Those who sin are not born of God

Delusional people say what?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Regarding your opening post, yes, Jesus spoke of being born of God and from that point on, you sin no more. Ideally, that would be the case - and of course, Jesus, as a great Master, would make such ultimate demands once someone was awakened in God.

He would never say after someone was reborn, "Aww shucks, just take your time, and try not to sin any more." What kind of Master would he be if that was is disposition?

But Jesus also understood that in practice, the process of "sinning no more" takes time for the whole body-mind to adapt to the Divine. In any moment that we are infilled by the Spirit of God, we love, and when we are not turned to God, we "miss the mark" (sin).

So Jesus gave his two great commandments, as a continuous blessing and reminder - and which can actually only be done when we are full of God's Grace to the point that we recognize we are not separate from God nor anyone. Only on the basis of such communion with God is the fulfillment of his commandments of love possible.

So fundamentally, being born of God is a moment to moment matter, and as such, allows us to love rather than miss the mark in each and every moment.

a reply to: th33ndgam3

Sorry, but I have no idea what you're trying to say. Maybe you could simplify it?

originally posted by: roth1
Delusional people say what?

What Jesus says apparently.

a reply to: Joecroft

I think John meant believing Jesus is the Son of God in a different way than how Christians believe in him. I think John was saying to make that connection between Jesus and yourself, believing Jesus is the Son implies believing that you are the Son as well. Once you make that connection (i.e. I am in you and you are in me) then you are born of God and sin no more because of the reasons I listed in my previous reply.

But yes, Christians see it as more than just believing in who he was, they believe that belief in a sacrifice is necessary as well, but John doesn't mention a belief in a sacrifice in this instance. But then again he doesn't say what I believe he meant either.

Vagueness is what I'm trying to point out here, the bible is vague in order to cause these differences in interpretation, which was the point all along in my opinion. The more vague it is, the more interpretations there and and thus more division. Like Jesus said, a house divided cannot stand. It may survive a little while, but in the end it will fall. That's the way of all religions, they hang around a while then are replaced with something newer. It will be no different with Christianity IMO.

a reply to: th33ndgam3

Hi there…

Not to pick on your post or anything, but you’ve’ got a few things wrong IMO…

First of all…

Originally posted by th33ndgam3
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".

All Christians, including Trinitarian and non-Trinitarians denomination believe Jesus is the “Son of God”, that applies to all Christians across the board. Anyone who doesn’t believe Jesus is the “Son of God”, is not a Christian, according to Christians!!!

But anyway just to clarify, I was referring to ALL Christians

Additionally, if you were uncertain as to what I really meant, which is fairly obvious, with your use of phrases like “Or maybe even etc…”…then you should have asked me to clarify first, before wading in, and declaring (a) what I meant and (b) how wrong it was etc…

Plus, me and Enlightened have interacted with each other on Ats for a long time, and he knows me pretty well, and my ideas and can read between the lines etc…

Originally posted by th33ndgam3
perfect example: The last post before mine included this:

And Secondly, you didn’t quote my entire post correctly below…

Originally posted by th33ndgam3
"Only because Christians don’t just think that believing Jesus is the “Son of God” is what saves them"

Here’s what I actually wrote in it’s completeness…with the important qualifier on the end i.e. “on it’s own”

Originally posted by Joecroft
Only because Christians don’t just think that believing Jesus is the “Son of God” is what saves them on it’s own

Which is quite an important part, because I’m stating that Christians don’t just believe that Jesus is the “Son of God” “on it’s own”, that saves them…i.e. they have additional beliefs on top of that, which they believes saves them…

Originally posted by th33ndgam3
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".

There isn’t anything, in my entire post, above yours, that states, “none/No Christian believes in X…”

My statement above, does not mention anything about what Christians DONT believe in…it was about what they DO believe in Additionally that saves them, along with believing that Jesus is the “Son of God”…it had nothing to do with what Christians don’t believe in…

So your break down analysis of my post, was completely incorrect….

Ps – Welcome to ATS lol

- JC

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

These verses are their own contexts, they speak for themselves, so please don't accuse me of taking them out of context.

Actually, the verses are out of context. Here is their proper context. I am not accusing you of anything. Just placing the verses to their proper context.


John 8
What are you referring at you first verse is from The truth will set you free. Here is the context

…33They answered Him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, 'You will become free '?" 34Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. 35"The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever.…

Source



Your 1 John 3 verses are talking about the Children of God. Here is the context

…8the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. 9No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 10By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.

Source




Your last verse from 1 John 5 the overcoming the world message

…2By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. 3For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome. 4For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world-- our faith.…

Source



In order to have a full picture here are the whole context :
1 John 5
John 8
John 3

Peace

a reply to: Seed76

So how does the context change what is being said in any way? Do they somehow mean something else now?

You could have at least explained how the meaning has changed instead of quoting the passages then leaving without any kind of explanation as to how they were taken out of context.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

There are three contexts allowed, Intellectual, Institutional, and Ideological.

Everyone is sailing on the same ship in this manner...

en.wikipedia.org...

---

I can't even hang here... but I read a lot!

forums.philosophyforums.com...

Rules, Rules and more Rules!

Then after that you can view the most recent established RULES!

Start Here: philosophy.eserver.org...

a reply to: AinElohim

The passages surrounding the verses I cited do not change their meanings in any way. They all still claim that those who do sinful things have not overcome the world and are not children of God but the devil.

Christians claim to sin every day and are sinners at heart. They do sinful things meaning (according to the passages/verses in question) they have not overcome the world and are not children of God but children of the devil.

Christians claim that sinning is unavoidable, Jesus and John tell us it is avoidable and that those who sin have no permanent place in the family and are not children of God.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Anything you say can and will be kept in strict context!

Words and their Establishment are Holy!

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: AinElohim

The passages surrounding the verses I cited do not change their meanings in any way. They all still claim that those who do sinful things have not overcome the world and are not children of God but the devil.

In all actuality you need another thread with the same title and the word "devil" substituted for God in the title.

The demonic vulgarity coming off of your holy tongue is almost unable to be stomached!

The word of God is on your tongue... use it.

You're going to need a new language, try pig Latin

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Perhaps you should define sin before moving forward here?

Sin is everything I deem wrong.

I don't recommend getting on my bad side

Just sayin' y'all...

Haven't you heard? it's a battle of words...

The "sole" architect of 90% of the modern English language as you know it, it was styled directly from Greek and Hebrew biblical texts by a man named William Tyndale.

The stuff is going to be hard to shake guys...

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
But yes, Christians see it as more than just believing in who he was, they believe that belief in a sacrifice is necessary as well, but John doesn't mention a belief in a sacrifice in this instance. But then again he doesn't say what I believe he meant either.

What are you thoughts on this verse below from the same book…

1 John 1:7
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

Looks like it supports the sacrifice theology, on face value, but if it originally came from Gnostic Christianity, then of course “blood” was a metaphor for spirit…which would mean, it’s the Spirit of God (becoming born of God) which purifies people from sin.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I think John meant believing Jesus is the Son of God in a different way than how Christians believe in him. I think John was saying to make that connection between Jesus and yourself, believing Jesus is the Son implies believing that you are the Son as well. Once you make that connection (i.e. I am in you and you are in me) then you are born of God and sin no more because of the reasons I listed in my previous reply.

So, something along the lines of, believe he’s the son of God, and the truth that he speaks, and you will become a son of God also…?

I think a similar parallel can be drawn, when a verse states believe in Jesus, or when Jesus says, “believe in me”; In a practical sense (i.e. speaking in real time) he means believe in the truth/words that I’m speaking, which is what believing in him, should mean…IMO

But of course, like I was saying in my previous post, Christian beliefs are very conflicted…because becoming born of God, requires an action and believing in Jesus truth/words (i.e. the bread of life)…and puts the emphasis onto Jesus message, rather than his death. Believing in a sacrifice, on it’s own, doesn’t make a person born of God, according to Jesus own words…Plus, as you know, Jesus never said “believe in my sacrifice” etc...


- JC

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Did your sanctimony ever spill over to sanity?
Why do they allow you this podium to post the tripe of the dead dude from a bastard birth.

You think if she screwed god it was OK> That the cuckolded by the divine, Joseph, made the best of a bad situation. He didn't even get a deal. He was a stinking carpenter. Not posted to some exalted sanction so that he could provide for his illicit son well. NOOO, not your god.

So stfu already. Your god is an asshat.

Find one that has a conscience and who forgives others as readily as he forgave himself for taking advantage of Mary and Joseph.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: AinElohim

The passages surrounding the verses I cited do not change their meanings in any way. They all still claim that those who do sinful things have not overcome the world and are not children of God but the devil.

Christians claim to sin every day and are sinners at heart. They do sinful things meaning (according to the passages/verses in question) they have not overcome the world and are not children of God but children of the devil.

Christians claim that sinning is unavoidable, Jesus and John tell us it is avoidable and that those who sin have no permanent place in the family and are not children of God.

In my opinion that is why the Bible should be personal (or Protestant)

Everything has to be looked at from 3 perspectives at a minimum I think, otherwise every breath would be a freaking sin!

People align with those that they feel best suits their interpretation, but one thing that I am struggling with is Catholics.

Modern English is called "Protestant" English... therefore Catholicism is not logical in modern English (developed around mid to late 1500's but surely took much longer to catch on)

Here is the first instance of modern English...

REV 19
1 And after yt I herde ye voyce of moche people in heven sayinge: Alleluia. Saluacion and glory and honour and power be ascribed to ye lorde oure god 2 for true and ryghteous are his iudgmentes for he hath iudged ye grett whore which did corrupt the erth with her fornicacion and hath avenged the bloud of his servauntes of her hond.

Before this the language would be incomprehensible and not very advanced or expressive.

At any rate, I don't know what I am getting at except Catholics should just be protestants if they are speaking English.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

As idiotic as it is to have religion to begin with, who says animals don't practice their own?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Sometimes I wish the reformation happened here and was exported...

That way we could just call English... "American" or "Statesman" instead of "English"

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

As idiotic as it is to have religion to begin with, who says animals don't practice their own?

Religion isn't idiotic, it is not hard to understand that people are social beings.

People like to be around other people, it's how civilization started.