What is a True Christian

Dark Virtue said:
Interesting. Why does an omnimax being need/want us to be dependant on Him?
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't an omnimax being want a relationship with his creation?


Dark Virtue said:
The student analogy has one large flaw. When your students can't reach that bar what are the ramifications? When God's people in the OT couldn't reach that bar, what happened to them?
Click to expand...

Not sure what the OT problem is that you are referring to here DV. The law provided a way for them to ask forgiveness and God gave it. The OT jews that asked forgiveness in God prescribed way are in heaven. They attained their goal.

As for my students...I am not God DV. I cannot set my expectations as high as God does. And my rewards to them are not nearly as good as His are to us either:)
 
Didasko said:
Why wouldn't an omnimax being want a relationship with his creation?
Click to expand...

That wasn't what I asked.

I asked why an omnimax being would want/need his creation to be dependant on him.

Big difference.

Not sure what the OT problem is that you are referring to here DV. The law provided a way for them to ask forgiveness and God gave it. The OT jews that asked forgiveness in God prescribed way are in heaven. They attained their goal.

As for my students...I am not God DV. I cannot set my expectations as high as God does. And my rewards to them are not nearly as good as His are to us either:)
Click to expand...

My problem with the OT Law was that it was impossible to obey and the sacrfice of animals wasn't sufficient. James 2:10, "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all". So why was the law set for that way, knowing that Man didn't have a chance to obey it? Isn't it true that under the Dispensation of the Law, people were saved by obeying the Law? God didn't expect man to keep SOME of the laws, he expected man to keep them ALL. Josh 23:6, "Be ye therefore very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, that ye turn not aside therefrom to the right hand or to the left". Now, if you argue that the OT laws were reasonable, then why did God feel the need to fulfill them with Christ's sacrifice? Why not just start out with Christ's sacrifice?
 
Dark Virtue said:
That wasn't what I asked.

I asked why an omnimax being would want/need his creation to be dependant on him.

Big difference.?
Click to expand...

Whether it was what you asked or not the answer remains the same. It definitely without question fostered a relationship with his chosen people.




Dark Virtue said:
My problem with the OT Law was that it was impossible to obey and the sacrfice of animals wasn't sufficient. James 2:10, "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all". So why was the law set for that way, knowing that Man didn't have a chance to obey it? Isn't it true that under the Dispensation of the Law, people were saved by obeying the Law? God didn't expect man to keep SOME of the laws, he expected man to keep them ALL. Josh 23:6, "Be ye therefore very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, that ye turn not aside therefrom to the right hand or to the left". Now, if you argue that the OT laws were reasonable, then why did God feel the need to fulfill them with Christ's sacrifice? Why not just start out with Christ's sacrifice?
Click to expand...

They were reasonable because due to God's grace the jews were still able to attain the ultimate goal of living with God forever.

Taken as a whole it is awesome to see God's plan come to fruition in Christ. If you don't see the beauty in it then that is a pity.
 
Didasko said:
Whether it was what you asked or not the answer remains the same. It definitely without question fostered a relationship with his chosen people.
Click to expand...

Fostering a relationship is VERY different from making the creation dependant on the creator, or requiring the creation worship the creator. I'm pretty sure you realize this, you just don't want to acknowledge it.

They were reasonable because due to God's grace the jews were still able to attain the ultimate goal of living with God forever.

Taken as a whole it is awesome to see God's plan come to fruition in Christ. If you don't see the beauty in it then that is a pity.
Click to expand...

Interesting.

And please, keep your pity.
 
Dark Virtue said:
Fostering a relationship is VERY different from making the creation dependant on the creator, or requiring the creation worship the creator. I'm pretty sure you realize this, you just don't want to acknowledge it.
Click to expand...

They can work together DV. I understand your point DV, but I don't think you understand mine.



Dark Virtue said:
Interesting.

And please, keep your pity.
Click to expand...

Sorry can't just turn it off:) But I'll try not to let it show so much.
 
Didasko said:
They can work together DV. I understand your point DV, but I don't think you understand mine.
Click to expand...

Trust me, I do, I just don't think your point is valid.

I don't, however, understand why an omnimax being NEEDS his creation to worship him. It smells of megalomania.
 
Dark Virtue said:
Trust me, I do, I just don't think your point is valid.

I don't, however, understand why an omnimax being NEEDS his creation to worship him. It smells of megalomania.
Click to expand...

I never said he NEEDS our worship. Wanting something and needing it are two very different things.
 
A true christian is one who has learned obedience through suffering by fearing God and keeping His commandments.
 
Didasko said:
I never said he NEEDS our worship. Wanting something and needing it are two very different things.
Click to expand...

Eh?

Main Entry: 1want
Pronunciation: 'wont also 'wänt & 'w&nt
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old Norse vanta; akin to Old English wan deficient
intransitive senses
1 : to be needy or destitute
2 : to have or feel need <never wants for friends>
3 : to be necessary or needed
4 : to desire to come, go, or be <the cat wants in> <wants out of the deal>

Wanna rephrase your last post? :)
 
Dark Virtue said:
Eh?

Main Entry: 1want
Pronunciation: 'wont also 'wänt & 'w&nt
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old Norse vanta; akin to Old English wan deficient
intransitive senses
1 : to be needy or destitute
2 : to have or feel need <never wants for friends>
3 : to be necessary or needed
4 : to desire to come, go, or be <the cat wants in> <wants out of the deal>

Wanna rephrase your last post? :)
Click to expand...

Nope I refuse to play word games with you:) Not worth discussing with you if your going to play games.

Regardless of which dictionary definition you chose to post. Where I come from wanting something is not the same as needing it.

I think I'll have to stop discussion on this thread too. The same old same old. We'll never agree on this.
 
Last edited:
How is that playing games?

I can't choose your words for you, I can only use what you give me.

And then you blame your word choice on ME?

That's not exactly fair.
 
Dark Virtue said:
How is that playing games?

I can't choose your words for you, I can only use what you give me.

And then you blame your word choice on ME?

That's not exactly fair.
Click to expand...

DV the point I was trying to make is that YOU posted the definition of 'want' that best fit YOUR side of the argument.

2 a : to have a strong desire for <wanted a chance to rest> b : to have an inclination to

Was also in the same list of definitions from exactly the same website you copied your post from. You only posted the definition of the word that furthered your argument but left the definition out that described 'want' in the way I was using it.

We can't have an objective discussion when things like that are going on.
 
Didasko said:
DV the point I was trying to make is that YOU posted the definition of 'want' that best fit YOUR side of the argument.

2 a : to have a strong desire for <wanted a chance to rest> b : to have an inclination to

Was also in the same list of definitions from exactly the same website you copied your post from. You only posted the definition of the word that furthered your argument but left the definition out that described 'want' in the way I was using it.

We can't have an objective discussion when things like that are going on.
Click to expand...

What I did was post the MAIN ENTRY, in doing so, I simply trimmed the fat. If I REALLY wanted to firm up my point, I would have only posted the first three definitions with the word NEED in them.

Just to show I'm not being deceitful, here is the WHOLE definition:

Main Entry: 1want
Pronunciation: 'wont also 'wänt & 'w&nt
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old Norse vanta; akin to Old English wan deficient
intransitive senses
1 : to be needy or destitute
2 : to have or feel need <never wants for friends>
3 : to be necessary or needed
4 : to desire to come, go, or be <the cat wants in> <wants out of the deal>
transitive senses
1 : to fail to possess especially in customary or required amount : LACK <the answer wanted courtesy>
2 a : to have a strong desire for <wanted a chance to rest> b : to have an inclination to : LIKE <say what you want, he is efficient>
3 a : to have need of : REQUIRE <the motor wants a tune-up> b : to suffer from the lack of <thousands still want food and shelter>
4 : OUGHT -- used with the infinitive <you want to be very careful what you say -- Claudia Cassidy>
5 : to wish or demand the presence of
6 : to hunt or seek in order to apprehend <wanted for murder>
synonym see DESIRE
Click to expand...

Pick any one you wish, it still doesn't explain why God, a supposedly omnimax, perfect being, WANTS/NEEDS/DESIRES/DEMANDS Man to worship Him.

Is that better?
 
Dark Virtue said:
What I did was post the MAIN ENTRY, in doing so, I simply trimmed the fat. If I REALLY wanted to firm up my point, I would have only posted the first three definitions with the word NEED in them.

Just to show I'm not being deceitful, here is the WHOLE definition:



Pick any one you wish, it still doesn't explain why God, a supposedly omnimax, perfect being, WANTS/NEEDS/DESIRES/DEMANDS Man to worship Him.

Is that better?
Click to expand...

I guess my main request is, please don't make unfounded attacks on specific words in my posts to make them appear less credible.

In addition, we are not going to reach agreement in this discussion. I do not accept your argument and you do not accept mine.

Lets agree to disagree:)
 
OBJECTION!
<Music Change Tempo Up> <Cut to shot of Phoenix Wright banging desk>

Your honour this point is central to 80% of our discussions on this board. By being able to shy away from defining what a 'True' Christian is, the prosecution is able to weasel out of just about any argument by claiming that whoever was involved in a verifiably documented instance of behaviour that supports my clients case is not a True Christian.

I move that the Prosecution no longer be able to make that claim - unless they can prove to the courts satisfaction what a True Christian actuall is!

In addition I would like to see the following arguments banned:

1. Self referential use of scripture.
2. Statute of limitations on behaviour.
3. God works in mysterious ways as any sort of definitive answer to anything

I think that until the Prosecution is forced to actually make a stand on these issues, they will continue to run around the matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top