BluePhantom
Educator (of liberals)
If you do not repent when you sin then how would you have any confidence that your fellowship with God has been restored? Unconfessed sin is unrepented sin which breaks our fellowship with God. As you do not believe in the "concept of sin" as you put it you may want to consider that you are having your conversations with "another god" but not the God of the Bible, Phantom. Do you believe in the reality of hell or is that just a concept to you too?
Sigh.....I have gone over this so many times on so many threads I cringe at the thought of having to write it all out yet again. I am somewhat surprised you are not aware of my position on sin and hell, because of the number of times I have explained it. Honestly, I mean no offense by this, but it's not worth writing out another time because you are really not interested in my perspective. Your motivation for being here is not to teach and learn, it's to preach your personal point of view. I seriously mean no offense by that observation, it's just the reality of the situation and thus it's not worth my time getting into.
No, what I am surprised at is that you think you are a Christian according to Biblical standards while denying what the Bible teaches. That is what surprises me, Phantom.
Well the problem is that what the Bible says in a modern English translation is sometimes not what it says in earlier Greek or Hebrew. Additionally, there is a lot of pseudepigraphy, scribal error, and redaction that has happened through the ages. I do support what the Bible says...it's just very difficult to know what it actually did say before it was changed.
I am not terribly interested in basing my life and spirituality upon church traditions. In most cases I know what the origins and motivations for those traditions are and I do not find them compelling. I wish to follow the word of God, not the word of some jack-ass claiming to be someone he isn't, not the word that resulted from a scribal error that was copied and re-copied over the centuries, not the word of a corrupt Pope from the Middle Ages that twisted the interpretation of scripture in order to advance a political agenda, etc.
This is why I have spent such a great deal of time engaged in more scholarly research (textual criticism, redaction criticism, etc), study of ancient languages, study of ancient cultures, study of ancient and Biblical history, etc. It allows me the opportunity to say "well this was added centuries later, we can toss that out.", "this is pseudepigraphic, we can deal with that in another way...perhaps good advice but not the word of God", "this refers to a specific historical event and we have to look at it from that perspective", etc.
So I do support the Bible. It's just that after 30 some years of study in that manner, I view the Bible in a very different way than you do.