Jump to content


Photo

A Nice Hidden Treasure About Judging The Carnal


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Countic16

Countic16

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 11 November 2007 - 07:53 PM

IK, I hate to bring it up, but I feel scripture is against you fully on the topic of "evil portals." I won't bring up the last thread, but only the scripture for referance of it.

1 Timothy 4:1-5

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."

Basically, its showing how the things of this world are not sinful. They were made good. This means things like music, s@x, affection, food...are good things. To say they should not be enjoyed because of man's ability to cause sin through them is not a biblical stance. In other words, mankind can make sin of anything carnal, and that stands not as a justification to not do the neutral things of the world.

Infact, verse one is probably the most detrimental to your case, and your beliefs that "demonic portals" can influence people. Its specifically saying that casting judgement on people who enjoy neutral things (such as rock and roll, for example) is a sign that they have given into doctrine that believes such portals are possible...thus a sign of a weakness of faith.

Ultimately, there are two lines of theology one can take:

1) Everything is sinful unless proven righteous.

or....

2) Everything is generally not sinful, unless proven sinful.

Verses such as the one above make it pretty clear that the 2nd is the biblical stance. Christianity, again, is a religion of "do's" not "do nots."

#2 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 19 November 2007 - 05:24 AM

Sorry, we don't preach or believe here that salvation is a ticket to sin. Or an excuse to sin. What you are saying here is the exact reason non-believers call us hypocrites. And is the very reason I left believing in OSAS to no-OSAS.

I spent the better most of three years researching and debating this issue. This is because I wanted truth and not some one's interpretation of it. This is the conclusion I came to after three years of confusion. You won't convert me back.

This thread will be closed until further review.

#3 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2471 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 20 November 2007 - 11:11 PM

Sorry, we don't preach or believe here that salvation is a ticket to sin. Or an excuse to sin. What you are saying here is the exact reason non-believers call us hypocrites. And is the very reason I left believing in OSAS to no-OSAS.

I spent the better most of three years researching and debating this issue. This is because I wanted truth and not some one's interpretation of it. This is the conclusion I came to after three years of confusion. You won't convert me back.

This thread will be closed until further review.

View Post


I've re-opened this topic because it wasn't clear to me that Countic16 was claiming that salvation is a ticket to sin. I also moved the thread to the Bible Q&A section. I would ask COuntic to read the pinned topic in each Bible forum titled "The Purprose", as the Hidden Treasures section was NOT the place to have this kind of debate.

Fred

#4 Countic16

Countic16

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 22 November 2007 - 09:16 AM

I've re-opened this topic because it wasn't clear to me that Countic16 was claiming that salvation is a ticket to sin. I also moved the thread to the Bible Q&A section. I would ask COuntic to read the pinned topic in each Bible forum titled "The Purprose", as the Hidden Treasures section was NOT the place to have this kind of debate.

Fred

View Post


Howdy, thanks for keeping it open as its a topic that would be interesting to discuss. I did not realize its been discussed elsewhere (due to being new) and I will read into those areas you suggested first, and post in the appropriate area for it. But it probably won't happen for a while due to the holiday season and traveling. Happy Giving Merry Thanks Day!

*Edit* I should probably state that I am definitely not saying salvation is a ticket to sin. I am pointing out the difference between things God created as "good" and what humans often call "sinful" despite the fact that they have no actual sin in them. I'll get into more detail when I return.

#5 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 25 November 2007 - 05:44 AM

This means things like music, s@x, affection, food...are good things. To say they should not be enjoyed because of man's ability to cause sin through them is not a biblical stance. In other words, mankind can make sin of anything carnal, and that stands not as a justification to not do the neutral things of the world.


Would you say that s@x out side of marraige is sin? Or that s@x anytime is ok?

#6 Countic16

Countic16

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 26 November 2007 - 06:55 PM

Would you say that s@x out side of marraige is sin? Or that s@x anytime is ok?

View Post


You added a condition. Your trick was to add a condition. Allow me to clarify the position:

s@x is not a sin. Period. As is established biblically.

Now that that is established, let us add your condition, as well how it relates to Biblical principles. Your condition was to ask if s@x outside of marriage is a sin. The response is to see if there are Biblical conditions that match. The Bible is very clear that s@x outside of marriage is sinful. Therefore, the answer to your specific, conditioned question is "Yes. s@x outside of marriage is sinful." There is a violation of the law of God.

The trick is to keep things straight. s@x, in and of itself, is not sinful. If s@x was sinful, it would be sinful to have s@x outside of marriage, in marriage, as well as any other inbetweens one could devise. Instead of the world being "generally good" as God had proclaimed himself, everything would be sinful. It would all be sinful, everything. The only way out would be specific exceptions in which the Bible would say its ok and somehow changed from sinful to "ok" or "good."

Ultimately, the above concept is very anti-biblical. The Bible doesn't treat the non-animated things of this world as sinful by nature. Rather, they were all created "good." They only became sinful by the touch of man and his misuse of said good things.

#7 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 28 November 2007 - 09:41 PM

You added a condition.  Your trick was to add a condition.  Allow me to clarify the position:

s@x is not a sin.  Period.  As is established biblically.

     Now that that is established, let us add your condition, as well how it relates to Biblical principles.  Your condition was to ask if s@x outside of marriage is a sin.  The response is to see if there are Biblical conditions that match.  The Bible is very clear that s@x outside of marriage is sinful.  Therefore, the answer to your specific, conditioned question is "Yes.  s@x outside of marriage is sinful."  There is a violation of the law of God.

     The trick is to keep things straight.  s@x, in and of itself, is not sinful.  If s@x was sinful, it would be sinful to have s@x outside of marriage, in marriage, as well as any other inbetweens one could devise.  Instead of the world being "generally good" as God had proclaimed himself, everything would be sinful.  It would all be sinful, everything.  The only way out would be specific exceptions in which the Bible would say its ok and somehow changed from sinful to "ok" or "good."

     Ultimately, the above concept is very anti-biblical.  The Bible doesn't treat the non-animated things of this world as sinful by nature.  Rather, they were all created "good."  They only became sinful by the touch of man and his misuse of said good things.

View Post


Parts like this you need to make clear. This is because we have guests, new Christians, non-believers, etc... That can get the wrong idea. So when you say that s@x is not a sin, then you need to add the condition as to when it is not a sin. This is so people don't get the wrong idea. This is also why I closed the thread. You not making that clear made it look like "all" s@x is not a sin.

We cannot read your mind. And neither can the other people who read what you say. So if you make it clear on what you mean, I don't think we will have anymore problems :) .

Think of it as teaching a class that has no idea about God's word.

#8 Countic16

Countic16

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 29 November 2007 - 07:06 PM

Parts like this you need to make clear. This is because we have guests, new Christians, non-believers, etc... That can get the wrong idea. So when you say that s@x is not a sin, then you need to add the condition as to when it is not a sin. This is so people don't get the wrong idea. This is also why I closed the thread. You not making that clear made it look like "all" s@x is not a sin.

We cannot read your mind. And neither can the other people who read what you say. So if you make it clear on what you mean, I don't think we will have anymore problems :) .

Think of it as teaching a class that has no idea about God's word.

View Post


Point well taken. My general demeanor when making a declarative statement about truth or falsehood is by essence, no conditionals. Whenever a conditional is thrown in, it can change the truth of the matter. So like I said, whenever I try to make a blanket truth or falseness about a concept...its always done assuming no conditions, only the essence...unless I purposely put conditions in. I think we are making progress eh. I fully see your point too. General people, public, laymen don't view philosophical concepts by those standards by nature. It is a "my bad" whenever I do not make my thoughts easily understood to the general populus. Its also hard to be articulate without writing a book.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users