once you have repented you can no longer be held as guilty of those sins in the eyes of God.
When I see Christians going out in the world, they focus first on converting, then they worry about repenting, if they're acting in their capacity as Christians.
Right and that's kind of my point. The order that I've always heard, and the order that I understand is supported in the Bible, is: Become a believer -> repent -> enter Heaven.
And when I read that passage from Corinthians, not only does it support that progression, but also it notes that
en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(... Its part of the Bible, and as I understand it, it is saying that all of the Bible is inspired by God.
60 percent guilty, the party they're trying to absolve is 100% guilty.
The protest vote was a disaster and they don't want to admit it.
Harris would have won, all else being equal. But if all of the people who protest voted in 2024 had voted for Harris as they did in 2020, Harris *also* would have won, all else being equal.
They just want to push responsibility onto a different party. And while that party *is* like
Bonus points is that the graph shows that more White voters voted for Harris than for Biden. As far as I can tell, the graph directly refutes the point they're trying to make, in the context of Biden having won and Harris having lost.
Yes, of course if a majority of White people voted for Harris,
Are there any notable examples of this fourth category, non-believers who repented and who were accepted as having repented, either in the Bible or outside of it?
So was Corinthians "given inspiration by God?"
That sounds an awful lot like picking and choosing. I'm certainly no bible scholar, but I believe that the entirety of the bible, including Corinthians, is accepted as scripture "given by inspiration of God."
Then the question still remains: Did the New Testament say which parts of the Old Testament should be ignored?
And then you still have the problem of Judaism rejecting the New Testament altogether.
distinction between those last two categories, there is certainly still a distinction here where non-believers will be denied Heaven, because a non-believer will *never* repent to a God they do not believe in.
And what is the practical difference between a person who "repents before God" and a believer in that God?
Like, at a minimum, that just makes 3 categories instead of 2: Non believers, Believers that repent, and Believers that didn't repent. While I'm not convinced that there is an actual
Lead with that, then follow up with the 2020 question. This way they don't have the 'no politics' card already in their mind.
Batman "This is a weapon of the enemy, we don't use this." regarding LLM generated images
i.imgur.com/880uBev.jpg
They'll never reposition as long as he is a 'viable politician.' Nixon enjoyed quite a bit of popular support until a decade after he resigned in disgrace, then suddenly no one ever supported him.
"can be washed clean." Which brings up a few different interpretations, but it seems to me then that the passage is saying that because the followers of Christ "were sanctified... in the spirit of our God" they would go to heaven regardless of their behavior, unlike non-believers.
I'll concede your point about the verse system.
But I believe that Paul is a bit more than just "one Christian." He is an Apostle, and Corinthians is accepted as part of the Canon of the Church, it's not just some random letter. I also believe that the phrasing was "were" washed clean, not
I need to not debate on my phone while in the subway. That was a fragment and I don't remember what it was supposed to say.
Don't those religions claim to have an omniscient God?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinc... Conservatism *is* Right Wing. And left on its own devices, produces Trump and similar figures.
Heck, even directly to you, I said that I was hoping that you would prove Bob wrong. bsky.app/profile/ther...
So you badly misread what I said in this conversation. Do with that information what you will.
You've now been told by two separate people on different sides of the argument that you are off-base here.
But even then, saying "you are lying" is still not name-calling. At worst, it is stating something that you are doing in the conversation.
Meanwhile, you're complaining about people not being "intellectual and open-minded" when you were the one who turned up the heat to 11.
I didn't call you a liar, because I happen to believe that you are correct, and I mentioned as much to plantfanatic yesterday (you two are arguing substantively the same thing). bsky.app/profile/ther...
I return to what I said: You were responding to the wrong person and chose to act like a jerk.
And if your argument is that the Holy Texts are good,
But finally, unless I'm mistaken about this passage, www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea... The New Testament says that people who don't worship God 'properly' won't go to Heaven, which implies to me that not only are these people worse than others, but they will be denied salvation by God, as it were
And keep in mind that Judaism rejects Jesus as the final prophet and doesn't follow the New Testament, at least to my knowledge, which means that your counterargument doesn't apply to that religion.
Well that's the thing: I have a very hard time reconciling an omniscient God with "Well that whole holy book was a mistake and I want a do-over," unless the Abrahamic God isn't omniscient? And did the New Testament even say *which* parts of the Old were meant to be rejected?
My general thought about religions is that their Holy texts are contradictory enough that any 'reasonable person' can pick and choose which passages apply when, with the end result being that clergy can kind of do or say whatever they want.
I mean, you can say that, but then God turns around and murders and entire generation of children for the actions of one man, sparing only His chosen people. For every example of inclusiveness in the Bible, I'm going to bet that there is at least one counterexample.