No, no need to repent. Just ask Jesus to live in your heart. No need for ceremony/baptism/etc, it can all be done in your head while sitting on the toilet.
And repent means…?
Most modern Christians don’t believe what they claim to believe. Most are cynically claiming the beliefs that will bring them the greatest advantage and/or greatest comfort in society.
It doesn’t matter because you don’t have to do it. Let it mean whatever you want it to.
IF Jesus existed, he was probably a pretty cool dude.
Why must I ask him to live in my heart? It’s already quite crowded. Perhaps he is in apartment 3b and I don’t know it. A good neighbor that keeps the music down.
This is where it falls apart. If god made me, he is already there. I don’t need any commandments to be a good person. It really bothers me that some do. Have at it though if it keeps them from kicking their dogs.
Many people that claim to have ‘religion’ beat their spouse on Saturday, and expect forgiveness on Sunday. That does not work for me.
Thus, I am very skeptical of people that have ‘found’ religion. And need it to be a good person.
If it’s crutch that works for you, well and good. Keep it out of politics and education is all I ask.
A note: How many have been killed because of different religious beliefs? You are sure you are correct about your religion. Right? You sure?
If you are a Cristian, and claim to be sure. I believe you have broken a commandment.
I think it’s not so black and white. You can not believe in hell, but also realize that anything is possible and there always exist a chance you might be wrong. So even though you are certain it doesn’t exist, you have some uncertainty about your certainty, and that uncertainty can cause you to think it’s possible and therefore affect your mindset, especially since the consequences are so severe.
I don’t think YOU know what it means, to be throwing it around like you were. That’s why I asked.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer referred to that as “cheap grace”, in his book, The Cost of Discipleship. So no, it’s not “awesome”. Not awesome at all.
I was raised Catholic, and to me the Southern Baptist method basically treats Jesus like a Get Out of Hell Free card.
The definition is literally a 3-finger tap on my touchpad away. But I have a sneaking suspicion that the dictionary definition is not what you’re looking for. So quit playing coy and just state what your problem is with term “repent”.
To me the Southern Baptist method basically treats Jesus like a Get Out of Hell Free card. I was raised Catholic and this kind of thing just seems totally inappropriate and well, quite frankly, disgusting, to be perfectly blunt.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer referred to that as “cheap grace”, in his book, The Cost of Discipleship. So no, it’s not “awesome”. Not awesome at all.
My problem is that lots of people use it without seriously questioning what it means. Literally it means “turn around”. Figuratively you could take it as “change your mind”, or “get your head out of your ass”. 
But what you can’t legitimately take it as, no matter how hard you try, is anything about sin or confession or guilt.
It is true that “repent” sometimes has the sense of changing one’s mind–that’s the rhetorical meaning. But it also has a moral meaning–one that very emphatically has to do with sin.
“Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death” (II Cor. 7:9, 10).
“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land” (II Chron. 7:14).
“Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord God; Repent, and turn yourselves from your idols; and turn away your faces from all your abominations” (Ezekiel 14:6).
“Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord” (Acts 3:19).
“The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (II Peter 3:9).
In any case, it doesn’t really matter to someone who was raised in the southern baptist church. One might as well be saying everyone has to tonto before being saved. It doesn’t mean anything to one that believes that you only have to think that you’re inviting christ into your heart.
I’d believe in God if there was evidence he was real. My beliefs have nothing to do with whether I judge something to be good or bad.
I don’t think cancer is good but I believe it exists. Refusing to believe in cancer would be delusional. And that delusion wouldn’t protect me from getting cancer.
Another hypothetical. Let’s say an earlier, but clearly authentic version of the Bible were found, and it contained something that violated your personal moral code; e.g, “the poor will always be with us, so let’s use them for cord wood”.
Would you adjust your belief system? Or would your inner moral compass tell you that was wrong? If the latter, then why do you need religion at all?
You’ve lost me. In the hypothetical, the believer is rewarded with hell, but the non-believer … will spend an eternity in hell.
Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t?
You want an example of a god who condemns his believers to eternal torture? You want Sithrak.
Unfortunately information about Sithrak is located on the Oglaf site, which means that there is a high probability of encountering something **NSFW ** if you Google Him (hence why I haven’t put in a link), so be warned.
Of course, Sithrak also condemns unbelievers to the same torture. It doesn’t matter what you do; he doesn’t give a damn. Well, he gives a whole lot of damns, but he gives them indiscriminately: The point is, he doesn’t care.
It’s really quite liberating.
It seems to me you’ve made an awfully contrived thought experiment to show that no one really believes. Although I’m an atheist I find it completely unconvincing. You’d be better off having an honest discussion about the psychology of belief, even if that didn’t convince an ardent believer either.
Speaking of “disingenuous”, it is disingenuous of you to create an absurd scenario that makes absolutely no sense and then condemn people who do not embrace that senseless nonsense.
As a Christian, I can say that the core of our belief is the philosophy of love and forgiveness. An entity that promised hell instead of salvation wouldn’t be Christ in the first place, therefore he would be rejected on that basis.
In essence, you have just condemned Christians who would no longer believe in a religion that would no longer be Christianity.