Do you forgive animals that you kill to eat them? Do you forgive yourself for eating them? That’s not the way the loophole works james… you can be evil as fuck and forgive everything.
Forgiven AS you forgive others…
Jesus did preach against various types of sexual sins, like divorce, adultery and prostitution. Jesus also said it is better to live like a eunuch. What more do you want? And no, you do not understand the Lord’s prayer if you think it is some sort of goal oriented message, like Leave the Earth a Better Place Than When You Arrived or Find Your Passion In Life and Make the World a Better Place. It’s not about that at all. You’re mixing secular humanism with Christianity.
Divorce? Marriage is a sin… divorce can’t be a sin. Adultery decreases suicide rates in human populations, and prostitution is the only one I agree with. Don’t tell me I don’t understand the Lords prayer… I used to recite it everyday for years when i was a child. It very clearly appeals to Gods desire to make earth like heaven. It’s not even ambiguous to that regard. What is Christianity then, making the world a WORSE place? Being neutral? Jesus says the greatest sin is indifference.
Evil aka sin or sinful is failing to do, refusing to follow or disobeying God’s will. Evil is not an emotion, although hate as an emotion can certainly bring evil on. Killing an animal generally speaking is not against God’s will. Therefore, killing an animal generally speaking is not evil.
Sin is failing to do, refusing to follow or disobeying God’s will. God’s will is that you may not divorce and commit adultery. Hence, it is a sin. God’s will is that you get married as opposed to fornicating, if you can’t follow being a eunuch for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, therefore marriage is not a sin.
Quote where Jesus said indifference is the greatest sin?
Book of revelations… right towards the end.
Forgiveness is again a command of God’s will. God is asking us to be like God aka be like Jesus. God is forgiving. Therefore, it is God’s will that we be forgiving. If we are not forgiving, then we are disobeying God’s will, and thus sinning. However, just because you follow God’s will in terms of being forgiving does not mean you are not sinning by disobeying God’s will by sinning in other ways.
Please quote the passage from the Book of Revelations you are referring to.
I might actually be wrong! I haven’t kept a Bible in my place for years, but I’m pretty sure that right towards the end of Revelations, the Son of Man says that the greatest sin is indifference. But i did a quick search engine check on it and found nothing… people are usually right on top of that stuff on the internet.
Without a Bible, this is all I found…
I can destroy your body, if you need proof. As for your soul. You can’t destroy a thing which is not evident. What you might think evinces your soul can also be swept away by destroying your body.
Fearing an idea or otherwise does not seem to be much of a sequitur.
500 billion years of nothing, is just more nothing.
Well, Revelations 3:16 doesn’t say indifference is the greatest sin. Of course, I personally only quote Jesus from the 4 Canonical Gospels. I don’t consider the Book of Revelations in any way, shape or form equal to the Gospels. However, indifference itself is only a sin if you are being indifferent to the will of God, which is really no different than refusing to obey the will of God.
Jesus never mentions a greatest sin. However, Jesus does mention some very very serious sins. For example, Judas in betraying Jesus committed a really horrible sin. Jesus said, " woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born." Matthew 26:24. Another terrible sin is leading a Christian away from his faith. "“It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble.” Luke 17:2.
And then, of course, there is the unforgiveable sin. "Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin "-- " Mark 3:28.
“Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then, is the sin committed by the person who claims to have a ‘right’ to persist in evil—in any sin at all . .”
Well whatever, you’re marching the Bible at me, and you can’t even use the word Eunuch right… it’s a castrated man.
JohnJBannan wrote:
The book of Revelation is a series of prophecies and is therfore an important document not to be dismissed.
Martin Luther, called for ‘sola Scriptura’, yet he failed to fully accept the Scriptures in their totality. For Luther, this meant to represent as of little value or merit, the book of James (as an “epistle of straw”) and despising other portions of Scripture (as presenting the way of Law and not the Gospel). All Scripture, both Old Testament and New, not just part, is of divine origin, as is cited by the NT writers, when supporting their point from several OT sources.
Yes, I know a eunuch is a castrated man. So what?
The question to ask is what did Jesus mean when He said, “For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.” Matthew 19:12.
So, we have 3 categories of eunuchs that Jesus refers to: 1) those who were born that way, 2) those who were made that way by men, and 3) those who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.
Now, only category 2 actually refers to castrated men. So, what is category 1 and 3?
Are men actually born without testicles? Yes, it’s called Testicular agenesis, but it is extremely rare occurring in 1 out of 5 to 6 million births. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_age … r_agenesis
Now, do you think Jesus was referring to Testicular agenesis? I seriously doubt it. What are the odds that His audience even knew about such an exceedingly rare condition? I think it far more likely he was referring to the perpetual bachelor or life long single man in category 1.
But, category 3? Do you really think Jesus was telling us to cut our own testicles off? That’s silly. Obviously, you couldn’t do that yourself, you we need someone else to do it. So, category 3 refers to the celibate - not an actual castrated man.
Now, do you really think Jesus would tell you it’s better to be celibate for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, and Jesus not be walking His talk? This is why Jesus was celibate.
Now, if Jesus is telling you to be celibate for the sake of the Kingdom of God, why would you think Jesus would think sexual stratification was at all important?
Category 1 is castrated by god. Like most people you assume that the ancients were ignorant. There is no reason that being born without balls was not widely known. There was a great deal of interest in ‘monsters’, as most cultures, including the Greeks (who wrote the bible), would hold a ceremony of acceptable for the new born; many deformities (or economic problems) would result in the baby being left in a pot, or exposed on the hillside. There is a mass of literature on the subject.
Category 3 is self mutilation. Easily done. If you’ve been anywhere near a farm, you’d know it was a lot more easy than you imagine. Additionally category 3 would not discount people who got others, such as an iatros to assist in the procedure.
SO, yes, Jesus is saying that a route to heaven can be assisted by the loss of bollocks.
Not even close.
If Jesus were talking about actual castration, then one would expect His followers to adopt such a practice. But, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever in the New Testament that any of Jesus’ followers were castrating themselves. Indeed, the One Big controversy was over whether pagan converts had to be circumcised. “Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.…” 1 Corinthians 7:18.
The argument for circumcision was the belief that in order to be a follower of Jesus, one had to be a Jew, and in order to be a Jew, one had to be circumcised. Of course, the Church ultimately decided against a requirement that pagan converts needed to be circumcised. Good God! Castration is worse than circumcision. A requirement for castration was nowhere on the radar.
Literal castration is never mentioned once in the New Testament as being required.
Clearly, the Book of Revelations is an apocryphal text written using high symbolism and code. Indeed, the Book of Revelation doesn’t even pretend to be an accurate historical accounting of what Jesus actually said during His lifetime, but a “revelation” of John of Patmos (whoever he was … maybe the Apostle John? Maybe not?). I will always find the Gospel of Mark the most reliable of all the Gospels, because it is the oldest and written by Paul’s right hand man. The Book of Revelations has a sketchy provenance and worse yet, it’s based on some guy’s aka John of Patmos’ mystical visions.
The 4 Canonical Gospels are clearly a far more reliable and accurate source of what Jesus actually said, then the Book of Revelations. Indeed, if one looks at what Jesus actually said about the end of times in the Gospels, He is fairly vague and even admits that only God knows when the end will come. "“But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” Mark 13:32. And then along comes the Book of Revelations setting forth all the details about the end of the world on a topic even Jesus wouldn’t speak clearly and in detail about in the Gospels. Indeed, the symbolism in the Book of Revelations appears to be speaking about the fall of the Roman Empire preceding the end of the times. But, Rome fell and the end of times didn’t happen. So, I don’t find the Book of Revelations particularly reliable.
“and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.” That’s Castration!!! Jesus said it. Now if you want to make everything jesus said an allegory or Parable, how about “Turn the other cheek”? “Hey Jesus, bend over and let me have sex with you.” “Ok, because I turn the other cheek, and guess what, because I do of my own consent because it’s my stupid law, you don’t go to hell for it.” “Hey jesus, the sky is made of cheese” “Oh you’re right, I must turn the other cheek, it sure is, thanks for telling me.” “Hey jesus, actually the sky is made of glass…” “well I suppose I must again turn the other cheek, so it certainly is!!!”
“Hey jesus, Murder than person.” “Oh, you’re sooooo right, I must turn the other cheek, I forgot.”
Did it ever occur to you that either all of Jesus life was mistold or he was batshit crazy?