The Great Christian Argument

[Kiddo]

I used to practice Christianity very rigidley when I was younger, you could say im agnostic now.

Any Christian that judges anyone else or condemns sin is not a real Christian, I understand people make mistakes, but as someone who has been to church all their life, about 90% of organized religion can be catorgorized as "false". The Bible teaches that Christians should be accepting of everyone, to love everyone and try to show them to Jesus, and then let that person and God work out the sins.

Kiddo, there are more quotes along those lines as well. Although I can only remember one,

"Do not try to remove the spec of dust from your neighbors eye before removing the plank from your own"

See, that is my view of Christianity. I suppose I can post some quotes form the Roman Catholic I have been discussing these things with so you can see it from his point of view.

Kiddo:>I believe when you condemn a sin, you are condemning the sinner. In doing so you are putting shame in their heart for what they do, not helping them understand the love God has for them despite it.

RC Guy:There should be shame for sin. Making it clear that God loves them is not ignoring sin.

Kiddo:>It is clear to me from the Bible that God told us to love our fellow man, sin and all.

RC Guy: No, here's where you're wrong: it was written to hate sin, and that God hates sin. I love you, but I'll never love any sin, not yours, and certainly not mine.

Kiddo >It is not your place, nor any other man's to define sin outside of your own life. That is God's place, and no one should try to act as God.

RC Guy:Sin is defined in the Bible, and in Church. I'm not stepping outside of their definitions.

Kiddo:>To repent is not to try to avoid sin, or even to feel shame or remorse, but simply to ask for God's forgiveness for being human and to love him and feel his love in your life.

RC Guy:You're wrong. You need to repent, and decide you won't do it again.

Kiddo:>Your sin is the only sin that matters to you and it is only between you and God. Just as my sin is the only sin that matters to me and it is between me and God.

RC Guy: (sarcastically) Yeah, I really don't know why Jesus and the apostles talked about sin at all in the Bible, they had no right.

Kiddo:>It is our place to love each other despite sin in hopes of bringing God into each other's lives so he can help us, as individuals, to know his path for each of us.

RC Guy: That I concur with. And it's His will for us not to sin, and he may send his people to teach us how.

Kiddo:In fact, it is the greatest of all commandments to love your fellow man as you love yourself. Mark 12:30-31

RC Guy:No, actually it's love God with all your might, soul and mind. And after that for God's sake love your neighbor as yourself.
Back to poverty: poverty doesn't send you to hell, sin does. So, if you love your neighbor, the first thing is to introduce him to God. You have to understand, most of the population on this planet is poor. It's not such a big deal being rich. Nor does your donation makes poor rich, or solves their problems. It can help them, and we should help, but our primary mission is to give them hope for eternal life (Gospel, aka the good word), then worry about this one. Don't get me wrong, you're right in helping them, and you do good doing that. And you're right, people should help the poor with donations, but if you love a person, you'll first try to help him get saved from eternal damnation, that's what I'm saying. Isn't it true? It would be selfish of me not to speak about Christ, and His words, if I know they are true.

Kiddo:>Look for yourself on the internet and see which is the true path of God's will. One marred by hatred and anger, where people go about shaming gays for how they feel by condemning their sin? Do you honestly believe that brings gays to God?

RC Guy: On Internet!? There are white power sites, saying Jesus was a racist, there are black sites, saying Jesus was black, and others even saying Selassie was God, there are so many weird and twisted interpretations. No, I find Truth in the Bible, and so should you. I honestly believe sin separates from God. As for the method I'm using to tell people, I think I really am not insulting anyone, how much milder can I get, without going astray myself?

Kiddo: >How about the other path, where Christians reach out in love, not judgment, and accept gays as fellow sinners and as brothers and sisters in the eyes of the lord? All sins are equal in the eyes of God.

RC Guy: That's not the teaching of the Church. There are venial sins, and mortal sins. Venial are ones you can just repent for, the others - called mortal because they endanger your chance to go to heaven, if you're a Christian - will get you to hell, if you don't repent and go to confession, and decide you would never do it again. But Jesus says in the revelations to st. Birgitta (saintbirgitta.com) that even venial ones, if you keep repeating them, with no intention to change - become mortal sins. because that means you're not all about God anymore, and you'd rather cling to that, 'minor' sin.

 

[FFF]

The weeping and gnashing of teeth thing actually has to do with "outer darkness." This place/state, "outer darkness" is mentioned three times in Mathew. You don't hear much talk about it because hardly anybody knows what it is. If you pay attention to the references to it, it says "the Children of the Kingdom will be thrown into outer darkness". This means it's some kind of punishment for God's people, not the godless people. Also, if it's a place of darkness, how could fire be there since fire produces light? The Bible appears to present two types of believers. Those who overcome the world and the flesh (sinful nature), and those who don't. I never understood the statement "many are called, but few are chosen," until I realized it applied to this. Also, this is what the parable of the 10 virgins with the lamps illustrates. Five of the virgins didn't keep their lamps full, so they missed out on something having to do with marriage cause they went to get more oil.

 

[Mole]

Strange. I discussed these issues with a Roman Catholic for three days prior to this thread and those are exactly the beliefs he argued.

1. He is to condemn the sin of his fellow sinners.
2. Sin is the only thing that divides Christians.
3. Shame, guilt, and remorse bring people to God.

If you would like I can send you the messages of the debate I had with him.

Well, maybe you are right - you have produced a counter-example.

And there are an number of different Catholicisms and even within Roman Catholicism there are varying points of view.

So maybe you are right.

Victor.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

There has long been a division on one particular issue in Christianity and that is man's place when it comes to condemning sin.

Most Catholics and most fundamentalist type Christians argue that man must go out into the world and condemn sin at every turn. That often translates into telling people they are going to hell if they don't repent. These Christians argue that only sin divides Christians and that fear, shame, guilt, and remorse are signs of spiritual healing.

The more liberal Christian groups on the other hand, such as the Red Letter Christians argue that only Jesus/God have the right to condemn sin and to ask for repentance. These groups generally argue that it is the duty of every Christian to love God and to love fellow sinners, sin and all. They believe that only love can bring people to God and that shame and guilt are tools that those who corrupt the word of God use to control.
...

Overall I think going to either extreme is unwise. On the one hand just approaching every acquaintence and pointing out all of their faults is not going to convince them to change. It will only piss them off. On the other hand it would be wrong of us to turn a blind eye when we are witnessing obvious injustice like murder. If I witness a murder I am going to condemn the guy by calling the cops.

So how do you know where to draw the line? If we set aside illegal acts, then my philosophy is "Before you give a person 'tough love' you have to actually give them love." A person will not listen to you correct them, unless they trust you first and value what you have to say. I've heard another person put it this way, "If are going to correct a person for their sin, then you should be willing to die for them." For example I don't think there is anything wrong with a parent correcting their children, because many parents actually love their children enough that they would be willing to die for them. However correcting a casual acquantaince is foolish.

I think there is some scriptural support for this view. "First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to take the speck out of your brother's eye." The "log" is simply to judge a person by their actions and not to see them with compassion like God does. Once you have removed that "log", then you can help your brother remove the "speck" which is the specific sin in question.

 

[Sniffles]

How ridiculous. Roman Catholicism does not teach that we must go out into the world and condemn sin at every turn. Quite the opposite.

And Roman Catholic theologians argue that there is nobody in hell.

And Roman Cathoiics do not argue that only sin divides Christians. Again, quite the opposite.

And RCs do not claim that fear, shame, guilt and remorse are signs of spiritual healing.

In fact the only people who make these claims are anti-Catholic bigots.

Rep point headed your way my friend. Although one correction, Catholic theologians don't argue that nobody is in Hell, but rather one is not required to believe anybody is there. Other than the saints, we don't know whose in Heaven or in Hell.

Here's a very good article concerning the matter:
The Population of Hell


I rather enjoy the conclusion, which conforms to my own perspective:

"The search for numbers in the demography of hell is futile. God in His wisdom has seen fit not to disclose any statistics. Several sayings of Jesus in the Gospels give the impression that the majority are lost. Paul, without denying the likelihood that some sinners will die without sufficient repentance, teaches that the grace of Christ is more powerful than sin: “Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Romans 5:20). Passages such as these permit us to hope that very many, if not all, will be saved.

All told, it is good that God has left us without exact information. If we knew that virtually everybody would be damned, we would be tempted to despair. If we knew that all, or nearly all, are saved, we might become presumptuous. If we knew that some fixed percent, say fifty, would be saved, we would be caught in an unholy rivalry. We would rejoice in every sign that others were among the lost, since our own chances of election would thereby be increased. Such a competitive spirit would hardly be compatible with the gospel.

We are forbidden to seek our own salvation in a selfish and egotistical way. We are keepers of our brothers and sisters. The more we work for their salvation, the more of God’s favor we can expect for ourselves. Those of us who believe and make use of the means that God has provided for the forgiveness of sins and the reform of life have no reason to fear. We can be sure that Christ, who died on the Cross for us, will not fail to give us the grace we need. We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, and that if we persevere in that love, nothing whatever can separate us from Christ (cf. Romans 8:28-39). That is all the assurance we can have, and it should be enough."

Ok moving on......

Strange. I discussed these issues with a Roman Catholic for three days prior to this thread and those are exactly the beliefs he argued.

1. He is to condemn the sin of his fellow sinners.
2. Sin is the only thing that divides Christians.
3. Shame, guilt, and remorse bring people to God.

If you would like I can send you the messages of the debate I had with him.

There are several ways of responding to this. First, please familiarise yourself with the actual teachings of the Church, the Church Fathers, and many great Catholic writers and thinkers. The link I provided above will serve as a good introduction to the development of Catholic understandings of Hell and damnation over time.

Second, upon doing so, I hope you realise that various schools of thought and interpretations prevail within Catholicism. Contrary to popular opinion, Catholicism is not some monolith where the Pope speaks and everybody obeys without question. To use GK Chesterton's analogy, Catholic doctrine serves as a wall around a playground; you must stay within the walls, but you can play any number of games within it.

Third, having said that, what you described above can largely be explained as the mere opinion of that one Catholic, nothing more. I can provide numerous examples of Catholics who held views contrary to what you stated.

So no offense, but overall I'd say your understanding of the matter is rather shallow quite honestly. Although you're not alone.

 

[Mole]

Rep point headed your way my friend. Although one correction, Catholic theologians don't argue that nobody is in Hell, but rather one is not required to believe anybody is there. Other than the saints, we don't know whose in Heaven or in Hell.

Here's a very good article concerning the matter:
FIRST THINGS: A Journal of Religion, Culture, and Public Life

I rather enjoy the conclusion, which conforms to my own perspective:

"The search for numbers in the demography of hell is futile. God in His wisdom has seen fit not to disclose any statistics. Several sayings of Jesus in the Gospels give the impression that the majority are lost. Paul, without denying the likelihood that some sinners will die without sufficient repentance, teaches that the grace of Christ is more powerful than sin:

My own point of view is that heaven and hell are metaphoric. And I think if you take them literally, you get into trouble.

And not only heaven and hell - if you take limbo literally, you also get into trouble - 'cause after existing for centuries, limbo has now been abolished.

But I wanna know, where did all those babies go?

 

[Sniffles]

I think there is some scriptural support for this view. "First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to take the speck out of your brother's eye." The "log" is simply to judge a person by their actions and not to see them with compassion like God does. Once you have removed that "log", then you can help your brother remove the "speck" which is the specific sin in question.

Yes I brought that up in my original response to this thread(which for some reason would not post). If you look at the greater context of the "judge not, let thee be judged" verse, you find that Jesus talks about not being a hypocrite. He states that one cannot condemn the sin of others without first dealing with the sin in oneself. Only then can one deal with the sin of others.

The basic problem we have here is that you can't just take random verses and attribute entire teachings to them, without taking into its context and how it relates to scriptures as a whole.

If Jesus really taught that one can never condemn the wrong-doings of others, then how does one explain Jesus' words in Matthew 23?:

1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'

8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

13"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.[c]

15"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

16"Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' 17You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18You also say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.' 19You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it.

23"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

25"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

27"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. 28In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

29"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' 31So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!

33"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.

37"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. 38Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'[d]"​

So Jesus is clearly judging the wrong-doings of others, in this case the Pharisees, and doing so with rather harsh language.

So does Jesus contradict himself? Or rather is the interpretation attributed to Jesus' teaching of judge not(which btw is also in Matthew) incorrect?

 

[Kiddo]

So no offense, but overall I'd say your understanding of the matter is rather shallow quite honestly. Although you're not alone.

No offense taken. I have very limited exposure to Catholics and this particular Catholic spoke as if he was speaking for all Catholics everywhere.

 

[Kiddo]

So does Jesus contradict himself? Or rather is the interpretation attributed to Jesus' teaching of judge not(which btw is also in Matthew) incorrect?

I would say that falls perfectly in line with his teachings, namely "Judge not ye be judged." He is judging the judges.

"The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted."

It's pretty clear that he feels they are due to be humbled, but no Christian is to do the humbling.

 

[Journey]

We can say, "Which Jesus?".

Over two thousand years Jesus has been cast in the image of many different cultures - in fact hundreds of cultures.

There is not just one Jesus but hundreds of Jesus.

So we can ask, "Which Jesus should we be like?".

Sorry, I've been out of town.

The Jesus we should be like is the one who is alive today. A living person not changed by hundreds of cultures. We get to know the true Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit and the Word which equals Jesus which equals the Truth, the Light and the Way.

 

[Journey]

Countermand that order! I command you to be yourself!

Your Commandant has spoken - Be Yourself.

I don' want you to be like anybody, I jus' wan' you to be yourself.

In that way, I can be myself too.

You know, the nicest person is the world is someone I can be myself with.

Why not you?

Victor.

"Yes, sir!"

You know I think one of the questions God will ask us in the end is, "Why weren't you more like the person I created you to be?" Being like Jesus frees us to be the true us. What does it free us from? The tyranny of "me."

 

[Totenkindly]

I actually have similar ideas to yours, Journey, but my automatic response to your posts are very broad general questions like:

1. What Jesus ARE you talking about? One that can be articulated in an "objective" way or one that can only be known subjectively? (The whole description didn't put any flesh on how we would recognize the "true jesus.")

2. Who ARE "we"? Who is the "me" God created me to be? Yes, the ideal is to become the person God intended... but I don't think that is generally argued against. People instead argue because (for example) the "me" I think God made me to be is different than the "me" that OTHERS think God made me to be.

Is any of that definable in a clear way? Can we come to any agreement on what these things look like, or is there no answer that different people can arrive at from different directions?

The ideas might be good ones in an abstracted sense but they offer no help in reaching concrete answers that would end the friction.

 

[Journey]

I don't think Jesus talked about "hell" that much. Gehenna, a word Jesus used to reflect what you might call hell, is only used about 12 times in the New Testament (I think 7 in mathew, 3 in Mark, 1 in Luke, and 1 in James). John uses "lake of fire" about 3 times in Revelation. If you add that up, that's only about 15 direct references to "hell" in the whole New Testament, less times than there are books/writings that make up the New Testament.

I guess at other times Jesus could've mentioned condemnation or punishment without directly referring to "hell", but I'm not aware of him ever focusing on that to convert people. I'm not aware of any place where it describes Jesus going around telling people nothing but that they're so bad and sinful and that they're going to "hell" in order to save them. He got like that with the Pharisees (Jewish religious nutcases) who rejected Him, but that was after they already saw Him perform miracles and had already heard many things He had to say.

It would be interesting to evaluate the Gospels and Acts and take note of the circumstances of all conversions that took place. I'm not enough of a J type to stay dedicated and focused on something like that to actually get it done, though.

The New Testament talks about hell some 162 times and more than 70 times Jesus was speaking of hell. What about Hell? -- John MacArthur speaks to your topic much better than I can. Also you can just google "Jesus spoke on hell more than other topics" and pull up a world of information. I'm trying not to sermonize here as Kiddo asked us in the beginning.

 

[Totenkindly]

The New Testament talks about hell some 162 times and more than 70 times Jesus was speaking of hell. What about Hell? -- John MacArthur speaks to your topic much better than I can. Also you can just google "Jesus spoke on hell more than other topics" and pull up a world of information. I'm trying not to sermonize here as Kiddo asked us in the beginning.

Have you stretched outside the conservative Christian element to examine other approaches to the Bible and these topics?

I started where you did, but it's only one facet of the dialog.

 

[Journey]

I actually have similar ideas to yours, Journey, but my automatic response to your posts are very broad general questions like:

1. What Jesus ARE you talking about? One that can be articulated in an "objective" way or one that can only be known subjectively? (The whole description didn't put any flesh on how we would recognize the "true jesus.")

2. Who ARE "we"? Who is the "me" God created me to be? Yes, the ideal is to become the person God intended... but I don't think that is generally argued against. People instead argue because (for example) the "me" I think God made me to be is different than the "me" that OTHERS think God made me to be.

Is any of that definable in a clear way? Can we come to any agreement on what these things look like, or is there no answer that different people can arrive at from different directions?

The ideas might be good ones in an abstracted sense but they offer no help in reaching concrete answers that would end the friction.

Jennifer, I don't believe one is in a position to know a person unless one is in a relationship with that person. In the same way, unless you are in a personal relationship with Jesus you can't really KNOW Jesus. You can know about Jesus, which gets you to all the culturally diverse Jesuses out there. All the people who are in a personal relationship with Jesus and know Him can relate to each other without friction (or as much as possible with human beings).

As for being yourself, you can to your own self only be true and let friction be where it may be. The truth will out.

I don't think this argument was ever about ending the friction anyway. That will never happen as long as there are believers and non-believers. The gospel is an offense to those who are perishing.

 

[Journey]

I suppose the only issue I have is when there is more than one interpretation of what a certain sin in the Bible actually is.

For example: homosexuality

All three stories of the Bible that have to deal with "homosexuality" deal with rapists and/or molesters. Also the word used for homosexual in the Old Testament is vaguely translated, and could just as easily refer to pedestry (which is much more relevant to the times as well) or in some cases, even male prostitutes. (Not to mention to my recollection, Jesus never even spoke of homosexuality)

So when I hear people condemning homosexuality, I can't help but wonder if God meant sins such as rape, child molestation, and prostitution rather than consensual same sex relationships. My reason argues, that where there is love, there God, so I think such relationships are actually doing God's work.

God's position on homosexuality is very clear not to mention Romans 1 or 1 Corithians 6, He states the matter clearly in:

Lev 18:22

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
KJV

 

[Kiddo]

God's position on homosexuality is very clear not to mention Romans 1 or 1 Corithians 6, He states the matter clearly in:

Lev 18:22

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
KJV

I think you might being taking the translation way too literally. For example, there is this interpretation.

This is a passage from the Mosaic Code that is often used to condemn homosexual behavior in general. In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

The first part of this verse is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" Many, probably most, theologians, Bible translations and biblical commentators agree that the verse is directed at men who engage in at least some form of anal sex with other men. But they do not agree on the full scope of the forbidden activities. For example:

The Living Bible greatly widens the scope of the original Hebrew to include all homosexual acts by both men and women. They confuse the matter further by not differentiating between homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior. They render the first part of this verse as: "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden."

(An added note here, the words "homosexual" and "heterosexual" weren't created or used until the end of the 19th century (by psychologists no less), so the fact that those words are used in some parts and/or version of the Bible illustrates how modern words that could have entirely different meanings to their ancient counterparts have been interjected into the Bible.)

On the other hand, many religious liberals have interpreted the beginning of this verse as referring only to sexual activities between two males during a Pagan temple ritual. If there were a liberal translation of the Bible, it might say "Ritual anal sex between two men in a Pagan temple is forbidden."

The second part of this verse explains what type of sin this transgression falls under. There are two types of sin in the Mosaic Code:

1. Moral sin is produced by rebellion against God. This seems to be the interpretation of most biblical translations imply when they translate the Hebrew "toeyvah" into English words such as "abomination," "enormous sin," or "detestable."
2. Ceremonial uncleanliness is caused by contact with a forbidden object or by engaging in a behavior which might be quite acceptable to non-Hebrews, but which was forbidden to the Children of Israel. Eating birds of prey, eating shellfish, cross breeding livestock, picking up sticks on a Saturday, planting a mixture of seeds in a field, and wearing clothing that is a blend of two textiles are examples of acts of ritual impurity which made a Child of Isreal unclean. These were not necessarily minor sins; some called for the death penalty.

The verse is, unfortunately, incomplete. Its precise meaning is unclear. The phrase "lay lyings" has no obvious interpretation. Attempts have been made to make sense out of the original Hebrew by inserting a short phrase into the verse.

It definitely doesn't fall under the category of "very clear". Someone took the liberty of assuming what it means.

And the Holy Spirit tells me that God loves to see loving, committed same sex couples. Oh, and I care more about what Jesus says than what an old Jewish code said.

But let us not get off topic. If you would like to make a "Religious arguments against homosexuality" thread then I would love to contribute my thoughts and interpretations, but this thread is meant to discuss personal views on what man's role in condemning sin is.

 

[Oso Mocoso]

The New Testament talks about hell some 162 times and more than 70 times Jesus was speaking of hell.

Maybe in the translation that you're reading, but in the original language, hell does not appear.

Specific example:

NIV Mark 9:43-48: "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched."

Literal Translation of Greek N.T. Mark 9:43-48 "And if thy hand may cause thee to stumble, cut it off; it is better for thee maimed to enter into the life, than having the two hands, to go away to the gehenna, to the fire -- the unquenchable"

Gehenna was a specific place that the original audience would have been familiar with. It was a valley outside Jerusalem where people burned garbage.

Interestingly, less explicit references to Gehenna that appear in the original Bible documents have made it into English without alteration. So, sometimes in English they translate it as "hell", and sometimes it's called the "Valley of Hinnom", "Valley of the Sons of Hinnom" or something like that.

Whether he's making reference to a disgusting valley full of burning trash or Hell doesn't change the ethical nature of what the passage is trying to teach. It's only when people try to derive theological answers from an inexact translation that it causes misunderstandings.

 

[Journey]

Maybe in the translation that you're reading, but in the original language, hell does not appear.

Specific example:

NIV Mark 9:43-48: "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched."

Literal Translation of Greek N.T. Mark 9:43-48 "And if thy hand may cause thee to stumble, cut it off; it is better for thee maimed to enter into the life, than having the two hands, to go away to the gehenna, to the fire -- the unquenchable"

Gehenna was a specific place that the original audience would have been familiar with. It was a valley outside Jerusalem where people burned garbage.

Interestingly, less explicit references to Gehenna that appear in the original Bible documents have made it into English without alteration. So, sometimes in English they translate it as "hell", and sometimes it's called the "Valley of Hinnom", "Valley of the Sons of Hinnom" or something like that.

Whether he's making reference to a disgusting valley full of burning trash or Hell doesn't change the ethical nature of what the passage is trying to teach. It's only when people try to derive theological answers from an inexact translation that it causes misunderstandings.

We will just have to disagree. The fire unquenchable means hell and Jesus is warning us it is better to enter life maimed than to go to hell whole. I see no inexact translation causing misunderstanding. And I am familar with the translation from the Greek.

 

[Hexis]

I tryed to determin my oponion on this but I just cant seem to. The only oponion I ever come to when dealing with this kind of stuff is that religion is completely useless and a plague among man and that we would all be better off with out it. I despise religion in and of its self, now I dont care if you want to beleive in that stuff and all and im not going to think any less of you if you do. But it seems like such a waste of time, there are better things we could be doing with our lives then argueing of philisophical oponions when we know none of us are evering going to come to a factual conclusion. It logicaly doesnt make sense, religion is useless.