GC, I appreciate the points you made above. Well done. Thank you.

Would this be as you would say?:
I'm just quoting the Bible, you aren't arguing with it are you?



I'm not sure you should be one making analogies.


I never heard your response to your questions I answered regarding the abortion doctor and his killer. According to the answers, did either "murder"? Do you approve of either or both?

You are correct. Let me reword it:

You have indicated that Jesus would have wanted someone else to kill someone but didn't have a good chance to.

Which really does fits better since the disciples were asking to call down fire from heaven. Thank you for pointing out my error.

Now, can you fill that in and answer the question?

As I recall, Christ actually said, "Let he of you which is without sin cast the first stone." As I pointed out, this is a set with no members, which means that Christ told nobody to stone her.

Do you not understand this?



She wasn't repentant. Not until after Christ spoke to her. It was His goodness that led her to repentance. Nobody repents without Christ's making the first move. If He hadn't pardoned us first, we'd all be dead.



Your definition doesn't apply here. Of course Jesus couldn't have pardoned the woman in the sense of having pardon written against her name without her repenting first. When Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more" this isn't pardon according to your definition that's being spoken of.

Regarding the rest of it, I think you're missing the whole point of what Jesus was about. He said one of the most beautiful things ever, in saying "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more." You're making this conditional upon the woman's goodness, but the whole point is that it was Jesus' goodness that led the woman to repentance, not the woman's goodness that led Jesus to not condemn her.



I appreciate your kind words, but we look at this incident very differently. I've mentioned the analogy of the father/hunter on a number of occasions. I see the incident like that.



The woman wasn't deserving of forgiveness. Christ acted the way He did towards her out of the goodness of His own heart, not out of any goodness on her part.



I believe that compelling power is found only under Satan's government. I believe Christ responded correctly when He told the disciples, "You know not of what spirit you are," when they suggested He destroy the Samaritans by setting them on fire.

God is not the destroyer. Satan is the destroyer. The Lord is the restorer.

kland,

If in your mind I'm not qualified to use an analogy in my post, why do you think I am qualified to respond to your analogy?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Why don't you answer his question? He's asked several times now.

I have answered his question already, but apparently he feels he has a good analogy that will undermine something of my belief, and so he has pushed it forward again. When I give a countering analogy, he tells me that I am not qualified to do so. If he will not respond to my analogy even once, I see no reason to continue responding to his analogy, which I already have answered at least once.

Tom, you are the one most famous on this forum for stating that you have already said such and so, and therefore avoid answering the present question. I should think it rather odd for you to become upset when I respond as you would. I should rather think you would be praising me for my wisdom. (Don't they say imitation is a form of flattery?)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

You haven't been here very long. You asserting, wrongly, that I am "most famous" on this forum for stating that I have already said so and so, when I'm the one who most faithfully responds to other's posts. By far. The only one who comes even close to me in this regards is MM.

The only person I can recall saying I've already responded to a post to is MM, and that's only after he's asked the same question many dozens of times. I've been having these conversations with MM for years. He asks the same questions over and over again, dozens of times, and I answer them. Eventually I tire, and refer to posts I've already made, or quote someone else more eloquent than me, like Ty.

But this is light years away from your behavior, and as one who has something like 10 or 15% the posts I have, you're hardly qualified to comment on what I'm "most famous" for.

It would be nice if you could be famous for avoiding personal comments. You've already been corrected on this by a disinterested party. As a Moderator you should know better.

Your answer, Tom, seems like a good one.



I've answered the question the best I can. You have certain presuppositions, so I can't answer "yes" or "no" without buying into those.


Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

You're welcome. The truth is comforting, when seen in the correct light. When seen at the wrong angle, even truth can seem harmful or be construed as falsehood.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.