Irrefutable departure

Could very well be. If Taz focussed on being a good person, I mean really, really focussed.. then there'd be a decent chance that he'd realise that he can't actually be a good person.Which, I think, is what the "real Christ" set out to teach both in word and in (by comparison with his) deed Recruitment by being good and nice ... I'd wager Mike sayingEdited by iano, : No reason given.

I don't think his words showed how one is to be good & nice so much as they showed what good and nice are considered to be.Telling someone to love their neighbour isn't telling them how to be good & nice. If you want to tell someone how to be good & nice, you'd give them a workable method whereby they could overcome the selfishness/hatred/anger/lust that so often prevents people loving their neighbour.I don't recall Jesus doing anything like that. It seems to me that he majored on the standard - not how we go about achieving it.- I'd see it as the one priority consisting of two parts. Letting your light shine (being good & nice) as part of the mechanism of recruitment. That doesn't require a choosing between the two componants of the priority.Of course, Sin will tend to work against the recruitment attempt - with extinguishing the light being the primary aim of sin's attack. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Spoken like a man who's sure they're not. Or sure they can't know what they say they know.

There's still a little confusion in my mind about the thrust of your question (although I'll take a stab at what I think you're asking). Consider how the first question is to be read (with my clarifiying addition in brackets);Question 1: What I do (helping others vs. informing them about Christ) is the subject of importance.-Question version 2: In this instance, the focus of importance has to do with the position of the person in the building - what they do vs. what they know. If it's the case I've guessed wrong in plumping for answering version 2 of the question next then perhaps you'd let me know?-Consider the North building occupant. Assuming he is lost, he needs to know that his works are of no effect in terms of his salvation and that salvation comes through reliance on God's provision for him via Jesus Christ. I must certainly inform him.The South building occupant: has in depth knowledge of Jesus Christ but might not be relying on Jesus Christ for his salvation. Given that there are two options I can think of, you might clarify?a) His knowledge extends to his knowing he is reliant on Christ for his salvation. In which case he is currently saved and the North building occupant is the one I must attend to. (I could presume to encourage this slack Southerly occupant into doing the good demanded of him by his (and my) master, but that's a secondary matter to the main issue of importance)b) His knowledge is head knowledge - the kind of knowledge EvC member Brian has, for instance. In which case he is as lost as the man doing all these good deeds in the other building. In which case I might as well toss a coin regarding which building to approach first. I might add that "knowing of Jesus Christ and him crucified" isn't really the fulcrum of salvation. My position would be that people believe God and as a result of that, are translated into the saved state. This whether in Old Testament times (before they could have heard of Christ) or in/post New Testament times (when they might yet not have heard of Christ). The person thus saved will believe on Christ as their saviour - if subsequently informed about him. But that belief is consequential to their having been saved by believing God. It's not causal in their salvation.

​

Which is why I said of the Northerly occupant; "assuming he is lost". Despite his never having heard of Christ prior to my arrival, he could yet be a saved person. Meaning his good works are the result of his being occupied and moved by the Holy Spirit.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

So the Christian who is so self-righteous so as to be sure he is correct is arrogant. And you who is sure you are correct is ... what precisely?

Given that I haven't the slightest clue what Nuggin is trying to say in this sentence - allied to the fact that you clearly (apparently) do, makes me think it's not so much iano's philosophical semantics as completely crossed wires. My bad in all probability.By all (and any!) means... restate your positionEdited by iano, : No reason given.