Should an ex-Christian be able to explain why?

[bhsmte]

Question, what did Jesus say was required for someone to be “born again”

Much love, Not me

You mean, what did anonymous authors claim what Jesus said?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Question, what did Jesus say was required for someone to be “born again”

I don't care. It is irrelevant to the point at hand.
That point being: calling someone a christian for whatever reason, while that person doesn't believe anything concerning the christian religion, is nonsensical and meaningless.

Islam says that every human is born muslim.
This is why they don't speak about "converts". They speak about "reverts". Because if someone becomes a muslim, as far as they are concerned, they are returning to the religion they had when they were born (the first time, lol).

So, in other words... if your wife is pregnant and gives birth, a muslim will say that your baby is currently a muslim.

You'ld consider that pretty meaningless, wouldn't you?

It's the exact same thing as you are doing here.

 

[Hieronymus]

What do you mean when you say you're not sure why? You've been pretty clear in the past about what you don't believe about Christianity, between the polytheistic origins of Judaism,

Whoa, that's a pretty bad reason though..
...because there's no evidence for that assumption...

(just saying)

 

[Not me]

It was explained and demonstrated.



That which is right.... according to your religion, by any chance?



First, you need to define what you mean by "righteousness". Because I have a feeling that how YOU define it, will be rather different from how your target audience defines it.... That target audience, being people who don't believe in the god you are asked to demonstrate.

We have agreed that “righteousness” does exist.

How an individual define it, is unimportant. What is important is what it is “in itself.” This is where God waits for those willing to walk in it. To those that are “wiling” God reveals Himself.

Much love, Not me

 

[bhsmte]

We have agreed that “righteousness” does exist.

How an individual define it, is unimportant. What is important is what it is “in itself.” This is where God waits for those willing to walk in it. To those that are “wiling” God reveals Himself.

Much love, Not me

Are you righteous?

 

[Not me]

You mean, what did anonymous authors claim what Jesus said?

No, that’s not what I mean.

Much love, Not me

 

[bhsmte]

No, that’s not what I mean.

Much love, Not me

If you are referring to scripture, you would be talking about anonymous authors, telling stories.

 

[DogmaHunter]

We have agreed that “righteousness” does exist.

Who's "we"?

I agree that there is a thing that I call "righteousness".
The question however, is if the thing that I call such, is equal to the thing that you call such.

I expect it isn't.

So, since you are the one that brings it up as a required ingredient of the method to find out if a god exists, you are going to have to define it.

Will you, or are we going to continue running around in circles?

How an individual define it, is unimportant.

No, it's quite important... otherwise, how could your "method" ever work?

What is important is what it is “in itself.”

Can't be known unless it is clearly defined.

This is where God waits for those willing to walk in it.

Walk in what?

To those that are “wiling” God reveals Himself.

They can't do that unless they first assume that there is a god capable of doing that.
See?

Your method requires an assumed conclusion.
It is indistinguishable from self-deception.

 

[gaara4158]

I beg to differ, how may I ask did you come to know one and one is two? By faith or experience?

You have stated that you believe righteousness does exist. But you don’t know what it is. So.

“Righteousness” is “that which is right.”

For God waits in righteousness for those willing to walk in that which is right. Go and “do” this and you will “know the truths of God”

Much love, Not me

Neither. It’s a tautology. 2 is the name we give to how many we get when we add 1 and 1.

How could I concede that righteousness exists if I don’t even know what it is?

 

[Not me]

Are you righteous?

1 John 3:7 (NKJV)
Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous.

To the degree I walk in righteousness I am righteous. For requirement of being “willing”
has been meet. I am willing to “do”

Much love in Christ, Not me

 

[Not me]

Who's "we"?

I agree that there is a thing that I call "righteousness".
The question however, is if the thing that I call such, is equal to the thing that you call such.

I expect it isn't.

So, since you are the one that brings it up as a required ingredient of the method to find out if a god exists, you are going to have to define it.

Will you, or are we going to continue running around in circles?



No, it's quite important... otherwise, how could your "method" ever work?



Can't be known unless it is clearly defined.



Walk in what?



They can't do that unless they first assume that there is a god capable of doing that.
See?

Your method requires an assumed conclusion.
It is indistinguishable from self-deception.

“We” is me and you.

Since you have stated that you believe there is a thing called “righteousness”, what is that thing?

Knowning that there are many versions of many things in this world. But are they not exactly that, a version of the thing and not the thing itself. Let us not concern ourself with this or that version, but whether the thing itself exists.

So the question is; does righteousness exist? Since “we” have agreed it does exist. Coming full circle. Righteousness is “that which is right”

That is what righteousness is in itself. Go and do that and you will meet God.

Much love, Not me

 

[Not me]

If you are referring to scripture, you would be talking about anonymous authors, telling stories.

I was answering your question.

In Christ, Not me

 

[Not me]

Neither. It’s a tautology. 2 is the name we give to how many we get when we add 1 and 1.

How could I concede that righteousness exists if I don’t even know what it is?

Question; does truth exist?

In Christ, Not me

 

[gaara4158]

Question; does truth exist?

In Christ, Not me

No. Truth is a property of a proposition, not an actual thing that exists.

 

[Not me]

No. Truth is a property of a proposition, not an actual thing that exists.

So something is not something, most curious.

Question, is one and one two?

In Christ, Not me

 

[bhsmte]

I was answering your question.

In Christ, Not me

And I responded with a consensus opinion of NT scholars and historians.

 

[bhsmte]

So something is not something, most curious.

In Christ, Not me

Strawman.

 

[Not me]

Strawman.

Unless it’s truth.

In Christ, Not me

 

[gaara4158]

So something is not something, most curious.

Question, is one and one two?

In Christ, Not me

A property is not a tangible object, correct.

 

[bhsmte]

Unless it’s truth.

In Christ, Not me

Truth can be demonstrated, with facts.