Why do religious ones stick with delusions?

Originally posted by Rajk999
Believe in Christ obviously means believe that He is the Son of God and accept Him means to accept his commandments and to do them.

As for Baptism :

Mark 6:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be bo ...[text shortened]... And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

When you say "believe that He is the Son of God", do you mean it literally or figuratively, i.e., "born of the spirit"?

When Jesus walked the Earth, he taught His followers what was required to enter "eternal life"/"the kingdom of God". I find it difficult to believe that He was misleading them.

Of the three passages you cited about baptism, only the one from John was taught by Jesus when He walked the Earth.

" 3Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
4Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?”
5Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7“Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’"

Keep in mind that Jesus is speaking of being "born again", i.e., a physical birth (birth of the flesh), followed by a spiritual birth. In 3:5 Jesus explains that to "enter into the kingdom of God" one must be "born of water", i.e., physical birth (amniotic fluid) and "born of spirit", i.e., spiritual birth. This is echoed in 3:6 as "born of the flesh" and "born of the spirit". There's no reason for Jesus to be speaking of baptism here nor any reason to believe that He was. Rather Jesus was speaking of a transformation from being a "son of man (flesh)" to a "son of God (spirit)" being required to "enter into the kingdom of God".

Originally posted by Rajk999
She is saved by grace. That means she cannot lose her salvation and works are not necessary.

So Pol Pot or Adolf Hitler or Stalin killed many many millions of people and they can be 'saved' at the last moment of their lives by just saying they believe?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I also wonder how those of the atheist religion can possibly
look at all that God has created, including themselves, and
believe the evolutionists dogma that it all happened by
accident. To them it was by pure chance that everything is
just right on this planet for life to exist as it does. They
look in vain to find a drop of water on some other plan ...[text shortened]... God involved. It is amazing to me.
What has happened to their brains? Is it due to delusions?

You are the one defining atheism as a religion. There is one problem with that definition:
Atheists can have their minds changed by evidence.

Christianity is already confronted by irrefutable evidence, vis a vis evolution for one,

and proudly proclaims their minds are not their own, they can venture no independent thought even coming close to questioning christian dogma.

Atheists can change when confronted by evidence. Christians have ALREADY been confronted by extremely credible evidence about many issues in the bible, IE, the flood, the virgin birth, resurrection, evolution, etc. and by definition cannot change their stance. They are bound to superstition for the rest of their lives.

Of course you would say, I gave my mind to christianity a long time ago and am proud of it. I let other people do my thinking for me.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
When you say "believe that He is the Son of God", do you mean it literally or figuratively, i.e., "born of the spirit"?

When Jesus walked the Earth, he taught His followers what was required to enter "eternal life"/"the kingdom of God". I find it difficult to believe that He was misleading them.

Of the three passages you cited about baptism, only th of God (spirit)" being required to "enter into the kingdom of God".

I disagree with your interpretation of the John passage.

Why would you say that Marks account was not stated by Jesus

Mark 6:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned

Originally posted by sonhouse
So Pol Pot or Adolf Hitler or Stalin killed many many millions of people and they can be 'saved' at the last moment of their lives by just saying they believe?

Take your time and read the posts. I said that was sarcasm.

Who is saved and who is not, is up to Christ. Go ask him.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Take your time and read the posts. I said that was sarcasm.

Who is saved and who is not, is up to Christ. Go ask him.

I guess you can ask him when you meet him, eh.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
While that view is quite prevalent, it doesn't seem to be where she is coming from, so it is unfair to lump her in with the rest because she sees her self as Christian. Ostensibly Christians should follow the doctrine of Jesus. When Jesus walked the earth, he taught his followers that they were to become righteous, i.e., not sin. So if "Christianity" is a ...[text shortened]... , then she is more "Christian" than those who believe it impossible to stop committing sin.

The problem there is what version of Jesus' teachings do you follow? A lot of work purported to be from Jesus is later dudes making up tales.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I guess you can ask him when you meet him, eh.

Nope .. Im not obsessed with those guys.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You are the one defining atheism as a religion. There is one problem with that definition:
Atheists can have their minds changed by evidence.

Christianity is already confronted by irrefutable evidence, vis a vis evolution for one,

and proudly proclaims their minds are not their own, they can venture no independent thought even coming close to quest ...[text shortened]... nd to christianity a long time ago and am proud of it. I let other people do my thinking for me.

You do not understand Christianity if you think we must believe
anything a priest or pastor says about Christianity. We believe in
the truth from God, especially from the words of Jesus, the Christ
and the Son of God. We are still learning because God the Father
has sent the Holy Spirit to teach us more and guide us unto all
truth. So what we believe as young Christians can change as we
learn new truths from the Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by Rajk999
I disagree with your interpretation of the John passage.

Why would you say that Marks account was not stated by Jesus

Mark 6:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned

I disagree with your interpretation of the John passage.

Care to give your reasons? If Jesus had meant baptism why didn't he say "baptism"? You should also consider the following:

Mark 1
7And he was preaching, and saying, “After me One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to stoop down and untie the thong of His sandals. 8“I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

John states that he baptized with water, but Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirt. There is a clear distinction made between baptizing with water vs baptizing with the Holy Spirit. Jesus was to do the latter, but not the former.

Why would you say that Marks account was not stated by Jesus

By "when Jesus walked the Earth", I meant "prior to His death". So you could understand it as:

[Prior to His death], He taught His followers what was required to enter "eternal life"/"the kingdom of God". I find it difficult to believe that He was misleading them.

Of the three passages you cited about baptism, only the one from John was taught by Jesus [prior to His death]

You didn't answer the following:

When you say "believe that He is the Son of God", do you mean it literally or figuratively, i.e., "born of the spirit"?

Originally posted by sonhouse
The problem there is what version of Jesus' teachings do you follow? A lot of work purported to be from Jesus is later dudes making up tales.

What specifically are you alluding to here?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]I disagree with your interpretation of the John passage.

Care to give your reasons? If Jesus had meant baptism why didn't he say "baptism"? You should also consider the following:

Mark 1
7And he was preaching, and saying, “After me One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to stoop down and untie the thong of His sandals. 8 ", do you mean it literally or figuratively, i.e., "born of the spirit"?

[/b]

The account of Christ's words by Mark are corrrect. I dont understand what difference it makes before or after his death. Baptism is an important part of your changed life.

Your interpretation that water is amniotic fluid is nonsensical. It refers to baptism by water. Baptism is a rebirth in water. Its what baptism means.

You are the one that needs to give valid reasons why its not baptism and you have not done that.

Christ baptism of disciples (70) by the holy spirit means he gave them the power of the holy spirit when he sent them on their way to preach.

Answer to your last question - literally

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It always amazes me that those who have never studied the volume can be so opinionated about it.

(Philippians 1:9) . . .And this is what I continue praying, that your love may abound yet more and more with [b]accurate knowledge and full discernment. . .

(2 Timothy 2:7) . . .Give constant thought to what I am saying; the Lord will really giv ...[text shortened]... noted for the record that you have uttered a gross inaccuracy and should retract you assertion.[/b]

No! Those don't cut it, and people are always trotting those out! It's all: "The Lord will tell you what to think," along with enumerations of rules and commandments you are to employ to determine right from wrong. That is, it's all still placed within the rigid framework of a body of dogma that is to be swallowed without critical thought. Eastern religions tend to at least attempt to lay out the logic of a situation and leave it to the reader to make his own personal revelation. It's not critical thinking when the Lord "gives you discernment in all things". It's just not.

And this one: (Romans 12:2) . . .And quit being fashioned after this system of things, but be transformed by making your mind over, that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God. All this is saying, really, is one is supposed to hammer his head into a shape the Almighty finds up to scratch. That's hardly anything to do with what I'm on about.

Find a quote that says, "And he who thinketh for himself and has cometh to conclusions by dint of his own wit and reasoning, and not by way of coercion from others or fear of punishment from the Father, blessed be he in the eyes of the Lord."

Originally posted by Soothfast
... Eastern religions tend to at least attempt to lay out the logic of a situation and leave it to the reader to make his own personal revelation. "

For example ??

Originally posted by Rajk999
The account of Christ's words by Mark are corrrect. I dont understand what difference it makes before or after his death. Baptism is an important part of your changed life.

Your interpretation that water is amniotic fluid is nonsensical. It refers to baptism by water. Baptism is a rebirth in water. Its what baptism means.

You are the one that needs ...[text shortened]... ly spirit when he sent them on their way to preach.

Answer to your last question - literally

I dont understand what difference it makes before or after his death.

I was clarifying what I meant.

It refers to baptism by water. Baptism is a rebirth in water. Its what baptism means.

Maybe you missed the quote from Mark 1, but John the Baptist states that Jesus was to baptize by the Holy Spirit - not by water. So clearly John the Baptist did not share your limited definition.

You are the one that needs to give valid reasons why its not baptism and you have not done that.

I gave reasons. You didn't address them specifically and only stated that you disagree. If you don't believe them valid, then state why.

Answer to your last question - literally

Where did Jesus state that He meant it literally?