Adolf Hitler

[theQuestionist]

Do you know what transliteration is?

Are you series? Is that your response?

I am critiquing your ability to correctly translate the source verse. I asked for references to your claim, and I asked you to explain why YOUR version of the text has inserted vowels without the proper notation, as well as why the words that you DEFINED as having to do with morality, are not even REMOTELY related in the hebrew-to-english metadictionary I looked them up in.

So instead of providing those sources, you instead assume that I'm not familiar with the very subject we've been discussing???

That would be like me critiquing your assertion that 2+2=5, and you responding with "do you even know what mathematics are?"

The fact that you weren't even able to recognize my critique of your translation demonstrates that you are the one that needs to brush up on the subject.

The Bible is very clear that we are judged because of our own sin, not Adam's or anybody else's.

Yes....our own sin, which is a result of our ability to sin, which is a result of ______'s original sin.

Fill in the blank. Or should I do it for you again?

Actually, "original sin" is a Roman Catholic idea, not a Biblical one.

So Romans 5:18 is false then? And same with 1 Corinthians 15:22?

Please explain the significance of the Adamic story (and its multiple references throughout the rest of the Bible) if Adam's actions had absolutely no consequences for anyone else.

Also, please explain why the Bible teaches that "death entered the world" when Adam sinned, and that (according to the Bible), I will therefore have the ability to die because of Adam's action. I'd love to hear your explanation for that.

 

[WarEagle]

I am critiquing your ability to correctly translate the source verse.

Right, but your argument that I did not correctly translate it rests on your statement that Hebrew has no vowels. Because the verse is transliterated and is not in the original Hebrew, we must first determine whether or not you know what transliteration is.

I asked for references to your claim, and I asked you to explain why YOUR version of the text has inserted vowels without the proper notation, as well as why the words that you DEFINED as having to do with morality, are not even REMOTELY related in the hebrew-to-english metadictionary I looked them up in.

And according to both Strongs' and Thayer's, they are.

So instead of providing those sources, you instead assume that I'm not familiar with the very subject we've been discussing???

I didn't assume anything. I just asked you a question. However, it's becoming clear from your attempts that something suspicious is going on.

That would be like me critiquing your assertion that 2+2=5, and you responding with "do you even know what mathematics are?"

If that's the way you want to look at it.

The fact that you weren't even able to recognize my critique of your translation demonstrates that you are the one that needs to brush up on the subject.

OK. Why don't you help me out. Why don't you educate me a little and explain to me what transliteration is.

Yes....our own sin, which is a result of our ability to sin, which is a result of ______'s original sin.

WarEagle's.

So Romans 5:18 is false then? And same with 1 Corinthians 15:22?

No, they're true. It is the Roman Catholic doctrine of "original sin" that is false.

Please explain the significance of the Adamic story (and its multiple references throughout the rest of the Bible) if Adam's actions had absolutely no consequences for anyone else.

Do you know how to read? I never said his actions had "absolutely no consequences".

Just the opposite, in fact. I said that it is because of Adam's rebellion against God that sin and death entered the world and we inherited the Adamic nature.

Also, please explain why the Bible teaches that "death entered the world" when Adam sinned

Please read Romans 5-7. It explains it all.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That's right. But we're not talking about Allah, Brahman, or the gods described in other religions' texts. We're talking about God and how the Bible testifies to God.

Not exactly.

I said the Christian God, if extant, hides his existence from the world.
You countered by citing the Bible as a testiment to his existence.
I countered by listing a variety of religious texts and their associated deities.

So my point is that Bible is only a testiment to the Christian God's existence if you treat the various religious texts as tesiments to their respective deities. Of course, this would make your counter-argument moot, but consistency is crucial to a meaningful debate.

But, by your own admission, it does happen, which makes your previous claim that it does not, untrue.

It was a generalised statement, like "Dogs have four legs": amputees are the exception that proves the rule. Elementary statistical analysis confirms this: the vast, vast majority of dogs are quadrepedal, and the vast, vast majority of Christians are born in Christian countries/cultures. If I have offended your sensibilities, then I will retract my earlier statement and replace it with a qualified copy.

Nor do I. God is not a "parent", nor is He brutal. He punishes sinners, but He is not capricious.

I appreciate you not pointing out the many typos I made .

I was assuming you were a standard Christian: God is an all-loving father, etc. Tell me: what do you believe Hell is like? I've seen Hell described as a place of infinite punishment, non-existence, and even Godless Heaven.

No, if that were my point, then I would have said that. But I did not.

I didn't say anything like that.

I beg to differ. You said have said:

"First, God did give us very specific and very simple instructions to tell us how to be saved."

And:

"The point is that God did give very specific and simple instructions."

So yes, I think I am justified in saying that you fit the bill of:

"...a wide variety of religions are claiming that they have the specific instructions from specific deities to achieve specific means."

Bear in mind that the above was my point (which I clarified at the beginning of this post), not yours.

Perhaps not. But by Biblical definition, I was not a Christian.

Then you are equivocating: I was not using the Biblical definition of 'non-Christian' when I said "it's not that non-Christians reject Christian theology, we just don't believe any of it's true."

The conventional definition of a non-Christian is, funnily enough, someone who is not a Christian. This does not include Mormons, Jehovas Witnesses, Catholics, etc.

I talk to all sorts of people, depending on where I go to preach or to share the Gospel.

Are these people non-Christians in the conventional sense, or the Biblical sense?

 

[WarEagle]

If I have offended your sensibilities, then I will retract my earlier statement and replace it with a qualified copy.

No, I'm not offended at all. I just think it's funny that you can't make up your mind.

I was assuming you were a standard Christian

I didn't realize there was more than one kind.

God is an all-loving father, etc.

God is not all loving. "All loving" implies that He is loving to the exclusion of all other attributes.

Tell me: what do you believe Hell is like? I've seen Hell described as a place of infinite punishment, non-existence, and even Godless Heaven.

Hell is a literal place where those who die in their sins, without having been born again, are sentenced by God to be punished for eternity in a literal fire and are conscious of their torment.

Then you are equivocating

No, I'm not equivocating at all. I've been very consistent.

The conventional definition of a non-Christian is, funnily enough, someone who is not a Christian. This does not include Mormons, Jehovas Witnesses, Catholics, etc.

But, Biblically speaking, Mormons, JWs are not Christians. Some Roman Catholics may be Christians.

Are these people non-Christians in the conventional sense, or the Biblical sense?

They're lost. They do not know Christ and are not born again. Hence, they are not Christians in any sense of the word.

 

[theQuestionist]

Right, but your argument that I did not correctly translate it rests on your statement that Hebrew has no vowels. Because the verse is transliterated and is not in the original Hebrew, we must first determine whether or not you know what transliteration is.

My critique was regarding the alleged Hebrew that YOU posted. I wouldn't be discussing the Hebrew if I didn't know what transliteration was.

No translations from Hebrew have vowels. It is through transliteration that vowels are added. The distinction between the words you used was vowel-dependent, thus....since you didn't post a source for your information, and you didn't post the originally translated text with vowel notation, it was impossible to tell if your quotation was valid. I also don't happen to have a Hebrew Torah in from of me to look myself.

And according to both Strongs' and Thayer's, they are.

Actually, no...they don't agree with what you posted.

You said that "roa" refers to the ability to discern what is right and wrong. Strong's online Lexicon states that "roa" merely refers to something "bad":

http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=roa

You also stated that "ra" refers to moral consequences, when Strong's states that it refers to "bad"ness as well, as well as discernment in some cases (and a bunch of other unrelated meanings. In fact, the word "consequences" isn't even a word used in over a page of definitions):

http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=ra

So you're incorrect on both counts.

I didn't assume anything. I just asked you a question. However, it's becoming clear from your attempts that something suspicious is going on.

Hahahah...something suspicious? Yes...what's suspicious is this magical Hebrew lexicon you seem to have which contradicts all other sources I've been able to reference. Also, your inability to post quotes from your sources, and your inability to understand certain scriptures, like when Genesis 3:4 states that:

4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

yet all the while you continue to assert that they already had the knowledge of good and evil beforehand.

If that's the way you want to look at it.

Yes, it's actually quite a nice analogy, showing how your patronizing comments can't veil your inability to properly source your claims.

OK. Why don't you help me out. Why don't you educate me a little and explain to me what transliteration is.

Ok so you want me to patronize you now? See above.

No, they're true. It is the Roman Catholic doctrine of "original sin" that is false.

Ok...so according to you the verses are true, but you don't agree with them?

Do you know how to read? I never said his actions had "absolutely no consequences".

Just the opposite, in fact. I said that it is because of Adam's rebellion against God that sin and death entered the world and we inherited the Adamic nature.

Right. So in other words, had it not been for Adam's actions, we would not have the Adamic nature, and would not require judgment and punishment for said nature. Precisely my point.

In other words, now we must experience the consequences (judgment--which infers accountability) for Adam's actions. Sure sounds like imputed accountability to me.

Please read Romans 5-7. It explains it all.

I've read Romans and it doesn't help your case. In fact, I cited Romans in my last point---a specific verse which defends my case.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No, I'm not offended at all. I just think it's funny that you can't make up your mind.

It's not that I've changed my mind, it's that you're reading a generalised statement too literally. I figured the exceptions would be so obvious as to not be worth mentioning, but apparently not.

I didn't realize there was more than one kind.

Well, the non-standard kind. The standard Christian believes things that the majority of other Christians believe, while the non-standard Christian doesn't. Good examples of standard and non-standard Christianity are those of Catholicism and Mormonism, respectively.

God is not all loving. "All loving" implies that He is loving to the exclusion of all other attributes.

Then you are not a standard Christian. Indeed, you are the first Christian I have come across who rejects the notion of an all-loving entity.

Hell is a literal place where those who die in their sins, without having been born again, are sentenced by God to be punished for eternity in a literal fire and are conscious of their torment.

And this, to you, is the actions a just entity would do? Infinite punishment for a finite and arbitrary crime?

No, I'm not equivocating at all. I've been very consistent.

Not quite. You equivocated the term 'non-Christian' in the following two statements:

"it's not that non-Christians reject Christian theology, we just don't believe any of it's true."

"That's certainly not true of the non-Christians in my experience. It wasn't true in my own case."

The definition of the term in the former is not the same as in the latter. Hence, you equivocated. But this is just semantics.

But, Biblically speaking, Mormons, JWs are not Christians. Some Roman Catholics may be Christians.

I think each of those groups would beg to differ. Indeed, I'm sure they all have theologians who have reconciled any apparent inconsistencies or 'unChristian' notions.

They're lost. They do not know Christ and are not born again. Hence, they are not Christians in any sense of the word.

You contradict yourself. You said these people claim to know the Bible is true, yet now you say they don't know Jesus. Which?
Besides, they would be considered Christians in the conventional sense: they believe the Bible is true, which entails a whole load of theological things (not least of which is the existence of the deity depicted therein).

 

[WarEagle]

Well, the non-standard kind. The standard Christian believes things that the majority of other Christians believe, while the non-standard Christian doesn't. Good examples of standard and non-standard Christianity are those of Catholicism and Mormonism, respectively.

There is only Biblical and not Biblical. Not Biblical is not Christian.

Then you are not a standard Christian. Indeed, you are the first Christian I have come across who rejects the notion of an all-loving entity.

That's odd. I've known thousands of Christians in my twenty some years as a Christian and have never met one who believed that God's only attribute is love.

To the contrary, every Christian I've ever known understands that God has many different attributes, including judgement, wrath, judgement, mercy, jealousy, etc.

At least, that's what the Bible teaches.

And this, to you, is the actions a just entity would do? Infinite punishment for a finite and arbitrary crime?

First, we're not talking about crime. We're talking about sin. There is a very big and very important difference.

Second, yes. If the authority of the one against whom the sin is committed is so great as to deserve eternal punishment, then I do believe it's just to sentence that person to eternal punishment.

In addition, if the person dies in their sins, then I don't see any other alternative than Hell. They die in their sins. They die as enemies of God. Heaven is not an option so Hell is all that's left.

Not quite. You equivocated the term 'non-Christian' in the following two statements:

"it's not that non-Christians reject Christian theology, we just don't believe any of it's true."

"That's certainly not true of the non-Christians in my experience. It wasn't true in my own case."

I didn't say that. You're attributing somebody else's words to me.

The definition of the term in the former is not the same as in the latter. Hence, you equivocated. But this is just semantics.

And you're being dishonest, attributing somebody else's words to me.

I think each of those groups would beg to differ.

And they do. I talk to them all the time and they insist that they're Christians. However, when I go over their religions' doctrines with them, it becomes clear that they're not, and even they can no longer argue that they are.

You contradict yourself. You said these people claim to know the Bible is true, yet now you say they don't know Jesus. Which?

OK. One more time:

They claim that they believe that the Bible is true but, in spite of the fact that they believe that the Bible is true, they do not know Christ.

I believe that Shelby Foote's books are true, but I don't know Robert E. Lee.

Besides, they would be considered Christians in the conventional sense: they believe the Bible is true, which entails a whole load of theological things (not least of which is the existence of the deity depicted therein).

That's not what a Christian is. A Christian is not simply someone who believes that the Bible is true. Besides, if they believe that the Bible is true, then they must believe that the Bible's definition of a Christian is also true and, thus, cannot consider themselves Christians.

 

[WarEagle]

Actually, no...they don't agree with what you posted.

Well, that's interesting, since that's where I got it from.

Hahahah...something suspicious? Yes...what's suspicious is this magical Hebrew lexicon you seem to have which contradicts all other sources I've been able to reference. Also, your inability to post quotes from your sources, and your inability to understand certain scriptures, like when Genesis 3:4 states that:

Actually, I've cited scripture several times.

yet all the while you continue to assert that they already had the knowledge of good and evil beforehand.

That is correct. We know this because, in the verse I've already provided for you, we're told that Adam resisted Eve because he knew that it was wrong.

In order for him to know that it was wrong, he first had to understand what "wrong" was. Hence, the knowledge of morality.

Second, we know that they understood good and bad morality because the Bible tells us that they were made in God's image, for the purpose of demonstrating God's attributes to the world.

It's interesting that you're so quick to believe what the serpent says, but so reluctant to believe what God says.

Ok...so according to you the verses are true, but you don't agree with them?

The verses are true and I agree with them. I do not agree with your misinterpretation of them.

Right. So in other words, had it not been for Adam's actions, we would not have the Adamic nature, and would not require judgment and punishment for said nature. Precisely my point.

Bottom line: when you stand before God, it will not be Adam's sins you are judged for. You will be judged for your own sins.

In other words, now we must experience the consequences (judgment--which infers accountability) for Adam's actions. Sure sounds like imputed accountability to me.

No. We experience the consequences of our own actions, just as we are judged for our own sins.

I've read Romans and it doesn't help your case. In fact, I cited Romans in my last point---a specific verse which defends my case.

Then I don't know what to tell you. It specifically tells us that death entered the world through Adam's sin, which caused us to inherit a sin nature which, in turn causes us to sin and place ourselves at emnity with God.

 

[theQuestionist]

Well, that's interesting, since that's where I got it from.

No, it's clearly not. You presented an unreferenced paraphrase. I posted a referenced citation. YOUR paraphrased definitions did not match the referenced ones, therefore you either made yours up, or you got them elsewhere.

OR, you can post your citation, explain why mine are incorrect, and show my initial claims to be false.

Actually, I've cited scripture several times.

In the context of my comment, your past scriptural citations aren't helpful. We were discussing Hebrew words and their direct translations according to a Lexicon.

That is correct. We know this because, in the verse I've already provided for you, we're told that Adam resisted Eve because he knew that it was wrong.

What? Adam resisted eve? Where do you see that? Here is the explicit passage:

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

What part of, "she also gave some to her husband...and he ate it" denotes resistance?

In order for him to know that it was wrong, he first had to understand what "wrong" was. Hence, the knowledge of morality.

Where does it state Adam resisted, and/or "knew it was wrong"?

Second, we know that they understood good and bad morality because the Bible tells us that they were made in God's image, for the purpose of demonstrating God's attributes to the world.

This is not represented by the text, as I've shown.

It's interesting that you're so quick to believe what the serpent says, but so reluctant to believe what God says.

I'm not quick to believe what either fictional character says within the diegesis. What we're discussing here is what the text says from an external point of view.

The verses are true and I agree with them. I do not agree with your misinterpretation of them.

My misinterpretation of them? I've explicitly demonstrated how your interpretation is incorrect even using the sources you cited for your claims, to substantiate my own (Strong's).

Bottom line: when you stand before God, it will not be Adam's sins you are judged for. You will be judged for your own sins.

Which I wouldn't have been able to commit were it not for Adam and Eve's actions....

No. We experience the consequences of our own actions, just as we are judged for our own sins.

No, the fact that we're even judged at all is a consequence of Adam's actions.

Then I don't know what to tell you. It specifically tells us that death entered the world through Adam's sin, which caused us to inherit a sin nature which, in turn causes us to sin and place ourselves at emnity with God.

Exactly....all of the consequences that we must deal with according to the Bible (death, judgement) are a result of Adam's actions.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

There is only Biblical and not Biblical. Not Biblical is not Christian.

Perhaps, but that begs the question: what is Biblical? There are a plethora of interpretations of the Bible (e.g., literal Genesis vs metaphorical Genesis), and for each interpretation there are a group of believers who call themselves Christians. Some of those groups deny the claims some of the other groups make to the Christian moniker.

So which interpretation is right? Yours?

That's odd. I've known thousands of Christians in my twenty some years as a Christian and have never met one who believed that God's only attribute is love.

You misunderstand. I said al the Christians I've encountered believe God is all-loving, not only all-loving. Most of them also believe that he is all-powerful, all-present, all-knowing, etc.

First, we're not talking about crime. We're talking about sin. There is a very big and very important difference.

How so? As I understand it, a sin is doing what God says you shouldn't, and a crime is doing what the relevant judical system says you shouldn't. Basing an argument on the difference amounts to special pleading.

Second, yes. If the authority of the one against whom the sin is committed is so great as to deserve eternal punishment, then I do believe it's just to sentence that person to eternal punishment.

Yet the sin is not being committed against anyone or thing. It is the abscence of an entirely nebulous and ill-defined mindset. How is that a sin against God? Indeed, why is he so petty as to set up the whole afterlife system around such an arbitrary notion?

In addition, if the person dies in their sins, then I don't see any other alternative than Hell. They die in their sins. They die as enemies of God. Heaven is not an option so Hell is all that's left.

Here's an option: God uses his omnipotence to get them into Heaven. Or is the Creator of the universe limited in that regard as well?

I didn't say that. You're attributing somebody else's words to me.

And you're being dishonest, attributing somebody else's words to me.

I beg to differ. Please see post #115.

And they do. I talk to them all the time and they insist that they're Christians. However, when I go over their religions' doctrines with them, it becomes clear that they're not, and even they can no longer argue that they are.

My discussions with them have concluded somewhat differently. But that's a topic for a different time.

OK. One more time:

They claim that they believe that the Bible is true but, in spite of the fact that they believe that the Bible is true, they do not know Christ.

I believe that Shelby Foote's books are true, but I don't know Robert E. Lee.

Which leaves me wondering: what does it mean to 'know' someone? Or is this where it gets a bit nebulous and hand-wavey? Moreover, I take it you have an objective measure for determining whether or not someone 'knows' Jesus; would you mind sharing?

That's not what a Christian is. A Christian is not simply someone who believes that the Bible is true. Besides, if they believe that the Bible is true, then they must believe that the Bible's definition of a Christian is also true and, thus, cannot consider themselves Christians.

The Bible never uses the word 'Christian', so I find it hard to believe it contains a definition.

 

[WarEagle]

No, it's clearly not.

It is. That's one of the first sources I go to, just as I went to it in this case.

OR, you can post your citation, explain why mine are incorrect, and show my initial claims to be false.

Yes, I could, but you have to understand that I don't care to bang my head against that particular wall with you.

My misinterpretation of them? I've explicitly demonstrated how your interpretation is incorrect even using the sources you cited for your claims, to substantiate my own (Strong's).

No, you did not show how Strong's and Thayers' contradict Strong's and Thayer's. You simply claimed that they contradict.

No, the fact that we're even judged at all is a consequence of Adam's actions.

When you stand before God, you will be judged for your own sins, not for Adam's or anyone else's.

Exactly....all of the consequences that we must deal with according to the Bible (death, judgement) are a result of Adam's actions.

I disagree. We must also face the consequences of our own sin.

 

[TheReasoner]

It is. That's one of the first sources I go to, just as I went to it in this case.



Yes, I could, but you have to understand that I don't care to bang my head against that particular wall with you.



No, you did not show how Strong's and Thayers' contradict Strong's and Thayer's. You simply claimed that they contradict.



When you stand before God, you will be judged for your own sins, not for Adam's or anyone else's.



I disagree. We must also face the consequences of our own sin.

Yes, but one could argue that we would not have sin to begin with if not for Adam and Eve.
And then there is the blood of the lamb by which we are free from our sins. Thank God!

 

[WarEagle]

You misunderstand. I said al the Christians I've encountered believe God is all-loving, not only all-loving.

When people say "all-loving", they mean loving to the exclusion of all of His other traits.

How so? As I understand it, a sin is doing what God says you shouldn't, and a crime is doing what the relevant judical system says you shouldn't. Basing an argument on the difference amounts to special pleading.

They are two different things.

Yet the sin is not being committed against anyone or thing.

Committed against God and God's laws.

Here's an option: God uses his omnipotence to get them into Heaven. Or is the Creator of the universe limited in that regard as well?

How does God's omnipotence make somebody born again?

I beg to differ. Please see post #115.

OK. Could you please show me where in post #115 I said ""it's not that non-Christians reject Christian theology, we just don't believe any of it's true"?

My discussions with them have concluded somewhat differently. But that's a topic for a different time.

I doubt very seriously that you have the same discussions with them that I do.

The Bible never uses the word 'Christian', so I find it hard to believe it contains a definition.

Acts 11:26 notwithstanding, the Bible does describe the charateristics of a Christian in several places.

 

[WarEagle]

Yes, but one could argue that we would not have sin to begin with if not for Adam and Eve.
And then there is the blood of the lamb by which we are free from our sins. Thank God!

Please read my posts before you respond to them.

 

[theQuestionist]

It is. That's one of the first sources I go to, just as I went to it in this case.

Then why did my direct citation completely contradict your paraphrase???

Why is this so hard for you to understand? You claim you went to a source, you provided a paraphrase of the source's info....then when I went to double-check it, NOTHING you said matched the actual source text, and I demonstrated this with a direct citation.

Also, I've repeatedly asked you to post your direct citation and you've repeatedly failed to.

Yes, I could, but you have to understand that I don't care to bang my head against that particular wall with you.

No, you did not show how Strong's and Thayers' contradict Strong's and Thayer's. You simply claimed that they contradict.

What???? I posted a direct citation of the definitions of "ra" and "roa", and both of them contradicted what YOU claimed them to be. Then when asked to provide the citation from YOUR source (which should be identical to mine) you've failed to do so MULTIPLE times, claiming that it would "just be banging your head against the wall".

When you stand before God, you will be judged for your own sins, not for Adam's or anyone else's.

We are talking about contingent accountability here. If Adam had not committed any sin, I would not need to be judged. Also, if Adam had not sinned, I would not have a sin nature. So the ultimate situation that I'll be considered accountable for (being judged as a result of having a sin nature) is 100% Adam's fault, and yet in your mind he's not to blame. In your mind it's my fault that I have a sin nature, and thus need to be judged.

I disagree. We must also face the consequences of our own sin.

You disagree? Or you would like to append the statement? "Also" is a conjunction. Your statement here does not "disagree" with mine....it only adds to it.

 

[WarEagle]

We are talking about contingent accountability here. If Adam had not committed any sin, I would not need to be judged. Also, if Adam had not sinned, I would not have a sin nature. So the ultimate situation that I'll be considered accountable for (being judged as a result of having a sin nature) is 100% Adam's fault, and yet in your mind he's not to blame. In your mind it's my fault that I have a sin nature, and thus need to be judged.

This is why I asked you to look at Romans 5. If you had read it, like I asked you to, you wouldn't have this confusion.

 

[theQuestionist]

This is why I asked you to look at Romans 5. If you had read it, like I asked you to, you wouldn't have this confusion.

Ironically, in post #120 of this thread, I told you to read Romans 5 (specifically 5:18), before you ever mentioned it--because it furthers my case.

What part of "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. " leads you to believe that we're not being held accountable for Adam's actions. "Just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men" makes it pretty darned clear.

Verse 19 adds another nail in your argument's coffin, stating that one act of disobedience makes all men sinners.

The hole you keep digging for yourself just keeps getting deeper and deeper.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

When people say "all-loving", they mean loving to the exclusion of all of His other traits.

Nope. They ascribe a whole list of traits to him: omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc.

They are two different things.

Then answer my question: how so?

Committed against God and God's laws.

I disagree. It is only God's self-righteousness that causes him to punish people for believing the wrong thing.

How does God's omnipotence make somebody born again?

There is no limit to the number of ways by which he could do it: he is omnipotent. The question is: why doesn't he?

OK. Could you please show me where in post #115 I said ""it's not that non-Christians reject Christian theology, we just don't believe any of it's true"?

I cannot, because they are my words. You equivocated the latter instance with the former; you wrote the latter, I wrote the former.

I doubt very seriously that you have the same discussions with them that I do.

And I doubt that you have ever talked to actual non-Christians who believe the Bible is true. But like I said, this is for another time.

Acts 11:26 notwithstanding,

Huh, there you go.

the Bible does describe the charateristics of a Christian in several places.

Please, give them.

 

[WarEagle]

Ironically, in post #120 of this thread, I told you to read Romans 5 (specifically 5:18), before you ever mentioned it--because it furthers my case.

Last time I checked, post #110 comes before post #120.

If you really want to insist that your mention in post 120 was before my asking you all to read it in 110, be my guest.

What part of "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. " leads you to believe that we're not being held accountable for Adam's actions. "Just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men" makes it pretty darned clear.

What part of "you shall die in YOUR sins" do you not understand?

The hole you keep digging for yourself just keeps getting deeper and deeper.

Right. This coming from the genius who believes that 120 comes before 110.

 

[theQuestionist]

Last time I checked, post #110 comes before post #120.

If you really want to insist that your mention in post 120 was before my asking you all to read it in 110, be my guest.

Oops I'll have to concede that point. During my glance through the thread to see when who mentioned what, the first time I saw your mention of Romans was post 121. Good eye.

What part of "you shall die in YOUR sins" do you not understand?

What verse are you referring to? A search on biblegateway.com for "you shall die in YOUR sins" returned no results.

Right. This coming from the genius who believes that 120 comes before 110.

So instead of actually responding to the points I made about Romans 5, or the points I've made about your misrepresentation of Strongs, you decide to harp on a simple oversight where I found your mention of romans in post 121, but didn't notice it in 110.

Sadly in that case, the one time you've been correct about something in this thread, was the one time the point being made was entirely inconsequential to the topic at hand. Congrats.