Christians I need your thoughts on how you rectify these problems.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Incorrect.

Matthew 7
18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.

According to the bible a good tree cannot bear bad fruit, so your assumption that a good tree will have a few bad apples doesn't really hold up to inspection.

Besides, the verse you cited doesn't say anything about having a few bad apples, only that a tree will be judged by the fruit it produces. Taken in context with the verse you cited, 1 John 3:9 would read "One who is born of God can not produce sin because his seed remains in them", so you're still stuck in the same boat as before.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Incorrect.

Matthew 7
18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.

According to the bible a good tree cannot bear bad fruit, so your assumption that a good tree will have a few bad apples doesn't really hold up to inspection.

Besides, the verse you cited doesn't say anything about having a few bad apples, only that a tree will be judged by the fruit it produces. Taken in context with the verse you cited, 1 John 3:9 would read "One who is born of God can not produce sin because his seed remains in them", so you're still stuck in the same boat as before.

edit on 33012121CST333 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

No. A tree that produces good fruit does not mean EVERY fruit is good. Nor would anyone familiar with fruit bearing trees take it to mean that.

ETA: You can't replace words and expect the meaning to be exactly the same. He was painting a portrait with his words, putting the picture in the minds of his listeners.
ETA2: What does it mean for a tree to bear bad fruit. Would an apple tree with 200 apples and 1 of them is bad be considered a tree that bears bad fruit? I would consider that a tree that bears very good fruit, as would any of the people listening at the time. What about an apple tree with 200 apples and 1 of them is good? Is that a tree bearing good fruit? I think no one would come to that conclusion.

This is the problem when people do not apply Wisdom when they read the Bible. They come up with silly ridiculous ideas.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


"A good tree cannot bear bad fruit",that means it cannot, period. Nowhere does it say "a good tree will produce mostly good fruit", it says that a good tree cannot bear bad fruit, a very cut and dry statement.

I think you're really stretching it here honestly. How would you interpret the statement "white cannot be black"? Do you interpret it as white can sometimes be black? I would hope not.

Either way, the verse you cited doesn't disprove my point anyways because it would mean that someone born of God cannot produce sin, meaning original sin would no longer apply to them anymore if it even existed at all beforehand.

If Jesus said "a tree can no longer produce bad fruit" would you assume he meant that it would every now and then or that it could no longer produce bad fruit at all? I would choose the latter personally because Jesus gives no hint that he really just meant "most of the time".

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Say a car manufacturer has a slogan that says "this car cannot break down" and a hundred people buy it. Now say just 1 person out of those hundred breaks down driving down the highway one day, say that person was you. Would you think the manufacturer falsely advertised the car as being unable to break down or would you just make excuses for them?

In the same way, did Jesus falsely advertise good trees not being able to bear bad fruit in your opinion or did he mean what he said?

You can see original sin as preconditions/culture teachings that are not lost between the generations since the old is affecting the newborns to much.

To me eating from the tree of knowledge of right and wrong is judging people based on too little information. Also believing in the illusion that just because you where born in a certain culture and exposed to views of belief in god makes the views correct from gods view. Seeing beyond the conditioning is hard for people since the conditioning has been integrated into the self/ego to such an extent that the views you are taught are not allowed to be wrong.

Hell is for me the limitation on spiritual knowledge in this place and limitation in spiritual experience. The lack of experiencing gods energy and understanding all that is.

I think it's fair to say not everyone interprets the Bible the same way.

In context, "a good tree cannot bear bad fruit" in Matthew 7:18 is talking about false prophets. Read vs 15-20. A prophet who makes even one false prophecy is a bad prophet.

As to 1 John 3, from verse 6 we learn that no one who "lives in Him" keeps on sinning. In verse 8 we learn that people who sin are "of the Devil," and in verse 9, anyone with God's seed in them "cannot sin" So you're faced with two possibilities, assuming that the Bible is true; either:

a.) Christians are incapable of sinning.

OR

b.) As soon as one decides to sin, they stop being Christian. They no longer live in him, they are now children of the Devil.

Well, simple observation tells us that Christians do sin, and in fact, the Bible backs this up in the same book (1 John 1:1-10.)

So that means that when one sins, one is no longer saved. The only church that I know of who teaches this is the Catholic church-people who commit a mortal sin are no longer in a state of grace. And yes, there are degrees of sin-again, the same book, 1 John 5: 16-17. The problem is that such a distinction is not made in the earlier chapters-it just says Christians cannot sin.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Say a car manufacturer has a slogan that says "this car cannot break down" and a hundred people buy it. Now say just 1 person out of those hundred breaks down driving down the highway one day, say that person was you. Would you think the manufacturer falsely advertised the car as being unable to break down or would you just make excuses for them?

In the same way, did Jesus falsely advertise good trees not being able to bear bad fruit in your opinion or did he mean what he said?

edit on 33012222CST333 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

Terrible analogy, unless you want to twist things. Here's one that you won't like because it is accurate....

Say a company sells a terraforming device, and they claim their device will definitely make the planet habitable for Earth life. The device is used and bears "good fruit", 99% of all Earth life can live on the new world, only 1% can't. Would you say their claim is true? Yes.

SnsocAs to 1 John 3, from verse 6 we learn that no one who "lives in Him" keeps on sinning. In verse 8 we learn that people who sin are "of the Devil," and in verse 9, anyone with God's seed in them "cannot sin" So you're faced with two possibilities, assuming that the Bible is true; either:

Since what you wrote is completely false your possibilities no longer apply.

1Jo 3:9

No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.

To continue to sin does not mean they will never sin again in their life, it means they will not continue sinful ways, you can't keep stealing and lying and believe it is ok.

A professional thief who is born again can not continue to lead the life of a thief. They may stray and steal again, but it becomes the exception not the rule.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


You're comparing apples to oranges. What if that same company told everyone that their transformed planet cannot be uninhabitable? The key word is cannot, if something cannot happen it cannot happen, period. Jesus used the word cannot so it was an all-inclusive statement.

If that company markets their planet as "cannot cause death" and 1% of the population ends up dying, they falsely advertised the habitability of the planet. The analogy I used is not wrong, I used the same exact wording as Jesus did, you are the one using an unrelated analogy to change what he meant.

reply to post by Snsoc

1 John 1
8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.

This is saying that all who have lived in this world have sinned at one point or another and to say we have not is to lie which is a sin in itself. This has no bearing on what is said later in the book.

1 John 3
9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.

Being "born again" is a process and no one gets it exactly right the first time. You will not find the right path the first time while seeking, it takes time. Once you DO find the path though, you can no longer sin because you have become one with God.

Just because you no longer sin does not mean you have never sinned before, this is what John means when he says that we have all sinned and to claim to be without sin is a lie. We have all sinned or "missed the mark" before, but once someone finds the narrow path (within), they can no longer sin because they know that it is wrong and that to hurt someone else is only hurting themselves.

There is no contradiction here, both verses are the truth.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

You're comparing apples to oranges. What if that same company told everyone that their transformed planet cannot be uninhabitable? The key word is cannot, if something cannot happen it cannot happen, period. Jesus used the word cannot so it was an all-inclusive statement.

If that company markets their planet as "cannot cause death" and 1% of the population ends up dying, they falsely advertised the habitability of the planet. The analogy I used is not wrong, I used the same exact wording as Jesus did, you are the one using an unrelated analogy to change what he meant.

Ok, we will go with your post, as it also illustrates my view is correct. Their planets CAN NOT be uninhabitable to Earth life. Indeed 99% of all Earth life survives. 1% of Earth life does not survive. Is that habitable? Yes. EVERY planet they terraform is exactly like this. Thus their claim that terraformed planets CAN NOT be uninhabitable is true, even though some Earth life can't survive there, 99% does.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


So a company saying that their planet "cannot cause death" is true even if 1% of the population dies? Cannot is a very broad statement that includes all possibilities, or lack thereof.

You're really stretching it here in my opinion. Cannot does not mean "mostly cannot", it means exactly what it says, a good tree CANNOT bear bad fruit. You're twisting what the verse says to accommodate your preconceived notions.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


What I said made perfect sense. You don't like it. Oh well. Not going to keep going around in circles.