It's an either/or. Is repentance a turnstile by commission of the same sin over and over but without changing our habit, or abandonment of of evil if favor of righteousness?
What is t4rue repentance
Posts
Total:
17
Jesus tells the woman taken in adultery to "go and sin no more." I believe the intent is for you to repent and then change your ways, to struggle against sin, as Paul says in Romans. Nevertheless, many use it as a revolving door of crime and absolution, and there's nothing in the Bible that explicitly says that kind of shit doesn't fly, that there's a limit on how much sin can be forgiven.
The Bible also indicates we can never truly abandon evil in favor of righteousness. A sinless life is aspirational, but can never be realized.
-->
@Castin
Jesus, son of a philanderer and a loose woman, was a sexually repressed gay guy, who probably masturbated a lot.
Rather pompous of him to tell women how to recreationally utilise their reproductive equipment.
And you cannot prove that a word of this is untrue.
-->
@zedvictor4
I can't prove it's untrue, but I can certainly say it is unsupported by the data, and it is.
-->
@Castin
Zedvoctor4 chooses Hell every single time he makes such posts.
-->
@zedvictor4
Cease to make such posts.
-->
@Castin
Perfectly feasible interpretation of biblical texts, relative to known human function and behaviour.
All the pretentious latter day interpretations referring to stuff such as sin, righteousness and repentance is largely hypocritical theo-speak, that ignores human function and behaviour.
Whether designed, evolved or designed and evolved, the organism is programmed not to be sinless. Whatever sinlessness might mean.
We have been designed or evolved or designed and evolved, to be competitive survivalists and progressive intellectualists, wherein being nice all the time, just isn't workable, and we have never functioned as such.
Even the bible is full of competitive not niceness.
After all, the basis of Christianity is either founded upon the rape of Christ's mother, or a quickie in the stable when Joe wasn't looking.
Or magic sperm of course.
@AdaptableRatman
Such posts are the essence of a two sided debate.
Yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, would soon get tedious.
And a debating forum is not a Christian workshop, wherein we pat each other on the back and enjoy a cup of tea and a slice of cake.
And heaven and hell are fantasy lands, in a book of myths and legends.
You might think differently, which is the other side of the debate.
It's the way it goes.
-->
@zedvictor4
Perfectly feasible interpretation of biblical texts, relative to known human function and behaviour.All the pretentious latter day interpretations referring to stuff such as sin, righteousness and repentance is largely hypocritical theo-speak, that ignores human function and behaviour.Whether designed, evolved or designed and evolved, the organism is programmed not to be sinless. Whatever sinlessness might mean.We have been designed or evolved or designed and evolved, to be competitive survivalists and progressive intellectualists, wherein being nice all the time, just isn't workable, and we have never functioned as such.Even the bible is full of competitive not niceness.After all, the basis of Christianity is either founded upon the rape of Christ's mother, or a quickie in the stable when Joe wasn't looking.Or magic sperm of course.
The Gospels and Pauline epistles constitute our best data on Jesus. They need to be judged critically, using historical methodology, but they're our best data.
And they are silent on Jesus's sexual orientation; they are silent on the identity of Jesus's real father. You can "interpret" that he was gay or a bastard, but the fact of the matter is the data is inconclusive, and you would simply be taking liberties with it to score points against Christianity.
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Zedvoctor4 chooses Hell every single time he makes such posts.
Hell is an unjust concept originally envisioned by the oppressed to comfort them that their oppressors would find punishment, but now used as a cracking whip to enforce Christian dogma. Zed will not be impressed with your whip.
Is this a religious question or an open question for everyone either religious or non religious?
I'm answering anyway as the agnostic person that I am.
Repentance is what it is, the feeling of regret or remorse. If you really feel remorse you'll never do it again.
I've always thought that religious people who fall in the same error over and over again don't give a damn about their religion. They are not fully convinced that there is such a "God" that watches over us and punish cruelly to those who don't obey. This outlook on morality is nonsensical.
This dynamic of "command and obey/disobey" is outdated, it doesn't work in our moder society because it's hard to believe. Intelligent people don't believe in fairytales. It might work in backward societies like the African or Latiamerican, or even in the US that abounds with ignorant people, but in the real advanced society it simply doesn't.
Have you seen those motivational posters in churches that say stuff like "A true Christian wants to be free of sin, not to sin freely." That's what the establishment tries to teach, I think.
But like, on paper you can totally live a life of evil from birth to deathbed, repent accept Jesus and then go to heaven. If there's a baptism somewhere along the way. Which is... suboptimal, justice-wise.
-->
@Castin
So sketchy bits of old text of dubious authorship get venerated and given an evocative title. The bible is full of that sort of stuff.
Largely old wives tales and Christian propaganda, which is undoubtedly data, but nonetheless also liberty taking.
And there's pretty sound historical data that shows Christian power houses have been taking the gullible masses for a ride ever since.
Give us a tenth of your chattels, and we will make sure that you go to heaven, sort of thing.
-->
@zedvictor4
Yes, Rev. Jim Bakker is proof of that.
-->
@FLRW
Yep, Jim and all the fools that fell for his BS.
Fools and their money are easily parted, as the saying goes.
-->
@Castin
Jesus tells the woman taken in adultery to "go and sin no more."
So here we can assume that, had Jesus not intervened this poor woman would have ben stone to death?
Odd then that the bible claims that the Jews were not allowed to execute anyone?
John 18:31ESV Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law." The Jews said to him, "It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death." NIV Pilate said, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law." "But we have no right to execute anyone," they objected.
Not to mention that the Jews had already tried to kill Jesus a few times themselves for blasphemy before his execution by the Romans.
and there are James and Stephen that were killed by the Jews.
-->
@Stephen
Stephen! Welcome back.
The law of Moses commanded the execution of adulterers. The angry crowd wanted to test Jesus by seeing if he would go along with Mosaic law like an original gangsta. Would they have actually stoned her if Jesus had not been present, or was she just an opportunity to play gotcha on an upstart rabbi? Unanswered. Legally the Romans reserved authority to execute, but it wouldn't be the first time a mob got out of control. Well, I think the Sanhedrin had limited powers too...
This story wasn't even originally in John, so we must remember that as well.