability to learn from them is, so possibly these verses could be talking of those that willfully go wrong/miss.

I haven't looked into the entire verses as in concordance and translation but then i am guessing these were Greek and Latin rather than Hebrew,kinda screwed from the start lol

good thread though some nice points at the end there

Greetings and Salutations- There was a thread here once and it the thread there was a post that read "Worship equals War Ship" and it made a bunch of sense. How each group praying to a "name" is doing so under the guise of "Blind Faith" and then anyone praying to a different name is judged and demonized. I do it no justice.

I'd also ask "Which Bible"? are You referring to? King James V1, KJV-2, Old Testament, New Testament, how about the one that starts "In the the beginning was Adamu and Lilith, created from the same dirt..." The one that the female has a fighting chance? The one that has "Church™" doesn't handle the rights of females very well does it? The one that is in every flea bag hotel dropped off by The Gideons and one of their 840 offices world-wide to better service the flock.. What a crock. Wasn't it Jesus The Chris† that said "You ARE the Church"?

Who has a better chance of making it to Heaven, a 40 y.o. that NEVER read TheBible but was never a real 'tool' He did watch porn occasionally, or a thrice married Preacher that lives in a $3M mansion, wears a $35k watch yet still cashes retirement checks from widowed pensioners?


Edit: There is also a train of thought that "Moishe" (Moses) only turned in 2 stone tablets when there were 3 stone tablets and a written scroll..

I'd also like for the world's first "Lee Harvey" Judas to get a pardon, because like in those times, it is the "Money Changers" who are ruining the stew..

So based on this if you dont want to sin but do its not your sin but the sin within you making you pure of the sin in the fact that it wasnt your choice that you followed only thw sin within you even if you made that choice?

originally posted by: Awen24
We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

Romans 7:14-24

/end thread.


While there's nothing wrong with expounding on a single passage, it's a mistake to use a single passage as the be-all and end-all of your context. The Bible says that "Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." (2 Corinthians 13:1), and that's true of the Bible itself. Multiple passages will provide you with a much clearer context than a single passage will, and it will also ensure that you yourself stay free from error.

The distinction in Scripture is pretty clear, and what you're dealing with is ultimately both an issue of semantics, and an issue of context. As Paul says "it is no longer I that sin, but sin living in me that does it". This is the same essential point made when he likewise says that we are to be "dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus" (Romans 6:11). This is again mirrored in Romans 8, which says:

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.…

In this way, God condemned sin in sinful man, and put to death in us that which was taken by Christ upon the cross. This is the point: that Christ, in His humanity and His deity, took both our sin, and the punishment for our sin, and bore it Himself. This is why Paul can say "it is no longer I that sin, but sin living in me that does it". We're not freed from the temporal bonds of sin (yet); that time is still future (1 Corinthians 15), but we are freed from the consequence, and from the ownership of it... until He comes.

supposed to be in my last post

a reply to: Awen24

This is a perfect example of the error in Christian theology, using Paul to override the word of Jesus and his beloved apostle.

Paul teaches no personal responsibility, sin all you want because it's not you doing the sinning, it's the sin itself. Ignore the words that Jesus and John say, listen to Paul, he gives you a free ticket to sin even though Jesus explicitly told us not to.

You've only highlighted the divide between Jesus and Paul, you haven't proven Jesus or his words wrong. Jesus says the one who sins is a slave to it and that slaves have no place in his family, Paul says he is a slave sold to sin, contradicting Jesus blatantly.

Paul contradicts Jesus on so many things it's ridiculous.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

1 John 5
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome. 4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world-- our faith. 5 Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?

Those who are born of God are those who overcome the world and those who overcome the world are those who believe Jesus is the Son of God.

Don't Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God? If so, why do they admit they are sinners and that they sin every day? As Jesus says, those who commit sin are slaves to sin, and as John says those who do what is sinful are of the devil.

I agree with certain aspects of your OP; but there are many things that Christians believe in, that conflict with Jesus message and teachings…IMO

Christians often say; even the Demons and the Devil believe, Jesus is the “Son of God”, but they’re not saved, and neither do they follow Gods commandments…

Of course, Christians will say it’s not just about believing that Jesus is the “Son of God”, which saves you, but a bunch of others things on top of that belief…and I’m pretty sure, you know what they are etc…

But I do agree with the perspective in your OP to some extent; because if becoming “born of God” (which is to “born again” IMO) is one of the key aspects to making a person free from sin, then it really puts the emphasis onto Jesus life message, rather than his death…And additionally it means becoming “born of God” is something you’re supposed to actively do and seek, rather than just believe in X and your saved etc…but then again, Christian beliefs are very conflicted IMO…


- JC

After l read this, and think of the seven deadly sins, I have to agree with Jesus, people who are slaves to these sins are going to die sooner than people who don't, it's the way it is. Sloth is laziness and there are many diseases associated with it. Greed and envy and hate can make people do crazy and evil acts which probably make them statistically more likely to die sooner. Lust, well there have always been std's, not to mention if you do you neighbor's wife (that could likely increase chance of physical retaliation. Oh and over eating will kill a person as well. I also personally feel that it is important to wash everyday for better health. Notice how there was ocd foot washing? Now everybody should look at there feet, do they look healthy or calloused, cracked and peely diseased things? I think a lot of info in the bible is actually not ment to scare people, but to help them see some of the natural truths of the nature of our reality.
This is just my personal opinion, it's also my personal opinion that we were meant to wash in salt water as it has a cleansing effect to the skin. You can even find out the amount of sea salt to distilled water ratio so as to wash your eyes and it will be the same salinity level as your tears, it doesn't hurt at all, but fresh water will always burn and dry your eyes.
I was not raised religious nor did I go to church except with my neighbours every once in a while. I am also a sinner, I smoke and eat and sit to much, l know this in my heart. I may not be over weight but I am sick with a chronic degenerative illness and I can't blame anyone but myself. I am not proud of my weakness, all I can do is try to stop sinning, but it's really hard because deep down these flaw pacify me and are generally easy to resort to when am spiritually weak. Sorry for my personal view truth rant, I hope I have not offeded anyone.
One of the things in the bible that I can't wrap my brain around is the mountain of foreskins and how they use to make the slaves eat their own after getting it cut off, what was up with that one?

originally posted by: dffrntkndfnml

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

If you forgive others then God will forgive you, if you forgive others then that is a sign of love, if you love others then you do not sin against them, if you do not sin against them you are born of God, if you are born of God then you do not go on sinning.

3NL1GHT3N3D1 , at this point, why do some individuals have such a difficult time forgiving themselves?

It’s because they are not born of God, and they don’t understand…The parable of the prodigal son is a good example…

The parable is really about how people follow in their own ways, by sinning and going through the trials of life etc… and then through that journey, they come into the light of the truth, which leads them back home to the Father i.e. by becoming born of God…

Understanding that journey, and what those things truly mean, helps you to forgive others and too forgive yourself too…IMO

- JC

a reply to: Joecroft

What aspects of my OP do you disagree with? I'm always curious for your take Joe, I know I can always learn a thing or two from you.

I agree that "born of God" is a synonym for "born again", it's the spiritual awakening of your true self IMO. When you come to know yourself you are "born of God" and realize to hurt or sin against others is to hurt and sin against yourself because we are all the same on the inside. Who would want to hurt themselves or do wrong to themselves? Not me. I see all of us being connected through the Spirit of God that has always dwelt within us and always will dwell within us.

"On that day you will realize (a.k.a. be born of God) that I am in my Father and you are in me and I am in you", meaning I AM you and you ARE me and we ARE Jesus, the image of God. I would never hurt myself meaning I would never hurt you either. When you realize this you cannot go on sinning.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I have seen animals kill without eating the "kill".

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Infanticide is fairly common in the animal kingdom, but it still doesn't take anything away from my OP. There are still reasons behind them doing that. Dolphins also seem to kill for fun, but again that takes nothing away from what I presented in the OP. My OP was centered around humans and human understanding of Christian theology. Animals do not have religions or belief in supreme beings, at least none that we know of. We have far more advanced cognitive skills than most, if not all other animals. For all we know they do not understand the concepts of death or sin, or at least they do not relate it to themselves.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
What aspects of my OP do you disagree with? I'm always curious for your take Joe, I know I can always learn a thing or two from you.

Well, I don’t disagree with your overall take about those who are “born of God”…

The only thing that I would point out, is that you can’t take the 1 John 5 verse in isolation, because Christians don’t just believe, that by believing Jesus is the “Son of God” on it’s own, is what saves them etc…they believe in a number of additions on top of that…which btw - I’m sure you’re already aware of….


So my only criticism of your thread, would be this below…

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Don't Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God? If so, why do they admit they are sinners and that they sin every day?

Only because Christians don’t just think that believing Jesus is the “Son of God” is what saves them on it’s own etc…but other that, I agree with your points, on being born of God…


But here’s something else for you to contemplate; Jesus teaches that people must seek forgiveness from others, and that they must pray to God for forgiveness etc…now presumable those teachings are aimed at those who are not yet born again, which is why they still sin etc…even if only occasionally…

Of course the ultimate aim, is to become born of God, but Jesus must have recognised, that there needs to be a teaching in-between, for those who are not quite there yet, i.e. those who just live by faith…btw - I’m not saying this ideal, just that it makes sense overall…

So to answer your question that I’ve highlighted above; I would say that some Christians believe in Jesus, but are not yet born of God, which is why they continue to sin…


Peace


- JC

Just commenting briefly - I intend to start a thread but I couldn't find an option... I'm assuming this is one of those forums where you need X amount of posts before you can start one?

To the OP:

To me it seems that at the root of the issue between sin and heaven and right/wrong is because that person who sinned, or those who say someone else sinned, fail to differentiate between types of environments and to what degree those types of environments apply to what they are referring to.

When we are making a reference to an environment, most of often we fail to adequately refer to the proper environment.

1) Internal environments - this can be broken down into:
a) an individual instance of an internal environment, eg - one person's mind
b) a group of minds where m=mind and m > 1, then M=minds and M= (m > 1, m < X), where X is the cardinality of all minds (the same as the total number of minds and only that number in and of itself, ie if G= [mind1, mind2,mind3,.......mind4billion.... mindX], then X=[only mindX]. When referring to a group of minds, we can be referring to any number of components of that set G. When we don't clearly differentiate this then we can often refer to "g" group of people (ie, a family, a tribe, a class, etc) and g can warp into us referring to "G"... due to not-differentiating the two.

2) external environments - which can be broken down into:
a) an indivudal external environment, ie for each m in G, then e=1 (e +1 for each m, where at least 1 m is present; m > 1 < G)
b) a group of external environments, ie, for each set o where o=[m1, m2], [m1, m2, m3], [m1, m3], [m2, m3]....O] where O = cardinality of o... so if we refer to the environment of family of 4, [m1, m2, m3, m4] then we are actually referring to every possible combination of that 4 mind group, and often not differentiating that group from any other group of m's in o, and also not differentiating out individual minds vs groups of indivudals in the family. ie [1m], [1m], [1m], [1m] vs [1m,2m,3m,4m] where in the second one we could be referring to all simultaneously, or just [m1,m2], or [m1,m3,m4], etc.
c) then there is a single external environment multiple people can share.. ie if [m1, m2] are both watching TV and sitting next to each other on the couch, their external environments are nearly identical... but still different.
d) collective external environments - all external environment
s simultaneously as well as any specific group or instance of external environments.

So when you say "My family is..." then you're referring to... many different things,.... and if you don't differentate, then those can be easily mixed up and you could believe you're truly referring to a specific environment when someone you aren't really. ie "My family is rich". If you believe that but don't realize you're referring to the collective family and not a specfic group or individual component....... then you might think "I'm rich" if you thought "My family is rich", when really "m1, m2" are rich (your parents). If you thought "My family is poor" then you're probablly correctly referring to everyone in that family as being poor --- if one person of that family was rich then the family wouldn't be poor


Sin...... same kinds of errors. If 1 person sins... it may be forgiven if they weren't aware they were sinning. If someone a kid steals and gets caught, then someone says "That kid stole, sinner! Punish him!"... It might not be a sin if the kid didn't understand why it was wrong - even though other people around the kid knew why it was wrong. If you punish a kid for doing something like that when they really don't know why its wrong (relates to what they wanted and why), then he wasn't really sinning. If he did know and did it anyways because him wanting a candy bar was more important than doing something wrong... then yeah, a sin, and one which has a correct response.

If he was stealing food because there was no other way to feed his baby sister or something.... then you would be punishing him for caring about feeding his sister or what ever reasons he did it.

Most people don't sin if they believe "it's wrong to sin" and "sin=s" and the doing "s", because it feels wrong to do what you disagree with.. in many different ways. If they do something wrong but don't realize why or how "s" was wrong, then their error can be forgiven. But, ideally, they should make amends for the wrong they did and move on --- not let it cause them any distress for doing something wrong when they didn't realize it was wrong or how it was wrong --- and also genuinely intend not to do it again. They should also be able to get over the wrong they did by knowing they made up for it and they won't make that mistake again. Many people don't forgive themself for doing something wrong... when they did it before they knew it was wrong.. this leads to many many many problems

Those that do sin and know "s=sin" and "sin=wrong"--- It seems to always be because they don't understand the issue - themselves - why they want X or what X gets them and how it relates to what they TRULY want. Cognitive dissonance of sorts.

perfect example: The last post before mine included this:

"Only because Christians don’t just think that believing Jesus is the “Son of God” is what saves them"

He is referring to a group of [Christians], where this group includes [c1, c2, c3, c4.... C] and C = cardinality of [Christians].. He's referring to all possible combination of christians and saying none of them believe "X".

Clearly he intended to refer to "Not all christans" and not "All Christians". Or maybe even "Generally, Christians don't...". But in this case "not all christians" is referring to an empty set [], where [] includes "every c not in [Christians]" --- or the nonexistence of "c".

Where if all Christians are included in [Christians], he he would be referring to the abscence of [ [belief that Jesus is Son of God] when [they also believe they are saved only because of that belief] ] - ie, the non-existent existence of "All Christians believe that they are saved simply because they believe Jesus is the Son of God".. existing.... something along those lines.

He wasn't properly differentiating between multiple environments and groups, and so the statement itself was flawed.

I think the use of the negative word "don't" "think that" (or belive that) "believing" was hinting at what he meant to express: "non-existence" of "X always being true" where X="All Christians believe they are saved simply because they believe Jesus is Son of God", but the generalized use of [Christians] and the use of a negative "don't" was an indirect way of expressing that.

Which, if you wanted to argue against that original statement as a Christian, you could say "Any group of X isn't really in the group [True Christians] if they disbelieve [Jesus is Son of God]", and so the original sentence would change to "Only Untrue (or truly non-existent) Christians believe Jesus is Son of God" and "that this alone has saved them". And so your belief that your original statement was true kind of means you have a disbelief that the opposite is isn't true... I think. Sorry, something I fail to explore projected implications of an untruth consistently!

Which you may or may not agree with the modified statement, but if you did then it was possible to rip that statement apart and show it was "non-existence" existing as a disblief (non-existence of) of "the existence of X" is true.

I call these mega-proxies or mega-indirects --- multi-tiered indirects where 1 indirect, 2 indirect = double indirect, 3 indirect = triple indirect.. etc.

Don't disbelieve anything!!! Disbelief is non-existence claiming that the belief itself exists truly

Not to pick on the previous poster!

"Not believing X" is not equal to "disbelieving X"

Not believing X = not believing X is true
Disbelieving X = believing X is not true

where the middle ground is "non-existence"... "non-existence of X" as opposed to "Existence of a belief that X is non-existent"

"I see X cannot be seen" vs "I don't see X"

But how can you see X and X not be seen? You can't observe non-existence. You can observe the fact: I haven't observed something existing. You can't observe the abscence of existence. You can observe the absence of non-existence --- it exists if it can be observed.

"Only Untrue (or truly non-existent) Christians truly believe [Jesus is Son of God] in and of itself is what saves"

Sorry, there are some mishaps... I think in terms of [thesis, antithesis, synthesis] plus laterally to a high degree, such [thesis, antithesis, to the left of thesis and then left and then down, to the right of thesis and then right and then up and up again, to the left of antithesis as all thesis's on the right, to the right of antihesis.... etc etc] where synthesis is used in some "weird ways"..

And so it's easy for my words to not reflect what I meant them to... plus when applying that way of thinking is much more clouded and difficult to remain consistent... (due to factoring in true/untrue, and existence/non-existence, and then degrees of each, and then adding "direct/indirect relationships" and even various groups of each relating to other groups of the same type or a different type.....all while simultaneously thinking of how my thoughts relate to X and then how your thoughts relate to X if Y - and how if you think Z then you must also think B.... and if you think Z and B then you might think F...

Yeah, it's easy to get lost in other's voids when deconstructing sentences and reconstructing their author's mind via implications and Hegelian thought and such.

Unfortunately I cannot edit the other post anymore though - over-edited :/