Gods children

1. 59

   Jeramiposted 11 years ago

   We are ALL gods children. Each and every one of us!
   liars, theives, whores and whore mongers etc. are ALL gods children.
   Jesus dued on the cross to pay for my sinns almost 2000 years before I committed my first sin,
   Jesus never said that his act was conditional!   
   I would think that he would tink that I'd  recognize the error of my ways and discontinue doing things that I knew would hurt others, but if I don't, and I continued doing those things that I didn't recognize, Is this a sin that he didn't die for?????     If he died for ALL sin ?     why then would he put a condition on it?     Is the sin of not knowing unforgiveable?   
      Didn't they say that one sin is no greater than another "  ot not?
      Now, does this give us permisipm to sin?   well? yes and no   what do YOU think.
   gotta go  back in a little bit.

   replyreport
   1. 54

      Robertr04posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You know you caught my attention. Luke12:47,48, might help you out.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Jeramiposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         In my senility I no longer remember numbers such as C. and Verse but yes I was remembering truths such as this one,  Luke 12:47     But I notice this is speaking of stripes and not eternal torment in a lake of fire.   no ofence intended.

         replyreport
         1. 54

            Robertr04posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I don't believe in an "eternal" lake of fire or eternal burning in hell. The stripes represent the length of time you burn in the lake of fire for your sin(s) ( if you are not repentant) before you are ashes. If you are unaware that something you may be doing is a sin, you will not be held accountable, but will receive stripes for the ones you did commit (would find it hard to believe you won't sin), if you do not repent.  What is sin? According to the Book, it's the transgression of the law. You say you don't remember chap. and verse in scripture? Where are you getting the info to form your opinions, if not from chap. and verse? So are you also saying you don't believe the Messiah shed His blood for you, so that you could be forgiven from your transgressions? That was part of His mission here on earth, was it not? Without the shedding of blood there is no redemption? He took the place of the animal sacrifice. Even under this so called new covenant of grace, there are conditions. Faith, works, obedience, repenting of sin, to name a few. Those are conditions that must be met, or quite simply, according to the Book, you burn. Their (Father and Son) love is unconditional, their covenants are binding and conditional. Maybe you should read and remember the chap. and verse

            replyreport
   2. 80

      PlanksandNailsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Jesus Christ dying on the cross was Him paying the price for all sinners; this is justification when we accept the price He paid for all. If His gift is not acknowledged and accepted, then the Holy Spirit is denied, which does not allow His grace to sanctify us. Without sanctification, there will be no transformation; that is what makes us become holy and righteous before Him.
      
      Paul said IF we sin, not WHEN we sin that we have an Advocate. IF means that we might possibly sin, but WHEN says, that we most likely will. That is the distinction between grace and being a slave to sin. One accepts the power of the Holy Spirit, the other negates. The Holy Spirit takes away the ignorance of sin, which would mean that continuing in sin after the knowledge of it would be willful disobedience. Justifying willful disobedience abuses God's grace, and is willful delusion because it denies His gift and His power.
      
      We are not fully released from this cursed earth and will stumble in it, but IF we sin, we have grace that will continue to sanctify us until He returns. We will then be glorified, and fully changed into His image.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Jeramiposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         My mental powers are dwendling, (midnight and I'm so tired) but I'll continue or a little longer.
         Yes everything you say is true ... but ....    where do we draw the line?   Do "I" get to draw it ?
         Or my neighbor?    better not be him he is gay!  lol   
         I really didn't post this to argue my point. just want to plant a seed for thought and hear what you all think?

         replyreport
         1. 80

            PlanksandNailsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            You do, and don't get to draw the line. God allows us to draw it on those who claim to be His followers by applying His standard. If we don,t we are disobedient.
            
            Your neighbor? What does he claim to be? If He is gay, then leave it to God to judge him. Now, if he claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ and gay; he cannot be both. It is one, or the other; therefore we can draw the line on God's standard.

            replyreport
   3. 61

      bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      One sin is unforgiveable, only because it is the act of denying God's gift of salvation.  Beyond that, Jesus paid for all sins. All men are drawn by the Holy Spirit, and denying Him, cannot be forgiven. Luke 12:10  "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven."  Anyone sincerely acknowledging their need for salvation, and accepting Christ's payment for them, becomes indwelt by the Holy Spirit, who guides them.  We may fail, but out of gratitude and in response to God's love, we do strive to please Him and confess before Him when we fall short.  Not because we need further forgiveness, (those sins are already covered), but rather because we want to do better.  This attitude is one indicator of those walking in Christ.

      replyreport
   4. 57

      A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Did you kill someone? Coveted your neighbors wife? Stole something? What was your first sin, exactly?

      replyreport
   5. 0

      brotheryochananposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against God and this equates to UNBELIEF in God.
      Belief opens the door
      unbelief never finds the door and hence no forgiveness and no training to enter the kingdom of God and no relationship with God to share in afterlife.

      replyreport
   6. 59

      kessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Sin can be accurately be described as a "lack of knowledge"
      This "lack of knowledge" will have certain characteristics,
      It is Void, Hard, Dark , doubtful, unbelieving and any and all other negative characteristics to their extreme.
      
      These Characteristic gives "lack of Knowledge a form, which is many different forms because its very nature is deceit... after all  it is what it is a lack of knowledge.
      
      The Deceit of "Lack of knowledge" is great, because it has the appearance of what it is not, and that is Knowledge. Everything that proceed from it is the reverse of Knowledge.
      
      Now many thinks that the escape for themselves is in gaining knowledge,
      but they are deceived because they do not yet know that any and all knowledge that proceed
      from the lack thereof will be just that...
      
      They do not yet know that, what knowledge actually is, so as to seek it.
      So they try leaning many other thing instead of the one thing which is mist important.
      
      They do not yet know that all Knowledge exist as one, and that one no mnatter how divided it has become remain the Same and the whole....
      So if one were to find the smallest of the fragments of Knowledge, it is as if he has gained the entirety of it.
      
      Now because men in this world are afraid of losing they do not gain anything.
      
      So by their fear of losing, they ignore the only thing that can cause them to gain knowledge...
      Therefore they cannot, nor do not love their neighbors as themselves.
      
      So they remain with a lack of knowledge which is actually the only sin.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Your entire post is based on the false premise that sin is defined as "lack of knowledge". 
         
         Biblically, sin is falling short of God's standard, and every man is aware when they do it. 
         
         Secularly, sin is falling short of a law or moral code, and ignorance is considered no excuse. 
         
         Neither application defines sin as "lack of knowledge."

         replyreport
         1. 59

            kessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Those bound by their interpretation of the  bible, will sin according to their interpretation of the bible....
            
            Have stop sinning according to your interpretation of scripture....?
            Do you know anyone who have stopped sinning within your interpretation of scripture?
            
            Since the answer is a resounding no...
            You should clearly conclude that  the gospel you preach is weak to and free any man from sin.
            
            But obviously you will stick to that by which you have your identity and keep preaching biblical interpretations...Thinking that it has to power to give Life...
            
            All of this is because you lack knowledge....
            Knowledge that lead to Life.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               English is a language.
               Languages use words. 
               Words have meaning...it isn't a matter of interpretation when there is a clear meaning...
               
               Let's use Merriam Webster, or any other published dictionary if you prefer...here is the one from MW:
               
               Definition of SIN
               1
               a : an offense against religious or moral law
               b : an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it's a sin to waste food>
               c : an often serious shortcoming : fault
               2
               a : transgression of the law of God
               b : a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God
               
               So it appears only the dictionary of Kess says sin means "lack of knowledge".  The whole point of it being a sin is that we know we are doing wrong and do it anyway.
               
               You aren't the first to try and change the definition of sin in order to say they don't sin, but don't change the gospel to accommodate it.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  kessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Firstly, the scripture you laud and applaud says in a definite way, that the Christ's Purpose is to free the man from sin. So therefore the man who sins does not know Christ otherwise he would be free from all sins.....
                  This in effect  negates every single other thing that you might even think to say to me....
                  For you cannot speak for Christ and still sin and anything not coming from the position of Christ is meaningless.
                  
                  Secondly, You argue with and within words not understand the nature of very words you use.
                  
                  Words are the product of Knowledge...
                  So knowledge decides what each and every word mean.
                  Words were designed to reflect knowledge, but they themselves are not knowledge.
                  Therefore they will have multiple meanings according to the knowledge reflected.
                  
                  You can have Knowledge without words,
                  
                  You can have words without knowledge (As in a multitude of words void of knowledge)
                  But yet You can't  have Words without Knowledge ( As in there must be  first knowledge for word to reflect or to even be)
                  
                  Consider these things my friend, Therein you might find freedom from sin and in the mean time pure knowledge.

                  replyreport
                  1. 54

                     Robertr04posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Good thoughts. I agree with you also.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Robert, you are at risk of sounding like the politician who feels strongly both ways. 
                        
                        By the way, I hope to have time to address your last post to me, overnight.  Not certain at this time, but wanted you to know I do want to respond to it.  (Just popping in between things while working today).

                        replyreport
                        1. 54

                           Robertr04posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           I'm guilty. Picking up HP characteristics I do agree with things you both said. My last post was not directed at you, just generalizing.

                           replyreport
                  2. 61

                     bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     So what you've said basically is that to you, words mean whatever you want them to.  From that perspective, anything you say can make sense.  I just have to redefine the words until it does.  If, however, we go by established and accepted definitions, (which is what I choose to do based on my knowledge), then everything I said in my previous post still applies.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        kessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        if that is what is mean to you then, what else can I say..
                        
                        and By that my point is made again

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           ?????  okay.    So you feel you have somehow, by this, illustrated that sin means "lack of knowledge."   That point? 
                           
                           Do you agree it is useful to adhere to definitions society agrees to and prints in dictionaries?

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              kessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              You just don't get by my few words giving you more words wont help you here...
                              
                              understanding belong to who it belongs, and they do not need much words.

                              replyreport
                              1. 61

                                 bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 Okay, I've got it now.   Clearly your bent on not making sense, so we're good here. Have a great day.

                                 replyreport
      2. 54

         Robertr04posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         The "lack of knowledge is the only sin". Biblically Kess, I can agree with that.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            This surprises me.  How do you support that with scripture?  Consider context please, although I would be interested in seeing anything to support this from the bible, even out of context.

            replyreport
            1. 54

               Robertr04posted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Hey bB. I knew you would get around to me I agree with you. Hosea4:6 gives a great insight on "lack of knowledge". The knowledge we lack, is of His standard. 1John3:4 says sin is transgression of the law. Every time we break His law, we sin. I tried to share this viewpoint earlier and was met with a fair amount of resistance, not unexpectedly I might add. But wait, I keep forgetting we are no longer under the law...Right? Where there is no law, there is no sin. Sooo, anything goes. There is scriptural knowledge of this? Good ol' stuff that sounds right, politically correct. We look for ways to avoid the law. We look for ways to make it fit our lifestyles. The way we think it should be done. No scriptural backing, but we "believe". Many good people tell me they are under grace. His laws are written in their hearts and minds and they still sin. The Father must be using invisible ink   Not mocking anyone, I used to make my own laws too. Came from a lack of knowledge. We all have been mislead, misinformed, lied to, etc. in our life. Continuing, on those paths, will come from a lack of serious research. A lack of knowledge. We're trippin' people, IMHO. bBerean, it's been a true pleasure. Shalum

               replyreport
2. 0

   Emile Rposted 11 years ago

   Nice try Jerami. But, as you can see, they aren't buying it. Which brings up an interesting question.
   
   If you don't accept the gift as given, are you then guilty of blasphemy? Can you be guilty of blasphemy simply by not understanding something?
   
   That's two questions. But I find it humorous to think that all of this pious posturing could actually work against those attempting to ingratiate themselves.

   replyreport
   1. 54

      Robertr04posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The only sin that will not be forgiven, is blasphemy of the Ruach (Holy Spirit). Everyone has the freedom of choice to accept the gift or not. For some reason(s), people see free gift and overlook that though it is given freely, there are requirements. By your "acceptance" of the gift, you are saying, you will follow His will (in a nutshell, do it His way). The Book does not tell you if you don't accept the gift you are sinning, but it does say there are consequences

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Emile Rposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Says some Christians; but not others. Although the ones who agree on a part of the point don't agree on all of the point. So, which of you is right? Any of you? All of you?
         
         Sorry, but I would think jerami is right. We are all in the same position. You, your fellow Christians, the Muslim, the atheist and me. And everyone else, whatever their personal belief. This belief that you can check a block off and all of a sudden you are in a better position, cosmically speaking, than the next person makes absolutely no sense.
         
         Anyway, it is like I told someone somewhere else (I think on a Hub). You guys are just like the religion that preceded  you. You think you can create rules to make yourself acceptable to a deity. If it works for you, that is great.

         replyreport
         1. 54

            Robertr04posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I imagine it comes down to individual interpretation. Everyone has a right to believe what they want. Who/what is right? Time will tell.

            replyreport
         2. 59

            Jeramiposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I couldn't have said it better myself.   My thinker isn't working well today. Trying to say too many different things at the same time. 
                Any way?   seems like everyone has a different perception of the same God.  And we want everyone to see things the same way we do.
                Kinda like saying My daddy can beat up your daddy, forgetting that we are sibblings.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Jerami,
               am I to understand that you're becoming a universalist and do not believe in repentance as a condition for salvation? (in other words, you do not believe the Bible?)

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Jeramiposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Before answering this question, I would need to know exactly what you understand salvation to mean.
                  Is it necessary to receive salvation before we are allowed to return home (heaven)  or is salvation a pardon for sin in which we will not be punished after we have returned home?
                  Didn’t Paul say something to the effect that knowing the law and breaking it is a sin when Not knowing something is unlawful and doing it isn’t a sin?    So ignorance must be bliss. 
                      Are those people (in the B.C. era) that were not Hebrews held to an equal standard of accountability as the Hebrew People to whom the LAW was given ?    I would think not.
                     
                     Do you believe that every human being on earth are Gods children?      I do.
                     God did say that he gives faith to those that he chooses to give it to, and not to those that he chooses not to.   I don’t think that God is going to punish millions of people for not having that which God didn’t give to them.   
                     So I guess I’m becoming a universalist. I am using this statement because I like the thought of being in a state of becoming.   I think everyone’s beliefs are supposed to be continuously in a state of becoming.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Sounds like universalism with a bit of Calvinism thrown in for measure.
                     
                     No, all people aren't God's children.
                     They're all a product of God's initial creation (Adam), yes.
                     But (after we're of the age and mind capable of understanding) we are not His children unless and until we receive the gift offered to us by the risen Christ.
                     
                     And it's not clear what you meant by "return home".........
                     Heaven is not automatically our home, never was our home, never will be our home until we repent and accept the gift offered to us by the risen Christ.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        Jeramiposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Brenda said    Sounds like universalism with a bit of Calvinism thrown in for measure.
                        = - = -
                        me …     My thoughts are my thoughts and not produced by reading those thoughts of a universalist or a Calvinist. 
                        ============================
                        3. Brenda  said    No, all people aren't God's children.
                        They're all a product of God's initial creation (Adam), yes.
                        But (after we're of the age and mind capable of understanding) we are not His children unless and until we receive the gift offered to us by the risen Christ.
                        = - = -                                                                                                                                                 Me …     I would have to disagree.  My children are my children weather they know me or not.           If I decide to NOT give them faith that I am their father  how can I punish them for not accepting my gift of salvation, when they can’t see it as being available because I didn’t give them the faith required to see it?
                        =====================================================
                        Brenda said ... And it's not clear what you meant by "return home".........
                        Heaven is not automatically our home, never was our home, never will be our home until we repent and accept the gift offered to us by the risen Christ.
                        = - = - =
                        me    ... I don’t think that a soul is created upon conception in the womb.  If it did? this would mean that man creates spiritual souls. I believe that the soul comes in after conception from another dimension (heaven) to inhabit this physical shell which mankind produces. So when we die that soul returns to where it came from (heaven)

                        replyreport
   2. 0

      brotheryochananposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      But everyone knows. Jesus dying on the cross did not end the story and now the history channel is gonna show another bible movie that's all the rage. Now we can go into detail and say what about the people in deepest darkest africa or wherever.. yes, we can conjure a scenario whereby an eskimo in a icehut hasn't heard about jesus. or we can go back in time and look at the nations surrounding israel in 1000 bc and say they never heard of yahweh, but what is that to us really... I will let God deal with those who honestly haven't heard and in the mean time i will continue to do what i do for God because, i believe that jewish religion that started way way over there on the other side of this planet.  Also this assumption that God won't answer a heart that earnestly desires to know Him is a bit off tilt i think.

      replyreport
      1. 87

         Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         "and now the history channel is gonna show another bible movie that's all the rage."
         
         And the worst part is, they're not even trying to be historical about it. For example, the Israelites weren't slaves in Egypt. They were driven out of their land by famine, came into Egypt, and agreed to fight in Pharaoh's army to earn their room and board, but when a long period of peace came, they were ordered to work on monuments and architecture for their pay. How do we know the Israelites were a paid labor union and not a pack of slaves? Slaves don't usually fill out attendance logs and leave absence notes like "I have a hangover" or "I'm sick."
         
         At the very least, the Abraham segment was really good, although it's probably just as devoid of historical accuracy.

         replyreport