Why does christianity dictate that repent and sins are gone?

[clambake]

the bible is words on paper.

[silverblk mystix]

[QUOTE=clambake;6368799]the bible is words on paper.[/QUOTE


Eggsacktly!

[Blake]

I have stated repeatedly - there are no rules when it involves mystery.

Mystery.

No one knows so which rules would apply to mystery? None. No one knows.

I already told you;

If you are talking about mechanical, mundane, robotic things like brushing your teeth- sure -there are probably rules.

That isn't the topic.

God = mystery = unknown = unknowable = no rules.

keep breaking your own rule.

[Blake]

This has nothing to do with this topic. By the way- wgaf?

Seriously - words on a piece of paper?

Is this your idea of god or mystery?

If you are going to claim I bully christians, let's get to the root of why this perception exists.

if you would rather ramble on about stupid theories you made up, then my rule is to call you a ing idiot.

I'm content either way.

[Blake]

Eggsacktly!

So in the name of fairness to all religions and all beliefs, you agree with me that In God We Trust should be removed?

[silverblk mystix]

If you are going to claim I bully christians, let's get to the root of why this perception exists.

if you would rather ramble on about stupid theories you made up, then my rule is to call you a ing idiot.

I'm content either way.

You and a few others - but - yes.

Yes- you are also reduced to an angry name-caller yet again.

[admiralsnackbar]

Well, you must have missed my original post in this thread. It is exactly what you are saying here. The OP asked a question about Christians and I truthfully told him that it is because they have been brainwashed Differently - but that all of us -including myself - have also been brainwashed.

We all believe we are right - yet - it is impossible - so stop bashing your adversary when you are no better - or "more correct"

or "just as wrong"

Fair enough, but a condition of faith is, by definition, a certain belief in something, which inevitably means the faithful cannot abide with what appears to be your ultimate desire: politeness or silence. For the sake of simplicity I'll grant that Skepticism is a faith of sorts (although I don't believe it is, I can appreciate that many skeptics behave in a manner indistinguishable from that of any religious zealot), and add that faith moves people to proselytize, vilify, marginalize, or at least question others who do not share one's belief. The only way to sort these feelings out rationally (as I implied in my Romney analogy) is to discuss them, however, and inevitably, such discussions will piss people off. If your ideal is to have people respect one another's beliefs, don't you have to let these discussions run their course?

[silverblk mystix]

So in the name of fairness to all religions and all beliefs, you agree with me that In God We Trust should be removed?

I don't generally give a about man-made politics/rules/laws....most of them were created by blind people with agendas so I prefer to not waste my time. Before you run with it and turn it into I don't respect laws, believe in such and such society, etc...
I will clarify;

I prefer not to waste my time talking/discussing those issues...so while I will obey laws to keep me out of trouble- I don't necessarily agree with or subscribe to a lot of man-made lunacy/politics/rules/religion/dogma.



If you want to discuss truth/spirituality - yes I am interested.

What you have historically proven is that you'd rather confirm your biases/prejudices/conclusions and just resort to your old stand-by: name-calling & labeling.

[clambake]

religion is man-made.

[Blake]

You and a few others - but - yes.

Yes- you are also reduced to an angry name-caller yet again.

If you've reduced yourself to a ing idiot - yes

[silverblk mystix]

If you've reduced yourself to a ing idiot - yes

Called-it.

This is your only consistent response. Props.

[silverblk mystix]

religion is man-made.

uh....eggsacktly...yes/confirmed/agreed/ok/got it/

[clambake]

man-made.....nothing more.

[silverblk mystix]

Fair enough, but a condition of faith is, by definition, a certain belief in something, which inevitably means the faithful cannot abide with what appears to be your ultimate desire: politeness or silence. For the sake of simplicity I'll grant that Skepticism is a faith of sorts (although I don't believe it is, I can appreciate that many skeptics behave in a manner indistinguishable from that of any religious zealot), and add that faith moves people to proselytize, vilify, marginalize, or at least question others who do not share one's belief. The only way to sort these feelings out rationally (as I implied in my Romney analogy) is to discuss them, however, and inevitably, such discussions will piss people off. If your ideal is to have people respect one another's beliefs, don't you have to let these discussions run their course?

Pretty much agreed - but let it be known that the "faithful" in this thread were more than respectful and polite (which I understand isn't always the case) and the "skeptics" resorted to their worst conduct.

Only pointing out hypocrisy.

[silverblk mystix]

man-made.....nothing more.

What level of agreement are you looking for...I am starting to think that being 100% in agreement with you is leaving you unsatisfied.

[Blake]

I prefer not to waste my time talking/discussing those issues...so while I will obey laws to keep me out of trouble- I don't necessarily agree with or subscribe to a lot of man-made lunacy/politics/rules/religion/dogma.

No problem with that until you pop up and label me without reason.

Which you did and will most likely do again.

Because you're a hypocrite. And a ing idiot.

If you want to discuss truth/spirituality - yes I am interested.

But your rule is that you need to stfu /big font

What you have historically proven is that you'd rather confirm your biases/prejudices/conclusions and just resort to your old stand-by: name-calling & labeling.

I'd tell you to back that up with a link, but you've historically proven that you're an ass talker.

because you're a ing idiot.

[Woo Bum-kon]

You still believe that you can apply these formulas in matters of god & to the mysteries of the universe.

You still haven't explained why burden of proof doesn't apply.

You can if you want to but they mean nothing in these topics.

Explain why or shut up.

Just another formula from just another cripple who has never walked.

Nope.

You know, I used to think that you posted this stupid just to be a contrarian, but now I see that you are just a ing idiot. Your arguments, or lack thereof, are embarrassingly stupid and terrible.

[admiralsnackbar]

Pretty much agreed - but let it be known that the "faithful" in this thread were more than respectful and polite (which I understand isn't always the case) and the "skeptics" resorted to their worst conduct.

Only pointing out hypocrisy.

Respect comes of its own accord or it doesn't -- you can't impose it on people, and resorting to hypocrisy to point out hypocrisy just distracts from the matter at hand since it can't add anything in and of itself, IMO.

[silverblk mystix]

No problem with that until you pop up and label me without reason.

Which you did and will most likely do again.

Because you're a hypocrite. And a ing idiot.



But your rule is that you need to stfu /big font



I'd tell you to back that up with a link, but you've historically proven that you're an ass talker.

because you're a ing idiot.

Isn't it wonderful that we are no different and just brainwashed differently?

I really enjoy the fact that I am no better than anyone else and if being labeled a " ing idiot" illustrates just how alike we are - I am tickled pink!

It is so wonderful. I feel pretty responsible for reducing you yet again to nothing more than an angry name-caller but I think I can live with it since we are so alike and I am sure I have had my moments of blindness like you.

[Woo Bum-kon]

I guess this fool will never actually get around to explaining why burden of proof doesn't apply, or how those who look at this situation and come to a conclusion logically are somehow brainwashed.

[Blake]

Called-it.

This is your only consistent response. Props.

To your dumb ery, yes, I'd say you and I both have been consistent in this regard.

[Blake]

Pretty much agreed - but let it be known that the "faithful" in this thread were more than respectful and polite (which I understand isn't always the case) and the "skeptics" resorted to their worst conduct.

Only pointing out hypocrisy.

That's not hypocrisy on the part of the ”skeptics”

Props for being a consistent dumb .

[Woo Bum-kon]

This moron really needs a dictionary.

[silverblk mystix]

You still haven't explained why burden of proof doesn't apply.

Explained many times: Because god/love/buddha/sufi/freedom/peace/joy etc... is a in' mystery.So you cannot apply logic to something that is unexplained/unknown/unknowable/...how many different ways can it be said. It is self-evident.
It is like thinking you can solve a math formula by reciting lines of Shakespeare. It does not apply.

Explain why or shut up. .



Nope.

You know, I used to think that you posted this stupid just to be a contrarian, but now I see that you are just a ing idiot. Your arguments, or lack thereof, are embarrassingly stupid and terrible.

You remind me of me - about 20 years ago fresh out of a formal education and I knew every in thing there was to know and I felt so superior to lesser people. lol
What a stupid ass I was (still am in a lot of ways- we all are) and boy what future things I was to learn ---or UNLEARN.

You have a lot to look forward to if you ubnderstand something;

If your mind stays open and open constantly to receiving truth - you might discover that;

when you are 20 - you know every in thing there is to know....no one can teach you anything...

when you are 30...oh boy ...now you know it all -- and it becomes evident how stupid you were 10 years prior

when you are 40...you are done...a genius!!! boy how blind was I at 30???

as I near 50...boy how stupid I was at 40....I used to ...be so blind....


Have fun!!!!!

[silverblk mystix]

Respect comes of its own accord or it doesn't -- you can't impose it on people, and resorting to hypocrisy to point out hypocrisy just distracts from the matter at hand since it can't add anything in and of itself, IMO.

But it sure takes the attack dogs away from their prey...