ccrider wrote:
Hi logic. My post was open ended.
So, you can't stop sinning when God commands you to.
Why not?
If no one can keep Gods law, then how are they condemned?
It's not that they disobey or rebel, but they would be condemned for a disability.
Besides if you think that 'edification' is purely theological then you're mistaken.
I would think that freedom from sin is very edifying.
The knowledge that I don't have to sin and that I can go with out sinning is very wonderful.
But you are so stuck in a mindset that you will deny what God says you can do; that is to not sin.
God's command not to sin implies that He knows you can stop.
You can try to make me look small but all you do is deny the fact of freedom from sin is real.
You rabbelroused your theology about Psalms, Proverbs, and Song of Songs as NOT being a source for correct doctrine and I quote: 'ESPECIALLY for a Christian', then say you regret it after 'further study'. But is there any remorse for stating such a heresy that could have influenced someone wrongly??? Any humility?? I mean you were so convinced of it when you directed it towards the person who used it to rebut you at the time. Yet time and time again you used the SAME books and verses thereof to validate your theology. My observation is that you came right back with your systematic reasoning with the same arrogance that propagated your prior heresy in the first place.It's obvious that you don't mind sticking your theological neck out to win an argument. That damages credibility. If that's how you originally felt about Psalms et al then obviously their importance to the Word of God for doctrine needed some exploring by you. However, it wasn't explored until after you made the comment three or so months ago. Therefore, I wouldn't trust your own judgment on what topics need exploring.... as exploring the richness of Psalms, Proverbs, and Song of Songs and it's significant, proper, and truthful contribution as dictated by the Holy Spirit seemed to elude you up until your revelation based on 'further study'
All I was doing is saying that you can't use a hyperbole literally such as Psalm 58:3 & concerning Psalm 51:5 you shouldn't think that you have the ONLY possible interpretation of it.
Psalms, Proverbs, and Song of Songs does in fact have a poetic nature with hyperbole, one must be careful not to take the poetic nature with hyperbole to far.
Anyway, a lot of people use their bias to their own theology to interpret Scripture with out seeing the logical conclusion.
Such as God only condemns people because they are sinners, but then people are born sinners.
Therefore, people are condemned because they are born and not from anything of themselves.
But then some might say that they are condemned for sin, but they sin because they are sinners; they must sin because of it, therefore, they are condemned by inevitability.
The truth is that people are condemned because they are guilty by choice, but if it is that they [b]can not[/b] obey God, then they are not guilty, but condemned for a disability.
Then people say that the only choice for sinners is to sin; that is not a choice, but a necessity.
The theology which I always seem to refute is nonsense, which is why I do it.
You may call it rabbelrousing, but I call it trying to get it through a bias which is unrealistic, nonsense and make God a tyrant, all from a defence from an interpretation of Scriptures.
I wonder how people could interpret Scriptures as God being such, I would think they would find how to interpret Scripture to justify God and not criminalize Him.
All I can figure out is that they say to themselves, "God is God He can do anything, even be an unjust tyrant and still be just and rightous, even though that contradicts reality."
"What's this about ones own righteousness?"
Again, how do you know that my post was directed towards you?
I didn't, but could you answer it?
"Some mainly stick to topics which need exploring."
No, these are the topics YOU want to endlessly proselytize and shove forward.
Because I think they are important.
Who are you to determine what needs and what doesn't need explored??
I'm not saying what doesn't need explored
But determining what needs to be explored, who are you to do the same?
If we aren't then why even start new threads?
And those who do start new threads, who are they to determine what needs to be explored?
All I am doing is trying to show the nonsense of some theologies such as I explained above.
I believe you will continue your attempts to propagate and rabbelrouse on one or two theologies because you can't seem to help it.
I only want to defend the truth.
The logical conclusions to some theologies do more damage than the people who hold them realize.
Sinners use the theologies of some Christians for the reason to hate God.
They see God as a sadistic tyrant because the theology makes him out to be one.
The sinners have valid points which need to be corrected. But if Christians keep hold of these horrible theologies, they will give the sinners more reason to hate God.
I see why they hate God because it these theologies were true, I would hate God also.
Don't think that they hate God anyway with out those wretched theologies, because my Christian friend almost left the faith when he was newly converted because he thought God was really the way these theologies claim God to be when he started to hear other people talk about God.
I've heard many other new Christians rethink their faith because of this.
Christians defend their theologies by quoting [b]Rom 9:20[/b] [color=990000]Nay but, O man, who are you that replies against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why have you made me thus?[/color]
They think that I am arguing with God, but I am actually coming against their Theology & not God.