What evidence would be required for you to abandon your religious belief

[Deidre]

I don't. You are free to believe anything. But since you are in a forum discussing these things, then it is obviously that I target you, as any other Christian or believers in competing deities.

For sure I would call anybody out who states that belief in a (benevolent) deity is evidence that such deity exists. You did not do that, but I think it is obvious that the only evidence we have is that belief in that deity provides such benefits. Nothing more, nothing less.

Ciao

- viole

Yes, I understand what you’re saying, now. You’re right. There’s no ‘one way’ to view it, really. Which is why there are a number of ‘paths’ to God. Or ‘a god.’ This might sound odd but reading the Bible, or learning about a particular set of beliefs…not sure how people can stay connected to Christianity that way. That’s not enough for me. Maybe it should be? But, having an experience of faith…that changes everything. It makes it meaningful on a personal level.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

because everyone is different. Isn't that obvious?

??? Apparently not.

How do you know it's not non-believers that are deluded? No one can believe in something they know nothing about.

I was born and raised a Christian. My family is still Christian. I married a Christian. I've studied this stuff all my life. If I was religious I'd have called it my calling. You have no idea what I know nothing about.

they are not false, just different....many thoughts of one mind

So Muslims being compelled to bring to submission members of other religions or to kill them in the name of Allah and Jihad are just different thoughts of one (schizophrenic) mind?

No I would not. The Divine law says, Do not kill. It is an interpretation lower down the consciousness level of this aeon that changes it to kill. But it does that because it follows a fractal pattern already expressed.

Well you've just twisted your mind into one philosophical pretzel. Now just turn up the oven and bake. Bon Apatite!

 

[Desert Snake]

The point is that we're here to make our moral choices ourselves. No one can sacrifice himself as a substitute for a person's genuine repentance, much less so that he doesn't even have to try to be good as Paul declared. The idea is Satanic, symbolically speaking of course.

Where does Scripture say that one may not repent?

Paul was almost certainly the Beast of Revelation, the number of the beast (which isn't 666, Arabic numerals coming later) is Jewish Gematria for Tarsus. Let him who has wisdom understand. (Which I'm not claiming btw. I was put on to Gematria by some modern day Jewish followers of (a human) Jesus, Ebionites.

You'll have to explain the reasoning here, and in more than just broad statements.

 

[Desert Snake]

Well, that is where we're going to have to disagree. Christ's Sacrifice was for all sins - past , present and future. His Sacrifice was/is the Key that unlocks the gates of Heaven. But it's up to you to accept it.

You have created a contradiction, or rather an unnecessary step in explaining your position. You state that all sins are forgiven, then you state that one must ''accept'' that.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Where does Scripture say that one may not repent?

You'll have to explain the reasoning here, and in more than just broad statements.

It doesn't say, and I didn't say, one may not or can not repent. Paul says it isn't necessary as long as you believe:


"But didn’t he earn his right to heaven by all the good things he did? No, for being saved is a gift; if a person could earn it by being good, then it wouldn’t be free—but it is! It is given to those who do not work for it. For God declares sinners to be good in his sight if they have faith in Christ to save them from God’s wrath." --- Romans 4:4

 

[s13ep]

@ThePainefulTruth

Ironically, this member's name is what it would take for me to be against belief in 1, 2, 3, 4 and Cubic Truth.

 

[Desert Snake]

It doesn't say, and I didn't say, one may not or can not repent. Paul says it isn't necessary as long as you believe:


"But didn’t he earn his right to heaven by all the good things he did? No, for being saved is a gift; if a person could earn it by being good, then it wouldn’t be free—but it is! It is given to those who do not work for it. For God declares sinners to be good in his sight if they have faith in Christ to save them from God’s wrath." --- Romans 4:4

I believe that you are getting 'works' mixed up with 'repent'. Repentance is of course necessary. Hence the sacrifice is still conditional on the person.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

@ThePainefulTruth

Ironically, this member's name is what it would take for me to be against belief in 1, 2, 3, 4 and Cubic Truth.

Did I miss/forget a post or something?

I believe that you are getting 'works' mixed up with 'repent'. Repentance is of course necessary. Hence the sacrifice is still conditional on the person.

Works require effort or "trying". The whole schism between James and Paul was about faith vs. works and the law--which Paul dismissed out of hand. Thus:
"Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble."--James 2:19

Who do you think he was talking to? Repentance requires effort, i.e. works.

 

[Desert Snake]

Works require effort or "trying". The whole schism between James and Paul was about faith vs. works and the law--which Paul dismissed out of hand. Thus:
"Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble."--James 2:19

Who do you think he was talking to? Repentance requires effort, i.e. works.

That isn't what ''repentance'' actually means. Works can be part of repentance, they aren't the same thing, nor can they be used interchangeably. I believe these verses serve as a teaching device, in the Scripture, regarding how one should act.
Aside from that, I have no problem with you believing whatever you want,\
ps I noticed you did not answer the request for a more detailed explanation of your taking sides with the Ebionite position regarding Jesus, I'm interested in that, since you brought it up.

 

[s13ep]

Did I miss/forget a post or something?

No, you didn't, I was simply making use of your name.

 

[Deidre]

You have created a contradiction, or rather an unnecessary step in explaining your position. You state that all sins are forgiven, then you state that one must ''accept'' that.

Having grown up Catholic, I know it states this, but this is where I get a bit...hazy with things. Maybe hazy isn't the right word. But, before I deconverted, and now coming back to faith, I always held true to that God knows the heart, and His mercy is everlasting...is unfathomable. The new covenant makes it all possible, one could say. (if that makes sense)

People who are not Christians could say...well, why was God's mercy dependent upon a sacrifice of some type? It's a good question, but that is where faith comes in, and not everyone will believe that Jesus is the son of God. And this is another area, that I just step away from 'traditional' Christianity and believe that if someone is following a different path, that is not up for anyone to judge it. (except for God, if He wishes to, I reckon)

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

That isn't what ''repentance'' actually means. Works can be part of repentance, they aren't the same thing, nor can they be used interchangeably. I believe these verses serve as a teaching device, in the Scripture, regarding how one should act.
Aside from that, I have no problem with you believing whatever you want,\
ps I noticed you did not answer the request for a more detailed explanation of your taking sides with the Ebionite position regarding Jesus, I'm interested in that, since you brought it up.

Your take on the Paul quote shows you force the puzzle pieces where you want them to go, no matter the wrong fit and chaotic, meaningless image. I don't remember you asking about the Ebionites, but now I really don't see the point in going into it.