what is the purpose of repentance?

[Jenyar]

How long was it between Moses' receiving the commandments and Jesus' crucifiction and resurrection?
Maybe we are just impatient ...

Or we don't appreciate the options and information that are available to us.

Do you think that because someone says that God has changed his life -- that this automatically means that it was indeed God who has changed his life?
And if yes -- what exactly was God's doing in this? Was it God who gave the person a good job, beauty?
Or should I think that God gave something else which then in turn lead to getting a new job and becoming beautiful?

Usually a person would not even say that God has changed his life - that is simply a claim to make. The evidence is seen in the changed life itself. There have been people pardoned from death row and taken off most wanted lists because the courts could not deny that their lives have changed. And they don't deny it either. They live their faith, and not with the goal of having their lives changed, but because God promised and had delivered on His promise.

You will never be able to take the processes and thought-patterns out of the faith for long enough to say "this was God, this was not". Just like someone who goes into any relationship will never be able to say these things happened outside the relationship and those things happened inside it. You either integrate God into your life, participate in His will, and reconsider all your choices in light of that relationship, or you don't.

Getting a new job or meeting someone who finds you beautiful will happen within the relationship, or outside it. Whether you have faith in God or not will determine how you see in them, and what meaning they have to you. Many people have exactly those things and much more, and still wish for love or happiness or other things their lives cannot offer itself.

But what if I apply principles that are identical with those proposed by Christianity -- only that I don't call them that way.
If I don't call something God's love, this means it isn't God's love?

It's not so much to do with calling it something or other, or even crediting the source of your life or its laws, but what such affirmation or denial would entail. Take for instance your words to SnakeLord.

You say, "Then the worse for God. As long as my conscience is clear, I shall have nothing to fear"; While Paul says: "My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me" (1 Corinthians 4:4). Like above, the difference is not whether something is from God or not, but whether its within a relationship with God or not.

Saying that something is God's love or not would be like trying to say whether something is good or bad per se - the cat's vs. the dog's perspective - unless it is your cat and the neighbour's dog, you cannot judge either way.

Your principles are just that: your principles. If they do not answer to any higher authority, what makes them any more valid than someone who says "my conscience doesn't have to be clear, since it doesn't matter whether it is or not"? Why (or when) does it matter whether your principles are identical to Christianity, or Buddhism or humanism?

Not to be presumptuous, but: If someone doesn't feel called, does this in any way imply that he might be righteous?

Feelings are notoriously obedient to our subconscious desires, prejudices and presumptions. We must take note of them, but they cannot declare whether we are good or bad, righteous or unrighteous. They don't have the power to judge us; we should rather judge them.

"Righteousness" is a valuation according to certain standards of righteousness, certain moral laws. If you agree that living an ethical life by moral principles is more than just something that "works for you" (like injustice, murder and crime "works for" others), then you live under the judgment of those principles. You are accountable for them, and you will have to be nothing less than perfect in order to be truly innocent. This can become an unbearable weight, because how certain are you that you will be found innocent and declared righteous by the mere merit of your faith in moral principles? This is the exact same problem that the Pharisees, teachers of the law and genuinely trying Isrealites everywhere struggled with. Especially considering that love for yourself and others is of equal importance than doing right before God. What will keep you feeling moral and "righteous" when it becomes hard, when you fail yourself or others, and when you make mistakes?

Romans 3:19-20
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.​

 

[Silvertusk]

So... that would then mean that everyone born before jesus died would not have the *room* in which they could act on their free will, and that *they* had no choice in the whole thing?

It would also mean they weren't forgiven, and thus anyone born before jesus existence, or anyone who's never heard of him is doomed.

Right?

If you argue against this and say that the people who were around before jesus existence just repented to god himself and got forgiven, then jesus entire existence has no valid purpose.

So.. which is it?

Jesus's sacrifice atoned for all the sins of all people who have lived.

I think the whole point was this. Jesus was without sin and therefore the ultimate sacrifice and the atonement for all our sins. By accepting Jesus as your "Saviour" you agreed to have him stand in as your defense lawyer if you like when you stand judgement. Jesus would simply say that the price for your sins has already been paid and therefore you will goe to heaven. You would be forgiven.

However you need to want to be forgiven to actually be forgiven. For instance If I just thought I could do anything because it doesn't matter cos I will be forgiven anyway and still go to heaven I would be wrong. I would not be forgiven because I would not have accepted that forgiveness because it means nothing to me.

Repentance means you are asking for forgiveness and want forgiveness and through Jesus it will be granted you.

As the doctorine goes anyhow.

 

[Silvertusk]

It's seems to be your word against his.

And that's where you're wrong. Its my word against those who assumed he died for sins. He never attested to that, did he?

Christians make a lot of assumptions based on what was written many years after his so-called death. They have conveniently filled in the blanks for their own purposes.

Jesus was no different than any other martyr.

If he was alive today, we would probably read about him igniting a bomb strapped to his body.

Um...ok..yes right. I think prehaps you are overlooking the slight difference here. Jesus died alone. He did not take a few hundred people with him. Yes he is a martyr but he took his martyrdom upon himself, no one else that day had to die for his cause.

 

[Silvertusk]

What I desribed above is what MOST Christians do. They go sin all week and think it's OK because they can go to confession on Sunday and it's taken care of.

I admittedly use repentance and confession interchangeably, which I guess is technically wrong. I do this because confession is supposed to be the formal act of repentance. But if you committ the same sin every week and confess it every week, you aren't exactly "turning away from sin."

Therefore that person is not really a true Christian.

 

[water]

Or we don't appreciate the options and information that are available to us.

All this time you have been telling me to examine the evidence myself and to decide myself what to think.
In practice: to examine = to not appreciate.

If I am to appreciate it, I must be a Golden Retriever.
If I examine, I set myself on an endless journey, never being able to make up my mind about anything, as I know the troubles with empiricism and induction all to well.
In short, to solve this, I would need a miracle. But miracles happen only if one has faith. But to have faith, one must first examine and decide. To examine and decide takes an eternity. Wruuuuum, we go.

Usually a person would not even say that God has changed his life - that is simply a claim to make. The evidence is seen in the changed life itself.

No, it is not. All we *see* is that this person's life changed. But why and how -- remains a question which we most likely won't be able to answer consistently.

There have been people pardoned from death row and taken off most wanted lists because the courts could not deny that their lives have changed. And they don't deny it either. They live their faith, and not with the goal of having their lives changed, but because God promised and had delivered on His promise.

I think God prefers some people over other. Of course, you'll probably say that it is that some people prefer God over others, while some other people don't exhibit this preference.

But. If outside of the loop, one can't enter.

I read an article in the National Geographic on how they breed wild birds that are to be released into the wild. These birds must never imprint the face and features of a human, for then, they would not fear humans and would treat them as fellows of their kind -- and thus they would come close to people and let themselves be captured once they grow up.
The people who feed them and take care for them while they are young must wear masks and ovecoats, so that the birds don't know what humans look like, and would later on not treat them as fellows of their kind.

I think to some people, God is just like the people who feed those young wild birds: He is wearing a mask and an overcoat, and no matter what we do, we can't recognize Him. Now, that we are adult, it is too late. Even if He does take off his mask, we won't recognize Him.
For some people He took care showing His face. But for some others, He was wearing a mask. And now we don't know Him. And no amount of will power or decision making can compensate for that.

You can blame me all you want, accuse me of rebellion all you want: But I do not know God. And it is beyond me to decide.

But what if I apply principles that are identical with those proposed by Christianity -- only that I don't call them that way.
If I don't call something God's love, this means it isn't God's love?

It's not so much to do with calling it something or other, or even crediting the source of your life or its laws, but what such affirmation or denial would entail.

Both affirmation as well as denial are beyond my grasp.

Take for instance your words to SnakeLord.

You say, "Then the worse for God. As long as my conscience is clear, I shall have nothing to fear"; While Paul says: "My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me" (1 Corinthians 4:4).

I said As long as my conscience is clear, I shall have nothing to fear, I did not say I am innocent. The "nothing to fear" is about me being aware of the punishment, knowing that it will come, being ready for it.

Like above, the difference is not whether something is from God or not, but whether its within a relationship with God or not.

Personally, I do not think that God loves me. But if there is such a thing as hell -- I will surely go there.

Your principles are just that: your principles. If they do not answer to any higher authority, what makes them any more valid than someone who says "my conscience doesn't have to be clear, since it doesn't matter whether it is or not"?

Of course. My principles are as valid as my fists can ensure. I mean this literally.

Why (or when) does it matter whether your principles are identical to Christianity, or Buddhism or humanism?

I am not sure I understand what you are asking.

But as far as I understand, I think my principles would matter if I would be someone important with great social influence. This, I am not, so I can only hope that the police are doing their work.

Not to be presumptuous, but: If someone doesn't feel called, does this in any way imply that he might be righteous?

Feelings are notoriously obedient to our subconscious desires, prejudices and presumptions. We must take note of them, but they cannot declare whether we are good or bad, righteous or unrighteous. They don't have the power to judge us; we should rather judge them.

"Righteousness" is a valuation according to certain standards of righteousness, certain moral laws. If you agree that living an ethical life by moral principles is more than just something that "works for you" (like injustice, murder and crime "works for" others), then you live under the judgment of those principles. You are accountable for them, and you will have to be nothing less than perfect in order to be truly innocent. This can become an unbearable weight, because how certain are you that you will be found innocent and declared righteous by the mere merit of your faith in moral principles? This is the exact same problem that the Pharisees, teachers of the law and genuinely trying Isrealites everywhere struggled with. Especially considering that love for yourself and others is of equal importance than doing right before God.

So a little child who doesn't feel called is not righteous?

What will keep you feeling moral and "righteous" when it becomes hard, when you fail yourself or others, and when you make mistakes?

Ah, but I fail anyway.

 

[SnakeLord]

Jesus's sacrifice atoned for all the sins of all people who have lived.

By itself this is fair enough. Not only does it somewhat answer the points I raised but also ensures that everyone goes to heaven. Yes, even us atheists. My sins no longer mean anything, I am by that statement, innocent of everything I've ever done. Here's where the problem, and point of my post, comes into play:

By accepting Jesus as your "Saviour" you agreed to have him stand in as your defense lawyer if you like when you stand judgement.

The whole point of my post was that anyone who has never heard of jesus, or lived before jesus cannot have accepted jesus as their saviour. In general christians will state that these people are auto-saved, which in itself completely negates the need for jesus.

Repentance means you are asking for forgiveness and want forgiveness and through Jesus it will be granted you.

And going back to my post: who would those that lived before jesus have repented to?

 

[Silvertusk]

By itself this is fair enough. Not only does it somewhat answer the points I raised but also ensures that everyone goes to heaven. Yes, even us atheists. My sins no longer mean anything, I am by that statement, innocent of everything I've ever done. Here's where the problem, and point of my post, comes into play:



The whole point of my post was that anyone who has never heard of jesus, or lived before jesus cannot have accepted jesus as their saviour. In general christians will state that these people are auto-saved, which in itself completely negates the need for jesus.



And going back to my post: who would those that lived before jesus have repented to?

Which is a damn good question. The answer is God. Jesus is after all suppose to be God so I guess it is all the same really.

I am sure I read somewhere that everyone before and after the life of Jesus is included into the deal that Jesus made. But granted this is very vague and obviously not well researched on my behalf so I will have to get back to you on that one.

If as suggested that all people will be judged at the same time at the end of all things, maybe all people who died before Jesus time when they come before God/Jesus it won't matter because they all tried to follow the same God. We today are more familiar with the incarnation than the actual diety. But it is still the same "diety" we all tried to follow.

So in essence I suppose it still means the same for the people who died before Jesus's time as it is for us. Try to follow and obey God the best you can and Jesus will take care of the rest.

I think.....

 

[Silvertusk]

But also I like to believe that even athiests when they die when they see God and think....ah ok so you do exist. If they have lived a good life, they might then be willing to accept him as they will see him as a "Good" God. And so even at the last moment they will be saved. That is what I would like to believe anyway as God is suppose to be all about grace.

Hope that came out right......

 

[SnakeLord]

Which is a damn good question. The answer is God. Jesus is after all suppose to be God so I guess it is all the same really.

Thus showing the utter irrelevancy of jesus.

I am sure I read somewhere that everyone before and after the life of Jesus is included into the deal that Jesus made.

Again showing the irrelevancy of his being here.

If as suggested that all people will be judged at the same time at the end of all things, maybe all people who died before Jesus time when they come before God/Jesus it won't matter because they all tried to follow the same God.

They did? The jewish god is a baby in comparison to some gods, and jesus is even younger than that. Mankind, in it's incredible stupidity, has followed all kinds of beings - all just as real as anyone elses, but I would literally laugh my nuts off if we were all brought back to life on judgement day face to face with someone like Amun Ra, Apollo or Zeus. Do not think for one second that there's only one god. There are thousands upon thousands of them. Here's a start: www.godchecker.com

We today are more familiar with the incarnation than the actual diety. But it is still the same "diety" we all tried to follow.

Who says? And why are you limiting it to one being? The very notion of there only being one god is certainly less believed in history than multiple god beliefs which have abounded since day 1. Yes, even christianity believes in 3 distinct beings.

Try to follow and obey God the best you can and Jesus will take care of the rest.

Why jesus? What is there to suggest he's real over say Gilgamesh? The answer is: nothing. It's as stupid as buying a lottery ticket and spending £5,000,000 before the draw because you're sure you're going to win.

And why follow and obey a being/s that you have no knowledge of?

But also I like to believe that even athiests when they die when they see God and think....ah ok so you do exist. If they have lived a good life, they might then be willing to accept him as they will see him as a "Good" God.

How would seeing that a god exists in any way lead to a conclusion that it's good? If we were to take a biblical standpoint then god clearly is not good, but a serious psychopath.

And so even at the last moment they will be saved.

If they want to be. I personally couldn't see the value in living forever. Sure, a few hundred years would be nice, but after 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years it would start to get a tad boring.

That is what I would like to believe anyway as God is suppose to be all about grace.

Who says? The biblical god certainly doesn't.

 

[Clockwood]

Snakelord: Gilgamesh was 3/4ths divine. He actually has a lead over Jesus.

 

[SnakeLord]

Very true

 

[Woody]

Jenyar: Jesus didn't come to bear certain tortures for us, He came to save our lives.
*******************************************************
Q: Horsepucky. If such a man existed and if the event of his death happened, he did it to become a martyr, nothing more.
*******************************************************
Jenyar: It's seems to be your word against his.
*******************************************************
M*W: Well, Jenyar (Q) is alive and well and living somewhere on Planet Earth. Jesus is only a fig newton of your deluded imagination.

*********************************************************
Jesus: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. (John 10:10)

********************************************************
Woody: I live on planet earth and I agree with Jenyar. We both agree with Jesus. So that makes three of us.

 

[SnakeLord]

Jesus: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. (John 10:10)

Strange. It looks specifically like someone called john wrote it, not jesus. As a result you're just trusting some guy you don't know who calls himself john, who probably wasn't even around at the same time as jesus. Doesn't it make you wonder why god, who seemingly has so much to say, didn't write one word, and how god, who seemingly wants people to listen, chose a handful of people who weren't around at the same time as him, and couldn't even get their stories straight?

And so you place unquestioning faith in these people that you don't know that make claims that god said so and so, when it remains evident to state that god hasn't ever actually said anything. Didn't he know how to write?

 

[Silvertusk]

Thus showing the utter irrelevancy of jesus.



Again showing the irrelevancy of his being here.

No not at all. You see because of what he has done he has saved everyone who lived before him as well. You are forgetting his sacrifice as paid for all our sins before during and after his time. It doesn't matter when the price is paid - just the fact that it has been. If Jesus hadn't made the sacrifice then Hell would be a busy place at the end of time.

They did? The jewish god is a baby in comparison to some gods, and jesus is even younger than that. Mankind, in it's incredible stupidity, has followed all kinds of beings - all just as real as anyone elses, but I would literally laugh my nuts off if we were all brought back to life on judgement day face to face with someone like Amun Ra, Apollo or Zeus. Do not think for one second that there's only one god. There are thousands upon thousands of them. Here's a start: www.godchecker.com



Who says? And why are you limiting it to one being? The very notion of there only being one god is certainly less believed in history than multiple god beliefs which have abounded since day 1. Yes, even christianity believes in 3 distinct beings.

I don't understand why you are bringing this up. You are debating with someone here that believes the Christian God not anyone elses. I don't have your luxury to bring other gods into the arguement because otherwise I wouln't be true to my own beliefs. So unfortuantely they are irrelevant to my line of arguement here.

Why jesus? What is there to suggest he's real over say Gilgamesh? The answer is: nothing. It's as stupid as buying a lottery ticket and spending £5,000,000 before the draw because you're sure you're going to win.

And why follow and obey a being/s that you have no knowledge of?

Again I am only telling you what I believe. Whether you do or not is entirely up to you. I believe he is real and IMHO I believe there is a lot of evidence about that reinforces my belief. You don't and you have probably seen a lot of evidence to support your belief.

How would seeing that a god exists in any way lead to a conclusion that it's good? If we were to take a biblical standpoint then god clearly is not good, but a serious psychopath.

You are making a unfair generalisation here. Yes God does go pretty psycho in the first few books, even to the point that he wipes out everything. Bear in mind I think that these stories are part allegorical. But there is more than enough to counter balance that in the bible with acts of kindness and goodness. Most of the NT is all about kindness and grace.

If they want to be. I personally couldn't see the value in living forever. Sure, a few hundred years would be nice, but after 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years it would start to get a tad boring.

Yes you are probably right here. But then we don't know what it will be like. Maybe sitting in the presence of God gives you such immense joy that you never want it to end....who knows.

Who says? The biblical god certainly doesn't.

If you are talking about Grace here then you are very wrong I'm afraid. There are many examples of grace throughout the bible. Most of them in the parables in the NT. For instance the Prodgical son, the Master paying the workers the same money for different lengths of time they work. the forgiveness of sins are just a few examples.

 

[Jenyar]

All this time you have been telling me to examine the evidence myself and to decide myself what to think.
In practice: to examine = to not appreciate.

That's your conclusion, and I don't agree with it. Someone who takes the time to examine something is concerned with it, does appreciate its existence. The opposite would be taking it for granted, being indifferent towards it.

Hebrews 2:1 We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away.​

If I am to appreciate it, I must be a Golden Retriever.
If I examine, I set myself on an endless journey, never being able to make up my mind about anything, as I know the troubles with empiricism and induction all to well.
In short, to solve this, I would need a miracle. But miracles happen only if one has faith. But to have faith, one must first examine and decide. To examine and decide takes an eternity. Wruuuuum, we go.

The slippery slope fallacy. You can come to conlcusions while examining something, even if it's only preliminary. Otherwise the systems of science and justice would have been jokes. Life takes a lifetime to live - that doesn't mean you might as well give up now. It only looks like an endless journey because you can't already see the end of it, and even making a decision doesn't put an end to it. We're talking about choosing between paths to take, not paths to ponder.

The problems with empiricism and induction come in when your belief in doubt is stronger than your belief in finding the truth.

You cannot find truth if you don't believe it exists.

No, it is not. All we *see* is that this person's life changed. But why and how -- remains a question which we most likely won't be able to answer consistently.

That's why we often call them 'miracles' in retrospect. To that person, the definitive moment will be when he accepted Christ and began living a new life, and living it consistently. By saying it's all we can *see* you admit there is more to it than mere deterministic appearance. There were personal choices involved, and he will only be able to tell you that he made them. You have to make your own.

I think God prefers some people over other. Of course, you'll probably say that it is that some people prefer God over others, while some other people don't exhibit this preference.

But. If outside of the loop, one can't enter.
...
For some people He took care showing His face. But for some others, He was wearing a mask. And now we don't know Him. And no amount of will power or decision making can compensate for that.

In Jesus, God showed his face to the whole world, so that they could know Him as Israel did. By listening to him and believing him you can know God, who does not show favourtism.

Luke 20:21 So the spies questioned him [Jesus]: “Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth.

John 18:37 Jesus answered, “You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

James 2:1-5
My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here's a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him?

8If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.​

You can blame me all you want, accuse me of rebellion all you want: But I do not know God. And it is beyond me to decide.

That is also a decision. And why would I blame you? I'm not your judge.

Both affirmation as well as denial are beyond my grasp.

I doubt that. You were able to deny my statement well enough.

I said As long as my conscience is clear, I shall have nothing to fear, I did not say I am innocent. The "nothing to fear" is about me being aware of the punishment, knowing that it will come, being ready for it.

Ah, I see. You've "accepted your fate" and are "resigned to it". A martyr for indecision, injustice and inhumanity, and a victim of God? Because when final judgment is passed, there no longer is any punishment (which is corrective) - only consequences.

It reminds me of another story. Not that I compare you with Slobodan Milosevic at all, but since he was someone with power who believed his own morality, I think it deserves a mention:

Looking calm and determined, Mr Milosevic said he had no qualms about what he had done during his period in power - which included four wars and the bloody break-up of Yugoslavia. "I am able to sleep tight, as my conscience is completely clear," he said.

Asked about the UN war crimes tribunal in the Hague, Mr Milosevic said, looking into the camera: "I do not recognise that institution. It is a political institution and one of the means for committing genocide against the Serbs. This has become very apparent. The institution is completely illegal."
- My conscience is clear, Milosevic tells TV audience, Guardian Unlimited, December 13, 2000​

Pol Pot declared the same thing. To link up with the topic: I would say the purpose of repentance is to be ready for judgment, not for the sake of a clear conscience, but in order to aim your life at the reason for justice: a peaceful, meaningful and hopeful existence. A clear conscience just gives us the confidence to act on that (1 John 3:21). If you believe in just punishment, you also believe that punishment is to be learnt from and should lead to change.

Personally, I do not think that God loves me. But if there is such a thing as hell -- I will surely go there.

You don't believe God loves you. Are you a worse sinner than everyone else? Are you further from him than everyone else? Even then nothing can separate you from the love of God that is in Christ.

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.​

Of course. My principles are as valid as my fists can ensure. I mean this literally.

If you rely on your own strength, you own strength will fail you. Will you blame yourself? Probably.

I am not sure I understand what you are asking.

But as far as I understand, I think my principles would matter if I would be someone important with great social influence. This, I am not, so I can only hope that the police are doing their work.

You can only hope that those in power are on your side? Most people hope that and are disappointed: wordly power is corruptible and therefore often corrupts.

Your principles do matter, and it matters most if God exists. Even if you aren't Hitler or Mussolini. (And if you were in power, it would likewise matter that you're not Hitler or Mussolini).

So a little child who doesn't feel called is not righteous?

Luke 18:16
But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these."​

We don't have to wait for some mysterious feeling. We just have to listen to the words.

Ah, but I fail anyway.

So let me get this straight: when you're succesful, it doesn't matter unless you have enough power to make it matter. But when you're not, it suddenly matters so much that you have resigned yourself to be judged and not only found guilty, but also blamed by God, for being born and raised by unloving parents - who robbed you of an identity and ability to make important decisions.

So the poor damsel in distress cries "I'm frail, I fail! I fail!" only to consume the poor soul who comes close with fists and mighty blows. It's her tower, her prison. She will not let anyone rob her of that, too.

 

[enton]

Sure even if you believe in god we still sin. Jesus was supposed to have died for our sins. So why repent? Our sins were taken care of when he died on the cross for us. What good was jesus dying for our sins if we still have to ask for forgiveness through repentance? This, like god coming down to earth as jesus, is another example of redundancy to me. And what would happen if you died before you had a chance to repent for all the sins that you had committed recently? Are they automatically forgiven in heaven?

Repentance is a very used term especially of the pastors of different sects claiming to be christians.

Repentance is used for people who undergo the process of returning to goodness or holiness. Solomon once said that he saw that God made man to be good. The Lord Jesus Christ died for our sins, that`s right but it does not mean you have to commit sin again the fact that you knew the sin. If for example, you commit sin but you don`t know sensibly that you have in fact broken God`s commandment, like stealing. Then, you may repent and think not to do that act of stealing again.

It is an inevitable fact that men are delicate beings. So, repentance is still useful but if you do willingly and voluntarily what is supposed to be avoided because of its evil nature, then repentance is useless since you are abusing repentance.

 

[water]

All this time you have been telling me to examine the evidence myself and to decide myself what to think.
In practice: to examine = to not appreciate.

That's your conclusion, and I don't agree with it. Someone who takes the time to examine something is concerned with it, does appreciate its existence. The opposite would be taking it for granted, being indifferent towards it.

And what am I?

The slippery slope fallacy. You can come to conlcusions while examining something, even if it's only preliminary.

Make one preliminary mistake and stop examining: and there will be no further investigation ...

Otherwise the systems of science and justice would have been jokes.

Oh, but they are.

The problems with empiricism and induction come in when your belief in doubt is stronger than your belief in finding the truth.

You cannot find truth if you don't believe it exists.

Infinite loop. Truth is a matter of objective reality, objective reality is intangible directly. An absolute. This is then the same kind of argument as the one that God is unknowable.

In Jesus, God showed his face to the whole world, so that they could know Him as Israel did. By listening to him and believing him you can know God, who does not show favourtism.

IF I believe Jesus, that is.

You can blame me all you want, accuse me of rebellion all you want: But I do not know God. And it is beyond me to decide.

That is also a decision.

No. You are ascribing it the status of a decision, while I do not see how it could be a decision.

And why would I blame you? I'm not your judge.

No, but you apply principles by which you choose friends, for example.

Both affirmation as well as denial are beyond my grasp.

I doubt that. You were able to deny my statement well enough.

I haven't denied it. I relativized it.

Ah, I see. You've "accepted your fate" and are "resigned to it". A martyr for indecision, injustice and inhumanity, and a victim of God?

If you say so.

You don't believe God loves you. Are you a worse sinner than everyone else? Are you further from him than everyone else? Even then nothing can separate you from the love of God that is in Christ.

I don't have to be "further from him than everyone else". It suffices that I am far enough.

If you rely on your own strength, you own strength will fail you. Will you blame yourself? Probably.

My own strength won't fail me *because* I would rely on it. It will fail because it is fallible.

We don't have to wait for some mysterious feeling. We just have to listen to the words.

Then it must be that I am deaf.

So let me get this straight: when you're succesful, it doesn't matter unless you have enough power to make it matter. But when you're not, it suddenly matters so much that you have resigned yourself to be judged and not only found guilty, but also blamed by God, for being born and raised by unloving parents - who robbed you of an identity and ability to make important decisions.

If you agree that I am robbed of it, then you agree that I don't have it. Who is the one who is faulty and flawed? me. Who has to bear the consequences of these faults and flaws? Me.

So the poor damsel in distress cries "I'm frail, I fail! I fail!" only to consume the poor soul who comes close with fists and mighty blows. It's her tower, her prison. She will not let anyone rob her of that, too.

There is no need for you to take that tone.
And who is "the poor soul who comes close with fists and mighty blows"? Jesus?

 

[(Q)]

Silvertusk

Jesus died alone. He did not take a few hundred people with him.

The point is that he is of the same mindset as those who do achieve martyrdom for their religion.

The only real difference is that dynamite was not invented yet.

 

[water]

It reminds me of another story. Not that I compare you with Slobodan Milosevic at all, but since he was someone with power who believed his own morality, I think it deserves a mention:

Looking calm and determined, Mr Milosevic said he had no qualms about what he had done during his period in power - which included four wars and the bloody break-up of Yugoslavia. "I am able to sleep tight, as my conscience is completely clear," he said.

Asked about the UN war crimes tribunal in the Hague, Mr Milosevic said, looking into the camera: "I do not recognise that institution. It is a political institution and one of the means for committing genocide against the Serbs. This has become very apparent. The institution is completely illegal."
- My conscience is clear, Milosevic tells TV audience, Guardian Unlimited, December 13, 2000​

Pol Pot declared the same thing. To link up with the topic: I would say the purpose of repentance is to be ready for judgment, not for the sake of a clear conscience, but in order to aim your life at the reason for justice: a peaceful, meaningful and hopeful existence. A clear conscience just gives us the confidence to act on that (1 John 3:21). If you believe in just punishment, you also believe that punishment is to be learnt from and should lead to change.

This is just gross that you should bring up the Milosevic case.

The whole thing was designed to make the Americans, NATO, UNO and EU look like the good ones, and Serbia should repent in sack cloth and ashes, and then forever let anyone do with it as they please. "You are bad, you should crawl before me!" says the US.
If Milosevic would admit his guilt, then the whole world could say: "Look, he is the bad one, and the US is the good one!" and everyone would feel even more justified to hate the Serbs.

A "peaceful, meaningful and hopeful existence"?! You must be joking!

 

[Jenyar]

And what am I?

Someone who seems intent on wanting to throw such a search in a bad light, as if to discourage it like it is something deserving of severe humiliation and scorn.

Make one preliminary mistake and stop examining: and there will be no further investigation ...

Of course! How can there be further examination if you stop?

Oh, but they are.

I'll hold you to these words then, and quote you whenever you talk about an empirical process or a moral judgement again. "These systems are a joke, and therefore not to be taken seriously."

Infinite loop. Truth is a matter of objective reality, objective reality is intangible directly. An absolute. This is then the same kind of argument as the one that God is unknowable.

What you don't seem to realize is that this is itself a truth statement, as if it does exists. "Truth is..." assumes that truth "is" something. How did you come to this conclusion? Shouldn't you doubt it?

I'll tell you what it is: it's a preliminary conclusion that you have come to on your (endless) search for truth, guided by your faith in its existence and nature. You won't find all if it under the couch one day.

IF I believe Jesus, that is.

Something doesn't cease to be true if you don't believe in it. Even Jesus didn't just fall from the sky: He acted within a certain discourse, gave enough evidence to support his teachings to those who were inclined to listen, and that's what we're presented with - but you must still examine and deal with it personally, one way or another. It just becomes irrelevant an unable to make a difference to you if you don't believe it. And that's not all: I am part of the context by which you came to consider his teachings. I claim to be a Christian, and my testimony is part of the information you have to consider.

No. You are ascribing it the status of a decision, while I do not see how it could be a decision.

"...it is beyond me to decide" is a statement of faith: you believe in its truth. You will act on that belief, and it will be your default decision when faced with options where this belief comes into play. When you have to choose between action or non-action, your decision will be non-action. You will then think it is determined, "you were right", while in fact you have determined it yourself.

You can wait until you are faced with such a challenge until you realize it, or you can realize it now while I'm telling you, or you can just continue to deny it.

No, but you apply principles by which you choose friends, for example.

And you've been a close friend for months now. If you still feel I have rejected you as a friend, you are a "victim" of a decision like the one above, which you made before you met me.

I haven't denied it. I relativized it.

Yes, an arm can only be amputated after it has been anesthetised.

I don't have to be "further from him than everyone else". It suffices that I am far enough.

But you're not, and thinking so does not make it so. At least, not if we're talking about the God of the Bible and of Christ, which isn't certain either. You might be talking about "the god out of whose reach I am", in which case he is defined by your statement, and I can't tell much about him other than that.

My own strength won't fail me *because* I would rely on it. It will fail because it is fallible.

So your principles are fallible, because they depend on your fists?

Then it must be that I am deaf.

Or you can't read. If words can be spoken, they can be written down.

If you agree that I am robbed of it, then you agree that I don't have it. Who is the one who is faulty and flawed? me. Who has to bear the consequences of these faults and flaws? Me.

I just said that's what you resigned yourself to. I didn't say I believe it or think it's true. You have an identity beyond what people can give you anyway, so there's nothing that can be robbed. You are just as human as anyone I know, and more intelligent than most. Except you think those things are flaws, because you have been treated as if they were.

There is no need for you to take that tone.
And who is "the poor soul who comes close with fists and mighty blows"? Jesus?

I said you consume such a person with "fists and mighty blows". I was talking about you versus anybody who challenges the belief that you are a "failure" where other people would be just "people".

"Ah but I fail anyway" is a deeply ingrained belief about who you are - it has nothing to do with what you may have failed at, and it's its reasonability that I'm questioning.

This is just gross that you should bring up the Milosevic case.

The whole thing was designed to make the Americans, NATO, UNO and EU look like the good ones, and Serbia should repent in sack cloth and ashes, and then forever let anyone do with it as they please. "You are bad, you should crawl before me!" says the US.
If Milosevic would admit his guilt, then the whole world could say: "Look, he is the bad one, and the US is the good one!" and everyone would feel even more justified to hate the Serbs.

That does not make him innocent, which he believes he is. I guess it might go through a particularly hardened criminal's mind not to admit guilt because it would make his accusers look good, or superior to him. But holding onto your honour when you have none left has nothing to do with the eventual verdict.

"...the man who provoked the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1991 and full-scale war with NATO in 1999, Milosevic constantly stoked vehement nationalism and ethnic prejudice among his fellow countrymen, leading to civil wars that killed or maimed hundreds of thousands"​

I don't think a clear conscience is enough to undo that. Milosevic didn't attack America, and if it weren't for international courts, he wouldn't have had to answer to them or anybody else. Nobody is innocent, but that doesn't mean looking for justice is a joke.

Nor does it make the words "You are bad, you should crawl before me!" defensible, not for a country or for any person - you should realize that.

A "peaceful, meaningful and hopeful existence"?! You must be joking!

Yes, if you believe that those things exist and you are on their side, then you live your life towards them. And I don't mean sitting under a Bo tree giggling at buterflies.