Philosoraptor

Read Paul's letter to the Romans, chapters 3 through 5.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&c=3&t=ESV#s=1049009

No laws = no transgressions Let Jesus take the fall for anything bad a believer might do. i.e., Believers don't have to take responsibility for their actions. This was Paul's schtick that he used to convert the masses to his 'new and improved' religion. It sucks, and a world full of Christians who rape, murder, and steal are proof of that.

Not so. Paul addressed that specific issue (should we sin after we've been forgiven) in Romans chapter 6.

There's no law against finding out about the things you're critiquing, before you critique them.

Read Hebrews 10:26, as it states that once a believer has been saved, and they WILLFULLY sin, there is NO MORE sacrifice for sins. i.e. Christians cannot continue to sin, repent, sin, repent and repeat when necessary, or they go to the fiery bowel of hell.
To say this refers to apostates is using Humpty Dumpty semantics (Making words mean whatever you want them to mean), as nowhere in the passages does refer to apostates. It refers to those who have been saved. i.e CHRISTIANS

Are you a Christian who denies original sin (and doesn't believe Christians should call themselves sinners), or are you an unbeliever citing Bible contradictions as a rationale for your unbelief?

I don't believe your interpretation of Hebrews 10:26 is correct. If it were correct, it would seem to lead to the conclusion that as soon as someone calling him/herself a believer had committed even one willful sin, they would be out of the faith forever with no hope of restoration (since Christ's death is the only sacrifice by which we can be reconciled to God).

For that reason, I believe another explanation of that verse is more likely to be the correct one.

I am a professor of religion and philosophy, so I aware of all the Humpty Dumpty interpretations of the text. Cognitive dissonance allows you to make up whatever meaning you like in order to mesh it with your belief system. However, the meaning is clear as written. Once a believer is saved, there is no excuse to wilfully sin. If you choose to sin after being saved, then you go to hell. If you think otherwise, all your religion is, is an excuse to do bad things and still be rewarded--which is an abomination. Jesus made this clear as well in the fulfillment passages of Matthew 5:17-20. "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Humans would be much better off if they did not believe they were born innately bad and took responsibility for their own actions instead of putting them on the shoulders of someone else. In this respect, Christianity has given its followers free reign to rape, murder, steal, etc., but still be given salvation as long as they say 'sorry' to Jesus. Again, I find this to be abominable.

You seem to be earnest in your search to identify internal inconsistencies with Christianity (such as Paul's offer of free grace and the warning in Hebrews 10:26).

The trouble is, that if you want to demonstrate persuasively that a system is internally inconsistent, you have to do so on its own terms. You can't just pick the interpretation that is most favourable to the result you wish to attain.

It's also not persuasive when you just dismiss other interpretations that are different from your own by saying "Humpty Dumpty interpretations."

If there's a valid interpretation of the Hebrews 10:26 verse that doesn't contradict the plan of salvation Paul explains in Romans, then you haven't proved that the Christian religion has genuine internal contradictions.

What you or I might find abominable is not relevant to the issue of whether the claims of Christianity are true.

It is entirely consistent with the Bible that people who are under the influence of original sin (as the Bible says we are) would perceive the true religion as personally abominable to them.

The fact is that we do not have the right to judge God according to whether his teachings are "abominable" to us or not.

"Christianity has given its followers free reign to **pe, murder, steal, etc., but still be given salvation as long as they say 'sorry' to Jesus."

That's not an accurate representation of Christianity. In the Christian belief, a person counted righteous by God when God counts the righteousness earned by Christ's obedient life to that person, by God's free grace.

The call is to "repent of sin and trust in Christ" for salvation. That's not at all the same as "sin all you want and you can say sorry to Jesus."

What you made mention of is the same as saying, "I'm sorry for beating my wife, and I repent and trust you Christ" and then going home and beating your wife again until she is dead, and then praying to Christ for salvation saying, I'm sorry for killing my wife Lord and I repent of my sin, and trust in Christ."--in order to be saved and go to heaven after death. i.e., Christians are being rewarded for bad behaviour with this philosophy. No consequences for the believer unless of course the secular courts have anything to say about it.
In reality according to your Bible, you MUST repent of ALL sin and trust in Christ for salvation, and if you WILFULLY sin again after being saved, you go to hell--as the Bible tells us.

Let me interpret the gobblydygook you say is an accurate representation of Christianity. That is:
"In the Christian belief, a person counted righteous by God when God counts the righteousness earned by Christ's obedient life to that person, by God's free grace. "
What this really means is that you have no say in your 'righteousness'--that's all on your Christ. i.e.--you don't have to take responsibility for your own behaviour. It's 'earned' by Christ, not you--as you made mention. Furthermore, by God's grace. i.e.--you don't even get to choose. No free will to choose to believe as it is by 'God's grace." Not you. Nothing is on you. You have free reign to do whatever you want including murder, theft, etc,. as long as you repent afterwards and of course 'believe.' Again let me reiterate just how abominable this philosophy is.

What do you believe "repentance" is?

Repentance would be to be genuinely sorry for your actions, take responsibility for these actions, pay restitution for these actions, and to never repeat these actions--as Hebrews 10 tells you.
In the Christian philosophy, only one of these points need apply. All a Christian has to be is 'sorry' and beg forgiveness from their god. No mention of the victims--just their god. No consequences for the man who kills his wife in a fit of rage, as long as he 'confesses' to his god and says 'sorry'. There is no justice in a Christian paradigm.

To the comment below which for some reason does not have a reply button. Hmmm... Anyway what you just stated is one of the worst problems with your religion. Everybody has a different 'definition' which makes Humpty Dumpty Semantics a breeze. Don't like my definition? Move on to another denomination of the religion that meshes with your view! There are literally thousands of them--they all believe in the same god, just not the same view of that god. This god must be something of a sadistic masochist to make his religion so vague that billions misinterpret his supposed 'message' and kill each other over these messages.
All Christians want to do is to be able to continue to do crappy things, be forgiven by their god and still be rewarded. No consequences. THAT is why we have Christians, because if they actually studied the Bible, they would come to the same conclusions I did long ago. It's illogical gobbledygook used to control the masses by telling them to be 'humble' and that pride in oneself is a vice.

Maybe they allow "replies" to only go so deep.

You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about Christianity. "Gobbledook," "sadomasochistic" God etc.

Maybe your criticisms have some merit, and maybe they don't.

Obviously as a Christian I'm more likely to go with the explanation that confirms my existing belief system.

It would be nice to see you engage more with Christianity from the Christian's point of view, though. If you're a Professor of Religion and Philosophy, you should be able to do that.

The fact that there are many different denominations is not really an argument against the truth of Christianity. In fact, if you look at it a certain way, it could be taken as a confirmation that the Bible is true. The Bible speaks of supernatural beings (the devil and his angels) that will try to deceive people. It's reasonable to think that their efforts of deception would be focused specifically on the true religion. So, the fact that Christianity has a lot of counterfeits that appear like different versions of Christianity is not unreasonable from within this point of view. It's consistent with what the Bible says.

That doesn't match up exactly with what I've been taught "repentance" is in my religious tradition (Protestant). The definition as you've stated it sounds more like the medieval Catholic definition.

I will give you a link to a blog I have written which may help you understand my point.
www.aisforatheist5760.blogspot.com

Thanks for the blog link.