Why isn't perfection possible?

[McCulloch]

[T]he Sermon on the Mount [...] sets a high standard of Godliness, and convicts of sin, but anyone who understands the Biblical issues involved in progressive sanctification by the Holy Spirit should admit that perfection is not possible by mere mortals on this earth.

Matthew 5:48
"Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Why is it that many Christians feel that the Holy Spirit cannot actually do what Jesus said should be done? Why is it that Christians, with the Holy Spirit dwelling within them, cannot choose to stop sinning? What are the Biblical issues supporting this doctrine of inevitable failure on the part of every Christian's best effort?

[bernee51]

Thank you bernee. Perhaps there should be an understanding or announcement provided by forum management that when someone inquires about a Biblical concept, person, place, or event, that when a Scriptural response explaining that Biblical concept, person, place, or event is subsequently provided in good faith, it need not be considered a CLAIM, requiring PROOF.

As long as the claim is made in the name of Christianity only and not claimed as a default position for ALL of ‘creation’.

For example – if you claim that you will have to answer to what you believe is your maker – no problem.

If you claim that I will have to answer to what you believe is your maker – then I believe you have to justify, outside of your myths, the aspects of this claim.

IOW the Christian bible only applies to Christians. You cannot use the bible to prove to non Christians that what it says is universally true without providing substantiation.

Perhaps someone could clarify that or how to present the response in the future so they aren't peppered with "Prove it" or "show us the evidence" demands.

Simple.

Show that you accept that the worldviews of others are as valid as your own – even though you may not agree with it and reserve the right to vehemently disagree – bearing in mind that any disagreement is only your opinion unless substantiated and supported by incontrovertible logical argument.

[Easyrider]

Thank you bernee. Perhaps there should be an understanding or announcement provided by forum management that when someone inquires about a Biblical concept, person, place, or event, that when a Scriptural response explaining that Biblical concept, person, place, or event is subsequently provided in good faith, it need not be considered a CLAIM, requiring PROOF.

As long as the claim is made in the name of Christianity only and not claimed as a default position for ALL of ‘creation’.

For example – if you claim that you will have to answer to what you believe is your maker – no problem.

If you claim that I will have to answer to what you believe is your maker – then I believe you have to justify, outside of your myths, the aspects of this claim.

IOW the Christian bible only applies to Christians. You cannot use the bible to prove to non Christians that what it says is universally true without providing substantiation.

Perhaps someone could clarify that or how to present the response in the future so they aren't peppered with "Prove it" or "show us the evidence" demands.

Simple.

Show that you accept that the worldviews of others are as valid as your own – even though you may not agree with it and reserve the right to vehemently disagree – bearing in mind that any disagreement is only your opinion unless substantiated and supported by incontrovertible logical argument.

Will that verbiage also be required of those positing their own world views (secular claims, etc.)? I'd like a little simpler offering if that's ok.

For instance, if there's a thread like this one ("Why isn't perfection possible") and the person who initiates the thread cites a scriptural passage (with no evidence or proof that that one is authentic), then scriptural responses should also not have any baggage attached as far as "prove it," or "show me the evidence the Holy Spirit is real."

[JoeyKnothead]

'Preciate you numbering them for me. Now, since you offer all these claims, please offer evidence they are true.

I don't believe that is required. Somebody wanted to know what or who the Holy Spirit was / is and I gave them the (Biblical) Christian response.

And, according to Christianity & Apologetics Subforum Guidelines # 2, "...using the Bible as the only source to argue what is authentic Christianity is legitimate."

As far as I'm concerned that is what was being discussed.

That's a long winded way to say "I have no evidence".

If we are asking what is the Holy Spirit, shouldn't there be a standard of evidence?

What if the Bible's wrong?

Oh yeah, I got the PM about being placed on ignore. I've come to expect such from those who lack evidence for their claims.

Notice, this is NOT Theology, Doctrine & Dogma, or Holy Huddle. Claims are not immune to challenges simply because a Christian makes a claim.

[JoeyKnothead]

Thank you bernee. Perhaps there should be an understanding or announcement provided by forum management that when someone inquires about a Biblical concept, person, place, or event, that when a Scriptural response explaining that Biblical concept, person, place, or event is subsequently provided in good faith, it need not be considered a CLAIM, requiring PROOF. Perhaps someone could clarify that or how to present the response in the future so they aren't peppered with "Prove it" or "show us the evidence" demands.

I take it then you have no evidence, but seek to continue making claims.

I see no problem with your theological point of view. However, in Apologetics surely your claims should be held to a standard of evidence.

The fact you choose to place me on ignore should not hold you immune to challenges to claims you seek to pass off as truth.

If we are to have an even sided debate, surely it is understood that evidence should rule the day.

We see this all the time where some theists make claims, and then go to crying about how it is unfair to ask for evidence.



Do you Easyrider (though you have placed me on ignore) contend that your "Holy Ghost" is an otherwise real, quantifiable entity?

You have claimed certain characteristics for this "Holy Ghost", I challenge you to offer evidence YOUR CLAIMS are true.

[JoeyKnothead]

For instance, if there's a thread like this one ("Why isn't perfection possible") and the person who initiates the thread cites a scriptural passage (with no evidence or proof that that one is authentic), then scriptural responses should also not have any baggage attached as far as "prove it," or "show me the evidence the Holy Spirit is real."

You made claims regarding whether "perfection" is possible or not.

In support of your position you offered claims of a "Holy Ghost", and offered numerous characteristics for this "Holy Ghost".

If this "Holy Ghost" can't be shown to exist, it is my position you have posted erroneous information regarding the characteristics of this "Holy Ghost".

In response to a challenge, you place me on ignore yet again, and go to crying about how it's unfair to challenge you when you make claims.

If you don't want your claims challenged, don't make them.

Is that such a difficult concept to understand?

[McCulloch]

Moderator Opinion

'Preciate you numbering them for me. Now, since you offer all these claims, please offer evidence they are true.

Don't have to.

According to Christianity & Apologetics Subforum Guidelines # 2, "...using the Bible as the only source to argue what is authentic Christianity is legitimate."

As far as I'm concerned that is what was being discussed.

Gotta agree with you ER.

As far as your christian beliefs and worldview go all of the above (carefully numbered) could be considered as 'true'.

In the rest of the world, however, they are unsubstantiated claims.

Thank you bernee. Perhaps there should be an understanding or announcement provided by forum management that when someone inquires about a Biblical concept, person, place, or event, that when a Scriptural response explaining that Biblical concept, person, place, or event is subsequently provided in good faith, it need not be considered a CLAIM, requiring PROOF. Perhaps someone could clarify that or how to present the response in the future so they aren't peppered with "Prove it" or "show us the evidence" demands.

I don't have much to add, but I have to agree with Easyrider. In context of this debate, it is sufficient to define the authentic Christian belief about the Holy Spirit.

[bernee51]

Simple.

Show that you accept that the worldviews of others are as valid as your own – even though you may not agree with it and reserve the right to vehemently disagree – bearing in mind that any disagreement is only your opinion unless substantiated and supported by incontrovertible logical argument.

Will that verbiage also be required of those positing their own world views (secular claims, etc.)? I'd like a little simpler offering if that's ok.

For instance, if there's a thread like this one ("Why isn't perfection possible") and the person who initiates the thread cites a scriptural passage (with no evidence or proof that that one is authentic), then scriptural responses should also not have any baggage attached as far as "prove it," or "show me the evidence the Holy Spirit is real."

In quoting scripture there is a tacit acknowledgement and understanding that a believer may hold it as authentic. If you wish to further quote scripture as to why you beieve it is authentic - no problems - other than it being a circular argument - i.e scripture authenticating the validity of scripture.

If you quote scripture as an indication as to why it should be considered UNIVERSALLY authentic then you are moving to a position where something beyond your mere personal belief is warranted.

Otherwise you are doing nothing but preaching.

[I AM ALL I AM]

Is perfection of self based upon what you think, speak, act, or is it based upon the result that you get from thinking, speaking, acting ?

My presumption, based on the way I understand the Biblical record, is that it would be all of the above.

What is "the Biblical record" ?

The Bible

Would this also mean that the combination of thoughts, actions, words give you the perfect result BECAUSE of the specific thoughts, action, words that you have chosen ?[/b][/color]

I have no idea what u mean here, sorry.

G'day Elucidate.

Thank you for your response.

I'll elaborate upon what I mean.

When I scratch body, I have done so perfectly BECAUSE the thoughts and actions have been combined by the choices that I have made to give me the result, that is, me scratching my body. If I had chosen to rub my body instead of scratching it, then the result would also be perfect BECAUSE the result of the thoughts and actions gave me exactly what the choices I made intended.

Therefore, every thought, action, word, perfectly gives you the result that is chosen. The idea of imperfection would be a misunderstanding of the thoughts, actions, words that are required to create an experience, or result. The idea of imperfection within another would be the misunderstanding of the choices of thoughts, actions, words, which have been combined by the choices made to give a result AND the judgement of the result based upon the one making the judgement.

Even the misunderstanding would be perfection, that is, it is a perfect re-presentation of thoughts, actions, words, combined to give the result of misunderstanding.

A simple way of stating this would be, what you put in you get out.

[elucidate]

Is perfection of self based upon what you think, speak, act, or is it based upon the result that you get from thinking, speaking, acting ?

My presumption, based on the way I understand the Biblical record, is that it would be all of the above.

What is "the Biblical record" ?

The Bible

Would this also mean that the combination of thoughts, actions, words give you the perfect result BECAUSE of the specific thoughts, action, words that you have chosen ?[/b][/color]

I have no idea what u mean here, sorry.

G'day Elucidate.

Thank you for your response.

I'll elaborate upon what I mean.

When I scratch body, I have done so perfectly BECAUSE the thoughts and actions have been combined by the choices that I have made to give me the result, that is, me scratching my body. If I had chosen to rub my body instead of scratching it, then the result would also be perfect BECAUSE the result of the thoughts and actions gave me exactly what the choices I made intended.

Therefore, every thought, action, word, perfectly gives you the result that is chosen. The idea of imperfection would be a misunderstanding of the thoughts, actions, words that are required to create an experience, or result. The idea of imperfection within another would be the misunderstanding of the choices of thoughts, actions, words, which have been combined by the choices made to give a result AND the judgement of the result based upon the one making the judgement.

Even the misunderstanding would be perfection, that is, it is a perfect re-presentation of thoughts, actions, words, combined to give the result of misunderstanding.

A simple way of stating this would be, what you put in you get out.

Still lost in whatver u r trying to say, but if you imply that "perfection" is relative, then yes it is. Relative to me, to you, to God, etc

[Cathar1950]

There is something twisted about this Bible authority problem.
How is it an authority?
Christians differ on this answer and the skeptic or non-believer should not have to accept it as authority. To presume authority takes the arguments within where the skeptic or those that disagree are not welcome. It seems that the desire for authority closes the arguments.
Along with all this problems is the differing interpretations and doctrines and indoctrinations that shape the so-called Biblical authority,
W hat is ask for is some insistence their Bible is true ad the acceptance of its authority presumes belief and doctrines that are implied but not specified.
They want their foot i the door so they can clutter your floor with Jesus Bible tract doctrines.
I suspect this demand that the Bible be the or an authority has some roots in 19th century battles with Liberal Believers where the Bible was accepted as well as the Greek desire for standards and measures of categories.