Should I eat breakfast or not?

sentipente · Aug 13, 2008

Byfaithalone1 said:
Thanks. That's what I thought too. Thus my confusion regarding my exchange with Sentipente.

BFA

The confusion was caused by your response in #51

Byfaithalone1 · Aug 13, 2008

sentipente said:
Why do we need the "good" qualifier for the question to be valid. We can do nothing without God because without Him we would not be here. None of us.

Agreed.

Now, since we agree, would we also agree that there are some works that are good and some that aren't?

BFA

sentipente · Aug 13, 2008

Byfaithalone1 said:
Agreed.

Now, since we agree, would we also agree that there are some works that are good and some that aren't?

BFA

Who decides where to draw the line?

Byfaithalone1 · Aug 13, 2008

sentipente said:
Who decides where to draw the line?

First, indicate whether there is a line and then we can cover who decides.

BFA

MRHarvey · Aug 13, 2008

sentipente said:
...But one thing is certain. That vision did not result in a change in his diet.

No, that is not certain! If you want to say, "We don't know whether that resulted in a change in his diet or not," go ahead and say that!

I concede that I can not say, with absolute certainty, that it did result in a change in his diet, but you can't say that it didn't, either!

MRHarvey · Aug 13, 2008

sentipente said:
... Humans don't change unless they have to.

With all due respect, Sentipente, that particular part of your statement is simply not true. I know for sure that there are many progressive and moderate and former Seventh-Day Adventists who used to observe the kosher dietary laws -- and some who even used to be vegetarians -- who have since changed their dietary habits. And they didnt change because they had to; they changed because they realized that with the freedom that we have in Christ, we dont have to observe the kosher dietary laws!

As a matter of fact, Byfaithalone is one of those people!

With love in Christ,

Mark

MRHarvey · Aug 13, 2008

Byfaithalone1 said:
Without God, I can't imagine that a human would ever change for the better. BFA

I would like to play "Devil's advocate" on that point, for just a moment!

Take, for example, a person who has quit smoking. And lets just say that this person never asked God for help in quitting smoking. This hypothetical person might not even believe in God; he or she might be an atheist! In that scenario, he or she could say, "Because I quit smoking, I changed for the better without God."

That said, we can not make ourselves righteous in Gods eyes. As the Scripture says, "All our righteous acts are like filthy rags [in the eyes of God] ." (Isaiah 64:6)

Therefore, if by "changing for the better", you mean becoming righteous in God's eyes, then of course you are right! We can not become righteous in God's eyes without His help! In fact, even WITH His help, we can not actually make ourselves righteous! We can only create room in our lives to let God work within us to make us holier than we are!

That is what sanctification is all about ... it is about me creating room in my life to allow GOD to change me from the inside out!

sentipente · Aug 13, 2008

MRHarvey said:
With all due respect, Sentipente, that particular part of your statement is simply not true. I know for sure that there are many progressive and moderate and former Seventh-Day Adventists who used to observe the kosher dietary laws -- and some who even used to be vegetarians -- who have since changed their dietary habits. And they didnt change because they had to; they changed because they realized that with the freedom that we have in Christ, we dont have to observe the kosher dietary laws!

As a matter of fact, Byfaithalone is one of those people!

With love in Christ,

Mark

Something tells me that when you see "have to" you read "are forced to."

Byfaithalone1 · Aug 13, 2008

MRHarvey said:
Byfaithalone is one of those people!

Indeed I am. Have we met before? Or did you know that because of my previous posts in this thread.

BFA

sentipente · Aug 13, 2008

Byfaithalone1 said:
First, indicate whether there is a line and then we can cover who decides.

BFA

You said there was a line when you identified two classes. No need to play games here. If you say C-A-T I don't have to wait for you to say that spells CAT.

MRHarvey · Aug 13, 2008

Byfaithalone1 said:
Indeed I am. Have we met before? Or did you know that because of my previous posts in this thread.

BFA

I do not know whether we met before or not. You seem like a kindred spirit to me, so I would like to think that maybe we did! But I picked up what I said from your previous posts in this thread!

MRHarvey · Aug 13, 2008

sentipente said:
Something tells me that when you see "have to" you read "are forced to."

No, sentipente, I never said that! There you go again, putting words in my mouth that I never said!

Since you are the one who said,

Humans don't change unless they have to.

YOU define what you meant by, "have to"!

sentipente · Aug 13, 2008

MRH, you have to when circumstances leave you no choice. It matters not whether those circumstances arise from without or within.

MRHarvey · Aug 13, 2008

sentipente said:
MRH, you have to when circumstances leave you no choice. It matters not whether those circumstances arise from without or within.

I don't want to go off on too much of a tangent, Sentipente, but that statement and position is a very difficult one to defend. Because there are really only two things in life that you have to do, namely (1) pay taxes, and (2) die. With those two exceptions, you always have a choice.

Of course, if you don't do something, there are always consequences. But you always have a choice, and you don't really have to do anything, as long as you're prepared to accept the consequences for not doing it (whatever the "it" is)!

That said, just to humour you, I will accept your definition of "have to" for now!

Your statement,

sentipente said:
Humans don't change unless they have to.

just doesn't hold water! Byfaithalone has already agreed with me that he changed his dietary habits when he didn't "have to"!

I would say (and you can debate me on this if you like) that people change under one of the following three conditions and only under one of the following three conditions, namely (1) when they have benefits to gain by changing, especially when the benefits outweigh the price they pay for changing, or (2) they know that there are going to be consequences if they don't change, or (3) both.

I know that you mean well, sentipente! But your saying, "Humans don't change unless they have to," just doesn't make sense! If you think it over, I am sure you will agree with me!

God bless you, sentipente!

With love in Christ,

Mark

sentipente · Aug 14, 2008

MRH, you may benefit from a reading of Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions."

MRHarvey · Aug 14, 2008

sentipente said:
MRH, you may benefit from a reading of Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions."

Sure, sentipente, I will read that book as soon as I can! I don't doubt that I will find it interesting, at least!

However, it seems to me that you are now taking the easy way out! Since you obviously cannot refute the points that I have made (because if you could have, you would have), and your pride won't allow you to admit that I am right, you are taking the easy way out by passing the buck to Thomas Kuhn!

sentipente · Aug 15, 2008

MRH, did you really want me to respond to your assertion that one of the things man must do is to pay taxes? Be serious. If you want kudos take them but don't expect the illogical.

MRHarvey · Aug 15, 2008

sentipente said:
MRH, did you really want me to respond to your assertion that one of the things man must do is to pay taxes? Be serious. If you want kudos take them but don't expect the illogical.

On the point about paying taxes, I was sort of half-kidding, half-serious. For the moment, let it suffice to say that you might be able to find a way to cheat the government out of a portion of your taxes ... maybe even a very large portion. But you can't get out of paying taxes completely! (If you think I am wrong there, just try it!) But that is not the main point that I was making.

My main point was that we (all of us; I am as guilty as the next person) use the phrase "have to" in reference to things that we don't really have to do. We often use "have to" when we really mean, "...want to!"

When you think about it, there are very few things in life that we truly "have to" do! And that is why -- although I love you in the LORD -- your statement about humans not changing unless they "have to" just doesn't cut it!

Byfaithalone1 · Aug 15, 2008

MRHarvey said:
However, it seems to me that you are now taking the easy way out!

If this is true of Senti, one could hardly blame him. It seems to be the result of drinking the water around here.

BFA

sentipente · Aug 15, 2008

MRHarvey said:
When you think about it, there are very few things in life that we truly "have to" do! And that is why -- although I love you in the LORD -- your statement about humans not changing unless they "have to" just doesn't cut it!

I have been trying to figure out this exchange and I now see the source of your confusion. When I said, "humans only change when they have to" you read that to mean "everytime humans change it is because they have to" when this is not what I said.

Should I eat breakfast or not?

Senior Contributor

The gospel is Jesus Christ!

Senior Contributor

The gospel is Jesus Christ!

Returning Member

Returning Member

Returning Member

Senior Contributor

The gospel is Jesus Christ!

Senior Contributor

Returning Member

Returning Member

Senior Contributor

Returning Member

Senior Contributor

Returning Member

Senior Contributor

Returning Member

The gospel is Jesus Christ!

Senior Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency