• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Forgiven for what, eactly?

That's a bit of a cop out that does not address my question.

I believe it does address your question. How can a book written thousands of years ago categorically speak about people today? If the information in that book came from God.
 
but you choose to believe that nobody is capable of making this choice.

Everybody is capable of making this choice. But nobody will succeed in doing so.
If I'm wrong and someone does succeed in doing so, then they don't need Christ, and I will welcome them in Heaven with the rest of us who were saved not by our own perfection but by His sacrifice.
The gospel is only for imperfect people. If you don't believe that includes you, then you're welcome to disregard it on that ground rather than another. Only you and God can judge your sins.
 
Last edited:
I believe it does address your question. How can a book written thousands of years ago categorically speak about people today? If the information in that book came from God.
OK. Well, there's no way to rationally discuss something that one party in the discussison has to place entirely on faith.

It did relate to a follow-on question though - one asked by the thread in general, that you have not addressed.
Right. So - the question of this thread remains - you are not being very specific. Forgiveness for what? If you can state that the bible claims that everyone is incapable of living a moral life, then what are the sins that none can avoid?
 
Everybody is capable of making this choice. But nobody will succeed in doing so.
You keep making this assertion, but we are back to examining what every person alive right now has done, in order to be absolutely certain that every single one of them has committed at least one sin.

Why would no one succeed in doing so?
What sin(s) can never be avoided?
 
OK. Well, there's no way to rationally discuss something that one party in the discussison has to place entirely on faith.

Then I appreciate your attention. I clarified what I believe the Biblical position to be, and how it relates to people in general. Your specific situation can be evaluated by you and those you confide in.
The OP was arguing the consequences and consistency of the faith position rather than the position itself, which can be the subject of rational discussion. Even when the person starts the discussion tacitly allowing your assumptions, it isn't long before subsequent posters question those discussions and reach an impasse.
 
You keep making this assertion, but we are back to examining what every person alive right now has done, in order to be absolutely certain that every single one of them has committed at least one sin.

Except in practice this isn't actually necessary. I can teach people about the nature of sin, how humans choose to sin, and how someone can repent of sin and re-establish a connection with God. But if you believe it doesn't apply to you -- that somehow you're part of a rare group of people that has never chosen to do something morally wrong -- then that's the end of the discussion. And since I don't have the authority to judge your sins, go in peace. If you're confident that God will judge you sinless, you have no need of Christianity to help you.
The Gospel is for sinners. I am told that includes everyone, but if you claim to be an exception, go in peace.
 

Back
Top Bottom