And the general Christian viewpoint on sin is that it has to be: A: Made with full knowledge of the consequences and B: Made with full control of your faculties. Someone who kills someone while drunk is guilty of a lesser sin then one who performs the same act in cold blood.
Someone else suggested something similar, that Christianity takes intent into account while mortal courts don't. Which seems completely backward to me: Mortal courts totally take intent into account when sentencing, while Biblical laws are just "Anyone who does this is a sinner". Intent doesn't matter at all. Remorse might be necessary afterward, but technically all that matters is *knowing about Jesus*. Not knowing the consequences of sin is no defense, it's the opposite - it practically guarantees punishment.
Additionally, blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is explicitly *unforgivable*, according to Jesus himself. It's the *only* unforgivable sin mentioned. And it's a thing which nonbelievers are most likely to do, due to their ignorance.
And I've never heard that Christians aren't as responsible for their sins while drunk (of their own volition). That would be seriously unjust if true. There's a difference between premeditated murder and manslaughter, but intoxicating oneself shouldn't be a defense...
Christianity's not actually all that disinclined towards killing, though it's long tried to spin the PR to say otherwise.
Judaism isn't that opposed to killing. From a Christian perspective, it's pretty close to unjustifiable.
Ignoring the obvious point that Christian nations have almost universally been violent... Often against the Jews... Jesus doesn't really try to stop people from killing.
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34
And Matthew 5:
5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19 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.
He supports the violent prophecies and teachings of the Old Testament.
That's why I say Judaism isn't that opposed.
In Christianity, you would be one or more of: failing to turn the other cheek, failing to love your neighbour, or failing to love your enemy. All of which are instructions from Jesus, and fairly solidly unambiguous.
5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Is followed by
5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Clearly the section is a metaphor for empathy and compassion, not a literal guide to life. Otherwise the early church would have died out in a generation or two *tops*. Speaking of... One of my favorite verses:
16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Ok!
*Cracks Knuckles*
Someone else suggested something similar, that Christianity takes intent into account while mortal courts don't. Which seems completely backward to me: Mortal courts totally take intent into account when sentencing, while Biblical laws are just "Anyone who does this is a sinner". Intent doesn't matter at all. Remorse might be necessary afterward, but technically all that matters is *knowing about Jesus*. Not knowing the consequences of sin is no defense, it's the opposite - it practically guarantees punishment.
Your absolutly right. The reason for the strict laws was because God was, literally, living among them in the tabernacle. He cant stand the sight of sin, so He set up strict laws.
Additionally, blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is explicitly *unforgivable*, according to Jesus himself. It's the *only* unforgivable sin mentioned. And it's a thing which nonbelievers are most likely to do, due to their ignorance.
There is debate over that passage. I'm pretty sure that what it is talking about, is the complete rejection of Jesus. So, yeah, only unbelievers commit this sin. Mainly because they are the only ones that reject Jesus........
And I've never heard that Christians aren't as responsible for their sins while drunk (of their own volition). That would be seriously unjust if true. There's a difference between premeditated murder and manslaughter, but intoxicating oneself shouldn't be a defense...
Yeah, I had never heard of that either. There is a passage that allows for people who have commited manslaughter to flee to certain cities of refuge, where they cant be condemned and can live out their lives.
Ignoring the obvious point that Christian nations have almost universally been violent... Often against the Jews...
No defense here! There have been some pretty bad things done by people who claim Christianity in the past. But we cant judge a religion based on the mistakes that the people in it make, but based on what the Scriptures actually say.
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34
Ahh! Now we are getting into escatology! What Jesus was talking about there, was that he would destroy his enemies. Which is still true, in the Last Day, He will rain death on all who dont know him. He is still a God of Justice.
He supports the violent prophecies and teachings of the Old Testament.
He did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it! Which means that the Law is no longer neccesary for salvation. The Law is still active, just not enforced very much now.
Clearly the section is a metaphor for empathy and compassion, not a literal guide to life. Otherwise the early church would have died out in a generation or two *tops*
Yeah, He was getting a point across. But the love your neighbor was an explicit command, and it goes hand in hand with what he was saying about turning the other cheek.
16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
I do believe John was there. John wrote the book or Revelation, which describes a vision he had of the time when Jesus will come and set up his kingdom here on earth. So, he did see it before he died....
I hope that helped. I get the feeling my thoughts are all kinda muddled.....
EDIT due to typo's
Poll
70 (27.6%)
Author
Topic: Railgun and Spirituality Discussion (Read 571961 times)