I would think the goal is to learn more about God, not less. That would mean strive to follow God and learn what God wants of us. I think that would mean continuous repentance as you learn more of what God wants of you.

So you are answering yes to my above questions then?

I think so. Repentance at acceptance, and repentance as you possibly face other sins as you live past initial acceptance. We cannot love sin, and love God at the same time, right? They would be in conflict.

Out of curiosity, are you considering christianity, or new to the faith Doulos?
This message was last edited by the player at 00:09, Thu 31 May 2007.

So then what about sins that you are unaware of?  Maybe you saw that cute looking checkout girl and had a few impure thoughts.  As you're walking out the door, BLAM, a guy on a motorbike slams into you, killing you instantly.

You're going to hell then because you didn't repent?  You had time technically, you could have done it immediately before you walked out the door, but now you've sinned before you had a chance to fix things.

It's a great question, and you are pointing out a clear example of conflict in the statements of repentance, and forgiveness. We will have our fleshly bodies, and our spiritual nature in conflict. One desires sin, and one desires to be closer to God. Our spiritual nature is designed to want to live forever with God, our fleshly bodies are pulling at the worldly things. We are not given permission to sin just because the price is paid by Jesus. Acceptance and repentance does not mean we will not sin anymore. We must strive and work at repentance. We have an enemy in Satan who tries to entice us any chance he can get.

So to clarify, repentance doesn't mean we all will never ever sin. It means we desire to grow closer to God and follow His commands. We can and do fail, but acceptance of Christ doesn't mean the end of life, but rather a new beginning of life. In your example, you mentioned an isolated instance. Only God knows you well enough to judge if your repentance is true, or if you in fact love sin more than you love Him.

I guess all I know is I don't have to worry or care about how screwed up I am.  I do my best to love Christ more every day but man there are a lot of days I feel like I am going backwards.

I trust that what Christ did is enough, and completely thankful for it.  I am done with religion and rites and rituals, and completely ready for a full reliance on the one who did away with all of that and replaced it first and foremost with a relationship.

I still go to church and still am greatly concerned about other people within that community, but it's a response to something already done, not an action "because I feel I have to"  Because I don't.  As wrong as it sounds to my human works oriented brain, I don't.

I agree. A relationship with Jesus is vastly important. Our actions don't earn us a ticket to heaven. It is wholly due to what Jesus did for us that is what allows us to heaven.

Sorry, I missed your question earlier by the way.

I have been a Christian for about 20 years.

It seems we are very close on what we believe.  I just believe that repentance is needed only once.  After that it's simply a love reaction, but if we never repented again I do believe that we would still be fully redeemed, though it would be as Paul mentioned "some will be saved as through flames".

But really this is an odd discussion for me anyways because I have personally never met someone who claims that they fully believe the Bible as the Word of God, and Christ is Lord, but openly refuse to "work out their salvation".  I've just never seen it.  Christ's love compels us.  It's just the way it is.  So all of this discussion of faith vs works is more philosophical in nature (heck even Pal addressed it), but I have seen very little real world application of it.

20 years is a long time. God bless you!

As you can see I still am figuring it all out...lol

You betcha! I'm looking at about 9 years of starting on the path with Jesus. That path will always be learning as long as I'm alive. God doesn't want us to drift away from that path. And quite truthfully, God knew when we would fail. God can use our failures and our good days for His purposes.

I think the question of forgiveness of sins immediately before death is getting caught up on a technicality.  Ultimately, the decision is God's, and it's not one He's been 100% clear with (depending on your reading of the bible).

Many churches hold the belief that if you die without the chance to repent, you go to hell (as an interesting note, before the Catholic Church introduced the idea of confession, most people would wait until the last possible moment to get baptized, since baptism forgave all sins.  This is why so many early Christian people were baptized on their death beds.  If you got baptized at birth or as a youth, then any sins you commit until your death 'stick'.)  I think we all agree, this is hopefully and probably incorrect.  However, there is a valid purpose in saying this, because it encourages you to hurry up and fix everything as quickly as you can.  Live like you may die tomorrow and all that.  You can't put off your relationship with Jesus if you may die tomorrow and your procrastination costs you eternal life, you need to do it TODAY.  Certainly in this case, where there is some doubts, it's doubly better to be sure.  Like a person handling a gun, you always act like it's loaded (the worst case scenario) even if the bolt is open.  Act like you must be clean of sins even if that's not the case, and there's no chance of a 'misfire' costing you eternal happiness.

Jesus' death on the cross made it very clear.  Enough trying to earn our way into heaven, He's done with that way of life.

Take the gift.  It's not fair in the eyes of the world, it doesn't make sense but that's God's way of doing things so we might as well get used to it.

Saw this article in the news today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01...gazine/11punk-t.html

Anyone have any thoughts?  Is Mark Driscoll too liberal?  Too conservative?  Both?  Are mainstream evangelicals "singing prom songs to a Jesus who is presented as a wuss who took a beating and spent a lot of time putting product in his long hair?"  Have they turned Jesus into "a Richard Simmons, hippie, queer Christ,” a “neutered and limp-wristed popular Sky Fairy of pop culture that . . . would never talk about sin or send anyone to hell?"

Good! It's about time Christianity meant standing up for something, even when it's unpopular, and staying true to what's written in the book. I'll say, I disagree with Calvinism specifically, but the fact that the guy is willing to talk candidly and even step on some toes means he's fallen in line with the lion, the warrior, that Jesus represents, not just the lamb everyone else seems to follow. And frankly, I'd prefer to butt heads with someone who is strong, outspoken, honest and actually practices what he preaches rather than someone is is quiet, submissive, hypocritical, but ultimately will sabotage you for the 'greater good'.

Christianity has largely had its teeth pulled. And I suspect most of it is because it ceased to become difficult and controversial. It's become commercialized. Now it's so easy to be a Christian, it's hard to NOT be a Christian, and that's a bad situation for anyone who is truly working for spiritual advancement. It means almost all of us are stuck at the bottom rung. Faith needs to be a challenge, otherwise it means almost nothing. Good for this guy, stirring the pot a little bit.

My main concern is that a Christian should emanate Christ.  Those who take Christian principles and morality and twist them to mean what they don't or to justify their own behaviors are not acting in this way.  It's trite but still true to ask "What would Jesus do?"

I don't think keeping to cultural norms is contrary to Christ. I do think accepting weakness in yourself when you have the power to conquer it is, however.

It depends on what the cultural norms represent.  For example, being a hippie in the 60's, in my opinion, wouldn't be the ideal.

Cultural trends tend to represent or symbolize something, often bringing with them moral predispositions.

So if I dress like a hip hop gangbanger yet profess to be like Christ, it sends a mixed message.  Christ was shooting for the highest cultural norm, not just the one accepted by the lowest common denominator.

I certainly think getting tats, drinking (not to excess) and fighting the man would be cool with the J-man.

Christ was shooting for the highest cultural norm, not just the one accepted by the lowest common denominator.

Highest cultural norm? No such thing. Such things are subjective.
This message was last edited by the player at 03:20, Tue 13 Jan 2009.

Which mixed message is that?


I'd have to disagree here.  What was considered the 'highest cultural norm' in Jesus' setting was actually what he seemed to be most against.  The people he seemed to spend much of his time with, and care the most for, were 'the lowest common denominator' of his time.

You have to keep in mind that the time and place where Jesus lived were not the US in 2009.  Remember, he was considered a heretic by the religious establishment (ie, by the 'highest cultural norm' of his day).  He was an iconoclast who challenged societal norms and stereotypes.  He wasn't a suit-and-tie, preach-to-the-upper-middle-class guy, really.

Would he be cool with tats?  I'd guess that if a christ-like person lived today, then yes, he would be.  Was the real Jesus cool with tats?  On that I'm a bit less sure, since there was a religious law against them for Jews, if I recall.  Even if he were against them, though, I don't think he'd be too harsh on those that had them.

Would he be cool with drinking?  His first miracle was turning water into wine.  Seems like he can't be a tea-totaler.  ;)

On the other hand, I don't recall anything that would make me think he was a misogynists or homophobe to the degree that the guy in the article seems to be (though, St. Paul probably was).

I also find it somewhat odd that someone who seems to like challenging the views of those in authority as much as the guy in the article does has such a problem with people questioning his authority, or even disagreeing with him.

Alright, so Jesus is going to tell them a story that has a lesson in it...go on.



Wow, does that sound like somebody who would fight the man, or who IS the man?
This message was last edited by the player at 22:29, Tue 13 Jan 2009.

Keep in mind that was a parable about a king, not Jesus actually telling his disciples to round anyone up and kill them.

A parable about how his disciples should respect the rulers that be, and protest not.

Sort of like what Plato preached; if you don't like it, leave. :S

Only in your opinion because you've expressed you believe in a subjective morality.

I believe in an objective morality, but that's another discussion.  Since you gave no substance for your reasoning, I guess that's where we're left.