Self analysis of your Christian witness

[bbyrd009]

The natural and spiritual don't mix ...our problem is, we try to have the best of both world. It can never work...will never bring joy and peace, but confusion of soul.

well, different subject now, and i'm not 100% with you on the definition of "natural" there i guess, you are meaning "natural man" and not "nature" there, i spose.

 

[Helen]

well, different subject now, and i'm not 100% with you on the definition of "natural" there i guess, you are meaning "natural man" and not "nature" there, i spose.

Not following...what do you mean natural?
I am talking about our two choices...the Spirit ,or this life we live.

So,.. when you get out of bed in the morning...which life do you choose to live in?

 

[bbyrd009]

Not following...what do you mean natural?
I am talking about our two choices...the Spirit ,or this life we live.

So,.. when you get out of bed in the morning...which life do you choose to live in?

bed, lol. "This life we live" can be of the world, or not, so the definitions would vary quite a bit. "Natural" man is really "worldly" right, not "earthly" iow. So the term "natural," the definition of it, becomes variable, depending upon what we apply it to, right.

Nature contains no sin, iow; if we lived "naturally" we would live sinlessly. Of course Scripture refers to "naturally" as "worldly" for a human, so i don't mean to disagree, just pointing out that now we need a new word for "a human living not according to the world," which we now deem "unnatural."

 

[bbyrd009]

Not following...what do you mean natural?
I am talking about our two choices...the Spirit ,or this life we live.

So,.. when you get out of bed in the morning...which life do you choose to live in?

well if the end is known, i have no choice, right

Where is Scott now?

see, when you stand at judgement and your testimony is
"i perceived that time was an illusion, and that i did not really even exist, except as a character in a movie that had already been produced. So then, i deemed my choices irrelevant, too, bc they had already been made"
then God is not going to give you a pot of money, ok, and Scott will not be available to explain to God why He has to give you one, either

the doctrine either produces fruit meet to rebound, or it does not; and the doctrine is irrelevant to God, see, God only cares about the fruit of the doctrine, which i have repeatedly asked for a witness of, but cannot get. And i could name it, if i needed to, but imo i do not, do i

 

[ScottA]

sin requires knowledge, so i guess i am not getting the benefit of this pov either
ah, and what purpose is that? To demonstrate sin? Is that the gist?

In a manner of speaking, yes. Because it is the presentation of evidence for the judgement.

 

[bbyrd009]

In a manner of speaking, yes. Because it is the presentation of evidence for the judgement.

which has also been removed to some future tomorrow, and also does not occur today, yes?
but wait, hasn't judgement already been passed?
Who is this evidence being presented to, for judgement?

 

[ScottA]

He didn't? are you sure?

Yes, according to a host of witnesses, and to me by God Himself.

all this embracing and stopping, aren't they impossible or irrelevant in your model? i thought you were watching a movie?

If I have a model at all, it is not a model, but the truth from God. And if I have painted a picture saying "the kingdom of heaven is like..."...so did Christ.

 

[ScottA]

well, i have asked, like 3 or 4 times now, "how might this foster better works?" but wadr the answer that i get is "nevermind that part."

No, no, I was answering your question about what you believe, and simply did not want to misquote what you have already said about it.

As for, fostering better works...one is more likely to do good works knowing the truth, than one in doubt or one following a lie. Like the rich man, if he took the truth to heart, it would devalue his money in his own mind.

 

[ScottA]

how can there be an "if" in a movie where the end is known? Nevermind all of the other issues with this for now, which i can see about 3 other glaring ones

There is only an "if" for those who do not [yet] know the end.

And the other 3?

 

[ScottA]

which has also been removed to some future tomorrow, and also does not occur today, yes?
but wait, hasn't judgement already been passed?
Who is this evidence being presented to, for judgement?

No, "today" is "that day." Nonetheless, if one is not convinced that "today" is "that day", then that day will come when they know not.

But, again, we are mixing the timeline of the world with the eternal and timeless truth, to even have such a conversation. What must come first, is an acknowledgement of the language in proper "today" tense, throughout the word of God for those who have an ear to hear it. Then, and only then, can we go on to turn the timeline of the world sideways (or endways) to see it all in the twinkling of an eye...which is the greater truth.

For example, if you could line up every man who is "in Christ" with Christ being the First and the Last, you would see a very long line...comparable to the history of the world. But if you go to the Beginning or the End and view the lineage from either end, you would only see One man, that being Christ. But if you are immovable, not able to leave the timeline of history...then you will not see the whole truth as God does, whom is Truth...and there is no other, meaning, that what is seen from the vantage point of the world timeline...is not the truth, but rather the truth divided.

 

[bbyrd009]

There is only an "if" for those who do not [yet] know the end.

amen to that

 

[bbyrd009]

And the other 3?

The rich man, if He embraces all that Christ preached, is left with a pot full of money for his new journey.

the rich man is out of "ifs," did not embrace Christ, and would no longer attempt to serve two masters if he had, at least imo. Iow we are apparently not even talking about the same guy, the one begging for a drop of water, who has become aware that that movie he was in was in fact interactive after all lol

 

[bbyrd009]

But if you are immovable, not able to leave the timeline of history...then you will not see the whole truth as God does

so then you are saying that you see the whole truth

 

[amadeus]

well, hindsight is the only thing seems to be 20/20, right.

Yes, as the flesh tells the tale. We, however, are asked to walk in faith, which is something the natural eye cannot see.
What can we see by faith of God's order? We certainly can see it in part, but it is the part we cannot see that might be a concern to us.

 

[ScottA]

the rich man is out of "ifs," did not embrace Christ, and would no longer attempt to serve two masters if he had, at least imo. Iow we are apparently not even talking about the same guy, the one begging for a drop of water, who has become aware that that movie he was in was in fact interactive after all lol

Oh, I see. Yes, a different rich man. I was referring to the one who Jesus told to sell all he had and give it to the poor and then follow Him, but could not.

In the case of the other rich guy...it is a parable, not a declaration of a purgatory or an interactive world such as it may seem. But if you will examine all the parables and the finer points of the truth of heaven, you will find that the parables would appear to contradict the greater truth of heaven. But they are simply examples that show a principle...just as bread is not literal when describing Christ. This is Jesus "teaching" on a very elementary level.

The point, that Jesus was making is that the time to come around to the truth, is before the end, not after. But this not relevant to freewill, but rather to Christ hoping to employ more workers in the harvest, but finding a wicked generation of men who were not prepared for His coming.

 

[aspen]

What is a good and faithful servant? I want details, people!

 

[aspen]

On a side note: it is very cold outside in many parts of the country and homeless folks really appreciate those desposible handwarmers - they work for 8 hours and can be a great comfort during a cold night outside.

 

[bbyrd009]

Oh, I see. Yes, a different rich man. I was referring to the one who Jesus told to sell all he had and give it to the poor and then follow Him, but could not.

i figured that out near the end there, but then rejected that bc now other Scripture is being disregarded, you got even worse probs now iow lol, Christ specifically told that guy that the pot of money was what he had to get rid of, see

 

[ScottA]

i figured that out near the end there, but then rejected that bc now other Scripture is being disregarded, you got even worse probs now iow lol, Christ specifically told that guy that the pot of money was what he had to get rid of, see

That was all based on the analogy of the parable which was a worldly example, not representative of the greater timeless truth of God. In other words, it is out of context as a precedence, if one wants to go beyond the typical understanding otherwise limited to the world. So, we should either talk within the context of the world and time, or within the context of God, or compare the two...not use one against the other.

 

[bbyrd009]

not representative of the greater timeless truth of God.

well, so you say, but i disagree there as well. The parable is already an analogy, of a greater timeless truth of God imo, equally expressed in other places. You cannot serve God and Mammon