本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛> 5: It's impossible for a Christian to love sins.
> 6. It's impossible for a Christian not to love!
> A quick recap 2. It's impossible for a Christina not to love (take actions, do good deeds).
A short summary of above three points: It is impossible for a Christian to love sins. It is impossible for a Christian not to love (do good deeds).
According to the logic we all learned in class, the equivalent saying of above summary: If a person loves sins, he is not a Christian. If a person can't love (do good deeds), he is not a Christian.
I know this is coming because it is the only way to attack my point. But I don't believe you actually use that. This is too easy for me:
Is the launching of Crusade a sin? Y
Do the Crusade participants think Crusade is right and love Crusade? Y
Are they all having mental disease? N
Are they Christian? Y
If this Crusade example is debatable, how about this one:
Is the Inquisition's BBQ-ing Bruno, toturing Galileo, or doing any other similar thing a sin? Y
Do the BBQ-ers think BBQing Bruno is right and love it? Y
Are they all having mental disease? N
Are they Christian? Y
Do I really need to list all sins Inquisition did during the middle age?
As you can see from above, just because my Hitler loves sins, doesn't mean that he is not qualified as a Christian, he still has his free ticket to heaven.
You have to explain to me that according to bible, if a person loves sins, he is not a Christian, then why in human history, some Christian do love sins and still be Christian? To this fact that bible and human history does not match with each other, which one do you believe is correct, bible or human history?
To disqualify my Hitler's free ticket to heaven, your pastors have to do better than that, don't you think?更多精彩文章及讨论,请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
> 6. It's impossible for a Christian not to love!
> A quick recap 2. It's impossible for a Christina not to love (take actions, do good deeds).
A short summary of above three points: It is impossible for a Christian to love sins. It is impossible for a Christian not to love (do good deeds).
According to the logic we all learned in class, the equivalent saying of above summary: If a person loves sins, he is not a Christian. If a person can't love (do good deeds), he is not a Christian.
I know this is coming because it is the only way to attack my point. But I don't believe you actually use that. This is too easy for me:
Is the launching of Crusade a sin? Y
Do the Crusade participants think Crusade is right and love Crusade? Y
Are they all having mental disease? N
Are they Christian? Y
If this Crusade example is debatable, how about this one:
Is the Inquisition's BBQ-ing Bruno, toturing Galileo, or doing any other similar thing a sin? Y
Do the BBQ-ers think BBQing Bruno is right and love it? Y
Are they all having mental disease? N
Are they Christian? Y
Do I really need to list all sins Inquisition did during the middle age?
As you can see from above, just because my Hitler loves sins, doesn't mean that he is not qualified as a Christian, he still has his free ticket to heaven.
You have to explain to me that according to bible, if a person loves sins, he is not a Christian, then why in human history, some Christian do love sins and still be Christian? To this fact that bible and human history does not match with each other, which one do you believe is correct, bible or human history?
To disqualify my Hitler's free ticket to heaven, your pastors have to do better than that, don't you think?更多精彩文章及讨论,请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net