Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish

theological

We've been thinking in other threads recently about repentance and what that involves and the process of God making us more like Jesus as we step forward in faith.

I've been becoming more familiar with the Gospel of Luke and there is one section where Jesus rather strikingly refers to repentance and its necessity in strong terms:

Luke 13:1-5 wrote:

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”

So Jesus is speaking to some people about persecution of Jewish people from Galilee as they offered sacrifices. The people were beginning to ask if this made them worse sinners than anyone else. The answer is no they are not but if you don't repent the same could happen to you.

Question for all:
Does this seem harsh? Why or why not?

Questions for Christians:
What does repentance mean? Why does Jesus take this so seriously?

How easy do you find it to talk about sin and judgment? Why do you think it can often be difficult?

Question for non-Christians:
What do you make of what Jesus says in this passage?

Fccwontletmebe

Sure I suppose that's why God gives children cancer.

Peregrinus

Gonna pick you up on one point, Theo.

You say that “Jesus is speaking . . . about persecution of Jewish people from Galilee”, but I don’t think this is quite right. As it happens, the people concerned were persecuted, but that’s incidental; Jesus’s point is not about persecution. This is seen in the second example; people killed in a building collapse which, obviously, wasn’t a form of persecution.

What the two groups have in common is this; they died in ways that shock us. It’s one thing to contemplate a peaceful and dignified death after a long and fruitful life; quite another to think about sudden, unexpected death; death that comes “before its time”; deaths that seem arbitrary, illogical, disordered, unjust. These are profoundly disturbing.

The question Jesus raises is, are deaths like this a punishment for egregious sin? And the answer he gives is, no, they’re not.

Does this seem harsh? You can see it either way. On the one hand, Jesus is saying that evil or misfortunate deaths are not inflicted on us as a punishment for particular sinfulness; God (if we ascribe these deaths to God, directly or indirectly) is not exacting retribution for sin. That’s surely comforting rather than harsh. On the other hand, is Jesus saying that these things happen to us for no reason at all? Life is like that, suck it up? That’s pretty bleak.

But then comes the kicker: “Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish”. Is Jesus saying that we’ll all suffer violent or sudden death if we don’t repent? Surely not; lots of unrepentant sinners live long and prosperous lives, and die in their beds. (This is so well-known that there’s even a psalm about it.) Is he saying that if we do repent, we will be protected against the risk of death from tyranny, building collapse, etc? Again, surely not. Jesus himself will suffer a violent and horrible death, as the readers of this gospel are well aware.

Regular readers of the gospels will spot the introductory words to this statement - “No, I tell you.” Phrases like this turn up a lot in the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the gospels, and they usually indicate a "teaching moment" - i.e., it's Jesus saying "listen carefully, because I'm about to tell you something which is important, but difficult to understand". And the language which follows nearly always involves a change in tone or register. Often the language that follows is symbolic or metaphorical; occasionally mystical

So when Jesus says “you will all likewise perish” he is not saying that we will all die unexpectedly and horribly. I think he is saying that living in a world in which unexpected and horrible deaths happen is part of our fallen condition; that the key to dealing with this is not avoiding unexpected and horrible deaths but transcending the limitations of our fallen condition; and that the gateway to that is repentance.

As for “what does repentance mean?”, there are volumes written on the subject. But it’s worth nothing that in Luke’s telling Jesus immediately follows this call to repentance with the parable of the fig tree:

"There once was a person who had a fig tree planted in his orchard, and when he came in search of fruit on it but found none, he said to the gardener, 'For three years now I have come in search of fruit on this fig tree but have found none. So cut it down. Why should it exhaust the soil?' He said to him in reply, 'Sir, leave it for this year also, and I shall cultivate the ground around it and fertilize it; it may bear fruit in the future. If not you can cut it down.'"

If you take it that this is a parable told to illustrate the nature of repentance (which I think it is), then what it tells us is:

(a) Repentance is about growing and flourishing; about becoming what you should be. The objection to the fig tree is that it doesn’t fruit, which a healthy fig tree does.

(b) Repentance is a process, not an event. Fig trees have to mature before they fruit and, even though this fig tree is presumably mature, it is still given more time to become fruitful. (It’s also given cultivation and fertilisation, which I think represents the freely-given grace of repentance.)

(c) What we particularly notice about this parable is that it is left without an ending. After cultivation and fertilisation, does the fig tree fruit next season? We’re not told. Nor is it suggested that there is any preset limit; the landowner doesn’t say “one more year, and then it’s firewood!”. The focus here is not on the fact that the time for repentance is limited (which might be the lesson we take from the events just discussed involving sudden and violent death) but that time for repentance is extended; God’s patience with us is unbounded.

theological

When I say He's speaking about an event. He is answering people who raised the persecution to Him. The first sentence of His answer is "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than any other sinners?". This is the question He's dealing with. Thankfully He uses a general principle to respond to this. This is why it becomes useful for our instruction.

I appreciate the addition of context. That is helpful.

Edit: I think the time limit is important though because that highlights judgement. There will be a time for judgement. This is what Jesus is warning against in this passage also.

hinault

theological wrote: »

What does repentance mean? Why does Jesus take this so seriously?

How easy do you find it to talk about sin and judgment? Why do you think it can often be difficult?

Repentance requires three attributes (1) feeling of guilt for having sinned (2) feeling of abject remorse for having sinned and a sincere desire to atone for those sins, and to seek God's absolution (3) a firm resolve to try to rectify one's own behaviour in future to try to not sin again.

Each of these attributes form the basis for the sacrament of confession.

The examination of conscience prior to attending confession takes on added importance therefore,

It is extremely difficult, having truthfully examined ones conscience, to have to verbally state the sins committed during confession because it is a statement of guilt which requires genuine humility and a sincere desire to seek absolution.

10fathoms

Question for non-Christians:
What do you make of what Jesus says in this passage?[/quote]

Absolutely nothing. It has zero influence on my day to day existence. I prefer to spend my time on activities that are actually useful, not trying to interpret a book of fables and superstition.

Cabaal

theological wrote: »

Question for non-Christians:
What do you make of what Jesus says in this passage?

It means nothing to me, in all honestly you might as well replace Jesus with Thor and it would mean as much to me.

Of course the problem is when people uses bits of text like this to hate other groups claiming they will burn in hell, this is when I do care about it.

if people want to believe in sin because they need to believe in it to keep themselves in check for the rest of their life then thats fine. But don't use your defination of sin to hate other people or groups for how they live their lives.

hinault

Cabaal wrote: »

It means nothing to me, in all honestly you might as well replace Jesus with Thor and it would mean as much to me.

Of course the problem is when people uses bits of text like this to hate other groups claiming they will burn in hell, this is when I do care about it.

if people want to believe in sin because they need to believe in it to keep themselves in check for the rest of their life then thats fine. But don't use your defination of sin to hate other people or groups for how they live their lives.

So groups that commit despicable behaviour should not be hated?

sbsquarepants

theological wrote: »

Question for non-Christians:
What do you make of what Jesus says in this passage?

The bible, christianity, and most religions in fact can be summed up in one succinct phrase.

"Do as i say, or you'll be sorry"

That's what he's saying........but he loves you really.

Have you been hitting the shrooms extra hard this week or what?

You've got a serious case of the auld whatsitallabouts:D

endacl

I repent. We all cool now?

smacl

hinault wrote: »

So groups that commit despicable behaviour should not be hated?

What, like being an atheist or choosing a different religion for example? People threatening others with eternal damnation on the basis of the purported ruminations of a Middle Eastern prophet from two thousand years ago is pretty dubious in my opinion.

smacl

theological wrote: »

What do you make of what Jesus says in this passage?

He's coercing people with threats in order to bring them over to his point of view.

theological

smacl wrote: »

He's coercing people with threats in order to bring them over to his point of view.

It depends on your viewpoint. If Jesus is correct that our behaviour is destructive and that it will destroy us then it is loving to point out the problem we have and its solution.

hinault

smacl wrote: »

What, like being an atheist or choosing a different religion for example? People threatening others with eternal damnation on the basis of the purported ruminations of a Middle Eastern prophet from two thousand years ago is pretty dubious in my opinion.

You weren't asked.

But as you've decided to reply, it is clear that the behaviour of the group primarily is being cited in the OP.

That behaviour coupled with their lack of remorse and their lack of contrition, leads them to their fate.

hinault

theological wrote: »

It depends on your viewpoint. If Jesus is correct that our behaviour is destructive and that it will destroy us then it is loving to point out the problem we have and its solution.

Indeed.

It is charitable to point out the problem and to point out what will happen if the problem persists.

smacl

hinault wrote: »

You weren't asked.

I don't have to be. You're in an open discussion group, not on a pulpit. The OP is specifically looking for opinions of non-Christians in addition to Christians here.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

(3) a firm resolve to try to rectify one's own behaviour in future to try to not sin again.

There' a "with the help of thy grace" missing in there somewhere, iirc.

It is extremely difficult, having truthfully examined ones conscience, to have to verbally state the sins committed during confession because it is a statement of guilt which requires genuine humility and a sincere desire to seek absolution.

The problem for me is more one of memory. So many sin, so little time.

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

There' a "with the help of thy grace" missing in there somewhere, iirc.

Indeed.
The penitent does say the prayer called the "Act of Contrition"

antiskeptic wrote: »

The problem for me is more one of memory. So many sin, so little time.

That's why the examination of conscience is so important, AS!

Peregrinus

sbsquarepants wrote: »

The bible, christianity, and most religions in fact can be summed up in one succinct phrase.

"Do as i say, or you'll be sorry" . . .

smacl wrote: »

He's coercing people with threats in order to bring them over to his point of view.

theological wrote: »

It depends on your viewpoint. If Jesus is correct that our behaviour is destructive and that it will destroy us then it is loving to point out the problem we have and its solution.

Theo is correct. "Do as I say or you'll be sorry" is also the core message of the climate action movement, the Brexit movement, the Remain movement, Humanism, and many more besides. Pretty well any viewpoint which holds that, by adopting certain behaviours we can acheive good outcomes can be attacked for suggesting that, by not adopting certain behaviours, we embrace poor outcomes. But it's not a particularly cogent attack.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Theo is correct. "Do as I say or you'll be sorry" is also the core message of the climate action movement, the Brexit movement, the Remain movement, Humanism, and many more besides. Pretty well any viewpoint which holds that, by adopting certain behaviours we can acheive good outcomes can be attacked for suggesting that, by not adopting certain behaviours, we embrace poor outcomes. But it's not a particularly cogent attack.

It is an excellent point and deserves closer examination.

Firstly, I think that we need to separate the carrot from the stick. Suggesting that good behaviour will be rewarded is not the same as saying bad behaviour will be punished, bribery is distinct from blackmail. So for example, you include humanism on your list as comparable to Christianity, but I'm not aware of humanism stating that people who don't adhere to their tenets will be damned. Merely that those that do will lead a more fulfilling life.

Secondly, where threats are stated, I think it is important to distinguish between those threats that are supported by empirical evidence and those that are not. For example, climate change advocacy has significant empirical evidence to suggest that if we don't reduce our collective carbon footprint we face potential extinction. Christianity suggesting those that sin will go to hell does not.

Lastly, we have to look to who the threat it being applied to. Saying that if you are a sinner (e.g. a sexually active gay person or an atheist) you will go to hell is not the same as saying if we don't stop burning fossil fuels we will suffer as a result. The threatened consequences of climate change or Brexit apply to the group regardless of their stance, they do not single out the individual for punishment which constitutes a personal attack.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

It is an excellent point and deserves closer examination.

Firstly, I think that we need to separate the carrot from the stick. Suggesting that good behaviour will be rewarded is not the same as saying bad behaviour will be punished, bribery is distinct from blackmail. So for example, you include humanism on your list as comparable to Christianity, but I'm not aware of humanism stating that people who don't adhere to there tenets will be damned. Merely that those that do will lead a more fulfilling life.

Humanists would argue, I think, that to the extent that people’s behaviour fails to reflect humanist values we all suffer. The suffering may not be conceived of as, or expressed as, “damnation” , but there’s still a threat of suffering if we don’t accept the Humanist “gospel”.

I think the notion of separating out damnation and treating it as a class of harm which is quite distinct from, say, environmental degradation or societal harm is a very modern one, which comes from making a sharp distinction between the natural and the supernatural. But the text we are critiquing here is not a modern text (and, in fact, doesn’t threaten damnation).

As far as pre-modern cultures go, reality is seamless. Lots of things happened they didn’t understand (e.g. lightning) and they might ascribe them to the gods. But things happened which they did understand (e.g. a structure fails and collapses) and they might equally ascribe that to the gods.

For them, everything was connected, and they were fully aware that they didn’t understand all the connections. There was a way the world ought to be, and that included the sun rising on schedule each morning and the crops growing in season and animals behaving as animals ought to behave (migrating, building nests, whatever) and people behaving as people ought to behave - which is rightly and virtuously and with respect for the way things should be. And the more we violated our obligations in this scheme of things, the more disruption and disorder would result in the scheme of things.

So if we, say, spend all our time feasting and f*cking and ignore our obligations tend our farms and to treat with justice the widow, the orphan and the stranger among us bad things will happen. This could be declining crop yields because of weeds in the fields; it could be social unrest on the part of the neglected/oppressed underclass; it could be a loss of confidence in an obviously selfish and unfit ruling class, leading to social division and an opportunity for the Phoenicians to come in and beat seven kinds of sh*te out of all of us; it could be the cows aborting and the vines withering and figs falling from the trees while still unripe. Some of the connections here are more obvious than others; some are not obvious at all; but the people of the age would have assumed that there would be connections that they might not foresee or understand, because reality is seamless and if ethical standards are real then they are connected, directly or indirectly, to everything.

It could be hellfire and brimstone in the next life, but for the culture that produced this text the next life wasn’t a major preoccupation. When Jesus said “you will all likewise perish”, it’s unlikely that either he or his audience was thinking of demons with pitchforks, or lakes of fire, or whatever. We may read this text as Jesus threatening people with damnation in the next life but I think that’s us, not the text.

smacl wrote: »

Secondly, where threats are stated, I think it is important to distinguish between those threats that are supported by empirical evidence and those that are not. For example, climate change advocacy has significant empirical evidence to suggest that if we don't reduce our collective carbon footprint we face potential extinction. Christianity suggesting those that sin will go to hell does not.

It’s possible to mount arguments in favour of, say, gender equality or racial equality by appealing to empirical evidence - e.g. the economic benefits of an egalitarian, integrated workforce. And similarly we can ground our dire prognostications of the evil that will befall if we are discriminatory in empirical arguments. But I think most Humanists would say that these arguments are all very well as far as they go, but they miss the main point, which is that we should treat people with respect because it is the right thing to do, and that if we fail to do this we injure both them and ourselves in ways which are not confined to missed economic opportunities and lost productivity.

Ethical arguments - ie. arguments about how we should behave - are ultimately not grounded in anything empirically demonstrable. And similarly claims about ethical harm - the harm that result from a violation of standards of Good, Truth, Respect, etc are ultimately not empirically demonstrable either.

smacl wrote: »

Lastly, we have to look to who the threat it being applied to. Saying that if you are a sinner (e.g. a sexually active gay person or an atheist) you will go to hell is not the same as saying if we don't stop burning fossil fuels we will suffer as a result. The threatened consequences of climate change or Brexit apply to the group regardless of their stance, they do not single out the individual for punishment and which constitutes a personal attack.

Yeah but you are reading this text in a very modern, individualistic way, which I think ignores the culture that produced it. An injunction like “be kind to the stranger among you” is clearly addressed at the community - you can’t be among an individual - and is something that requires a communal response. Morality for this culture (and, spoiler alert, for Christians today) is very much a collective as well as an individual matter. Ethical questions take the form not just of “what should I do?” but also “what should we do?”, and indeed for a significant range of ethical questions the answer to “what should I do?” is “You should seek to encourage or participate in some collective action, because this ethical challenge requires a collective response”.

In fact, go back to the text here: “Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” is not a threat aimed at individuals; it’s the plural ‘you’, and perishing is expressly a shared fate. Today, if we as a society ignore the challenge of climate change, we as a society will suffer, but the powerful individuals who influence our societal response to climate change are not likely to be the ones who will suffer most. And I think first century Palestinians would have had exactly the same understanding about the effects of unethical behaviour in their own world.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

So for example, you include humanism on your list as comparable to Christianity, but I'm not aware of humanism stating that people who don't adhere to their tenets will be damned. Merely that those that do will lead a more fulfilling life.

And if damnation is but an unfulfilling life - so much so its labelled a second death?

What if Hell is not so much punishment as it is something that you opt for. A smoker has health but loses it through own action. Is it a punishment that he loses his health? Or a natural consequence of his choices?

The natural result of a desire for no-god (assuming an attempt to have you come to God) is an environment of no-God. If he isn't present in an environment (such as he is in our environment) then that environment looks like Hell.

Secondly, where threats are stated, I think it is important to distinguish between those threats that are supported by empirical evidence and those that are not. For example, climate change advocacy has significant empirical evidence to suggest that if we don't reduce our collective carbon footprint we face potential extinction. Christianity suggesting those that sin will go to hell does not.

Important, only in so far as you believe empiricism is the primary way we should arrive at convlusions.

There is no empirical way to support empiricisms primacy.

Lastly, we have to look to who the threat it being applied to. Saying that if you are a sinner (e.g. a sexually active gay person or an atheist) you will go to hell is not the same as saying if we don't stop burning fossil fuels we will suffer as a result. The threatened consequences of climate change or Brexit apply to the group regardless of their stance, they do not single out the individual for punishment which constitutes a personal attack.

Sinners means all 'unrepentant' sinners. Which means everyone born by default unless repenting.Not any particular type of sin, just all sin.

"There is no owe who is righteous, not one"

Your own personal climate crisis .. as it were.

sbsquarepants

I think Smacl has hit the nail on the head - brexit etc the argument is "We need to do this, or we will all suffer" religion is "You need to do this, or you will suffer" It's both more divisive and vindictive.

ChrisJ84

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I think Smacl has hit the nail on the head - brexit etc the argument is "We need to do this, or we will all suffer" religion is "You need to do this, or you will suffer" It's both more divisive and vindictive.

I think you're absolutely right, there is an important difference between the two. Responding to climate change, brexit etc. does not necessitate guilt or wrong doing on the part of any individual.

But Christianity says that the problem goes deeper - so sin isn't just a collective failing on the part of society (though it absolutely is that as well), but a rebellion and poison that is inside each one of us, and which we are powerless to do anything about.

Do you see that as divisive or vindictive because you see Christianity as trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist?

antiskeptic

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I think Smacl has hit the nail on the head - brexit etc the argument is "We need to do this, or we will all suffer" religion is "You need to do this, or you will suffer" It's both more divisive and vindictive.

See above. You own, personal, climate change. That some who have gone carbon neutral and are leaning over the fence to advise you do the same is neither divisive or vindictive. What you do with your personal climate change is your business, but as with climate change, it behoves those who see what's happening to warn those that don't yet.

ChrisJ84

antiskeptic wrote: »

See above. You own, personal, climate change. That some who have gone carbon neutral and are leaning over the fence to advise you do the same is neither divisive or vindictive. What you do with your personal climate change is your business, but as with climate change, it behoves those who see what's happening to warn those that don't yet.

Indeed! I do think that Peregrinus and smacl are touching on a really important point, in that there is a danger (particularly for Protestants) that we over individualise Christianity.

Salvation by faith is a matter between the individual and God, and its importance cannot be over emphasised. But at the same time we can't flatten out the more communal aspects of life and faith that come out in scripture.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Humanists would argue, I think, that to the extent that people’s behaviour fails to reflect humanist values we all suffer. The suffering may not be conceived of as, or expressed as, “damnation” , but there’s still a threat of suffering if we don’t accept the Humanist “gospel”.

I think the notion of separating out damnation and treating it as a class of harm which is quite distinct from, say, environmental degradation or societal harm is a very modern one, which comes from making a sharp distinction between the natural and the supernatural. But the text we are critiquing here is not a modern text (and, in fact, doesn’t threaten damnation).

As far as pre-modern cultures go, reality is seamless. Lots of things happened they didn’t understand (e.g. lightning) and they might ascribe them to the gods. But things happened which they did understand (e.g. a structure fails and collapses) and they might equally ascribe that to the gods.

For them, everything was connected, and they were fully aware that they didn’t understand all the connections. There was a way the world ought to be, and that included the sun rising on schedule each morning and the crops growing in season and animals behaving as animals ought to behave (migrating, building nests, whatever) and people behaving as people ought to behave - which is rightly and virtuously and with respect for the way things should be. And the more we violated our obligations in this scheme of things, the more disruption and disorder would result in the scheme of things.

So if we, say, spend all our time feasting and f*cking and ignore our obligations tend our farms and to treat with justice the widow, the orphan and the stranger among us bad things will happen. This could be declining crop yields because of weeds in the fields; it could be social unrest on the part of the neglected/oppressed underclass; it could be a loss of confidence in an obviously selfish and unfit ruling class, leading to social division and an opportunity for the Phoenicians to come in and beat seven kinds of sh*te out of all of us; it could be the cows aborting and the vines withering and figs falling from the trees while still unripe. Some of the connections here are more obvious than others; some are not obvious at all; but the people of the age would have assumed that there would be connections that they might not foresee or understand, because reality is seamless and if ethical standards are real then they are connected, directly or indirectly, to everything.

It could be hellfire and brimstone in the next life, but for the culture that produced this text the next life wasn’t a major preoccupation. When Jesus said “you will all likewise perish”, it’s unlikely that either he or his audience was thinking of demons with pitchforks, or lakes of fire, or whatever. We may read this text as Jesus threatening people with damnation in the next life but I think that’s us, not the text.

While I'm not a humanist and don't doubt there is an implied threat that is still very different from an explicit one.

I take your point that Christian writings are very much of their time and both pragmatic and relevant in that context. While certain aspects are far reaching to the extent that they remain relevant I'd consider many others anachronistic. The world is a very changed place. So for example, exhorting people to "go forth and multiply" in a world with a tiny population and high infant mortality rate makes pragmatic sense for the greater good of society. In an overpopulated world with dwindling resources and a higher life expectancy it bad for society.

I think this is a problem for excessively literalist Christianity which focuses on the specifics without regarding context at the cost of ignoring the broader thrust towards a more caring and healthy society.

It’s possible to mount arguments in favour of, say, gender equality or racial equality by appealing to empirical evidence - e.g. the economic benefits of an egalitarian, integrated workforce. And similarly we can ground our dire prognostications of the evil that will befall if we are discriminatory in empirical arguments. But I think most Humanists would say that these arguments are all very well as far as they go, but they miss the main point, which is that we should treat people with respect because it is the right thing to do, and that if we fail to do this we injure both them and ourselves in ways which are not confined to missed economic opportunities and lost productivity.

Ethical arguments - ie. arguments about how we should behave - are ultimately not grounded in anything empirically demonstrable. And similarly claims about ethical harm - the harm that result from a violation of standards of Good, Truth, Respect, etc are ultimately not empirically demonstrable either.

Agreed, many classes of argument are not easily addressed by empirical evidence. Outcomes more often are though, so if our actions motivated by our ethical standards result in a negative, we need to investigate whether those standards are at fault. If you allow that our world and humanity is continuously changing, we need to revise our ethical standards to reflect this change. For example, notions such as fundamental human rights are relatively new yet they are also the basis of how we evaluate respect for one another in modern society.

Yeah but you are reading this text in a very modern, individualistic way, which I think ignores the culture that produced it. An injunction like “be kind to the stranger among you” is clearly addressed at the community - you can’t be among an individual - and is something that requires a communal response. Morality for this culture (and, spoiler alert, for Christians today) is very much a collective as well as an individual matter. Ethical questions take the form not just of “what should I do?” but also “what should we do?”, and indeed for a significant range of ethical questions the answer to “what should I do?” is “You should seek to encourage or participate in some collective action, because this ethical challenge requires a collective response”.

In fact, go back to the text here: “Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” is not a threat aimed at individuals; it’s the plural ‘you’, and perishing is expressly a shared fate. Today, if we as a society ignore the challenge of climate change, we as a society will suffer, but the powerful individuals who influence our societal response to climate change are not likely to be the ones who will suffer most. And I think first century Palestinians would have had exactly the same understanding about the effects of unethical behaviour in their own world.

I'm reading this in a modern individualistic way because the OP is asking about the relevance of this text to me as a non-Christian individual in today's society. I very much agree that morality is a collective as well as a personal responsibility, but would dispute that this is or has ever been solely a Christian position.

With respect to 'you', plural versus singular doesn't make much difference here where the use is to isolate individuals from a group. You sinners, you black people, you gays, etc... are all plurals yet isolate and address individuals within a group. "You are all individuals" as a certain fictional Judean once said

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

But Christianity says that the problem goes deeper - so sin isn't just a collective failing on the part of society (though it absolutely is that as well), but a rebellion and poison that is inside each one of us, and which we are powerless to do anything about.

Slightly off topic, but surely suggesting that we are powerless not to sin contradicts the notion of free will and thus amounts to predestination?

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

Slightly off topic, but surely suggesting that we are powerless not to sin contradicts the notion of free will and thus amounts to predestination?

This is where the idea of total depravity comes in. It doesn’t mean that we’re all as wicked as we could be, but rather that sin touches every aspect and part of us – no-where is free from the taint. Theologically, this has a couple of implications. One is that all our actions are displeasing to God, whether they are outwardly good or bad (because they are tainted). Another is that we are powerless to do anything to change this state that we find ourselves in - the imagery the bible uses is of us being dead or enslaved. The wiki page is a reasonable summary

Free-will isn’t violated, because we are free to do exactly what we want to do – we just happen to have an inward inclination towards sin.

The solution to this problem is regeneration, whereby God brings us to new life (the idea of rebirth or being born again.) After regeneration, our actions are still mixed (we still sin) but God has brought us to new spiritual life and in so far as our actions are good, they are now pleasing to God. Sin is also no longer inevitable, which is why the bible urges Christians to resist it, put it to death etc., and Christians should expect to grow in holiness. Again, the wiki page is a reasonable summary.

One important practical implication of all this is that Christians should never give non-Christians the idea that they need to clean themselves up or change their behaviour (Give up yer aul sins!) Where the bible uses this kind of language, it is primarily directed at Christians.

Hope this helps.

hinault

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Free-will isn’t violated, because we are free to do exactly what we want to do – we just happen to have an inward inclination towards sin.

The solution to this problem is regeneration, whereby God brings us to new life (the idea of rebirth or being born again.) After regeneration, our actions are still mixed (we still sin) but God has brought us to new spiritual life and in so far as our actions are good, they are now pleasing to God. Sin is also no longer inevitable, which is why the bible urges Christians to resist it, put it to death etc., and Christians should expect to grow in holiness. Again, the wiki page is a reasonable summary.

One important practical implication of all this is that Christians should never give non-Christians the idea that they need to clean themselves up or change their behaviour (Give up yer aul sins!) Where the bible uses this kind of language, it is primarily directed at Christians.

Hope this helps.

Regeneration?? Never heard of this.

And where are you getting the concept that Christians "should never give non-Christians the idea that they need to clean themselves up or change their behaviour"?

The inclination to sin is something which has been throughout mankind since the Fall. Each of us is born in what is referred to as "the state of Original Sin"

The sacrament of Baptism removes us from the state of Original Sin. However there always remains the inclination to sin, even after Baptism.

The sacrament of Baptism is also the entry point to Christianity, every Christian must be at least be baptised, and Baptism is the starting point of our relationship with God and with the Holy Trinity.

If we are Christian we should be witness to the Good News and this witness should encourage non-Christians to become part of the "Christianity".

ChrisJ84

hinault wrote: »

Regeneration?? Never heard of this.

Not sure what you mean? Regeneration is the aspect of salvation whereby we are brought to new life. I guess you hold that this happens at baptism; as a Protestant (Reformed), I contend that it happens immediately preceding faith being placed in Jesus as saviour and lord.

hinault wrote: »

And where are you getting the concept that Christians "should never give non-Christians the idea that they need to clean themselves up or change their behaviour"?

I should have said, "As a prerequisite to salvation". Not saying we should encourage bad behaviour; but neither should we give the impression that our good works earn salvation from God.

hinault wrote: »

The inclination to sin is something which has been throughout mankind since the Fall. Each of us is born in what is referred to as "the state of Original Sin"

Agreed

hinault wrote: »

The sacrament of Baptism removes us from the state of Original Sin. However there always remains the inclination to sin, even after Baptism.

As a Protestant, I disagree with this and would rather say that baptism is an outward sign of God's inward work - the new covenant equivalent to circumcision.

hinault wrote: »

The sacrament of Baptism is also the entry point to Christianity, every Christian must be at least be baptised, and Baptism is the starting point of our relationship with God and with the Holy Trinity.

Again, as a Protestant I'd disagree with you a bit on this.

hinault wrote: »

If we are Christian we should be witness to the Good News and this witness should encourage non-Christians to become part of the "Christianity".

Totally. We do that by holding out the gospel, and calling others to place their faith in Jesus. We don't do it by asking them to modify their behaviour.

hinault

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

We do that by holding out the gospel, and calling others to place their faith in Jesus. We don't do it by asking them to modify their behaviour.

No difficulty with putting faith in Jesus.

However I take issue with modification of behaviour. I believe that our behaviour is the very thing which Jesus asks us to modify throughout our entire lives.

In the majority of instances, behaviour (or lack of behaviour) is required in order for sin to be committed.

Think of the 10 commandments, to violate these commandments requires behaviour (to steal, to fornicate, to murder, to not keep holy the sabbath, to dishonour your parents, to speak/to write to bear false witness, to curse to take God's name in vain).

It takes an action to break a commandment. Stealing, fornication, murder etc are each the result of a certain action/behaviour
Each commandment requires us to behave, and to not misbehave!

Christian and non-Christian, is required to keep good behaviour and to modify our natural inclination to not keep good behaviour.

ChrisJ84

hinault wrote: »

No difficulty with putting faith in Jesus.

Glad to hear it!

hinault wrote: »

However I take issue with modification of behaviour. I believe that our behaviour is the very thing which Jesus asks us to modify throughout our entire lives.

If you are a Christian (i.e. someone having faith in Jesus), then yes. Scripture calls Christians to live out their faith in practice, put sin to death etc., and says that doing so is a necessary fruit of faith.

hinault wrote: »

Christian and non-Christian, is required to keep good behaviour and to modify our natural inclination to not keep good behaviour.

I want to say yes and no to this. Yes, doing good is better than doing evil. Not stealing and killing is generally good advice, and makes life more pleasant for everyone.

But we go wrong if we tell non-Christians that doing good things puts them right in God's sight, and we should not expect non-Christians to adopt a Christian lifestyle.

I assume you're a Roman Catholic; do you disagree with anything I've said above? If so, why?

hinault

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

But we go wrong if we tell non-Christians that doing good things puts them right in God's sight, and we should not expect non-Christians to adopt a Christian lifestyle.

I assume you're Catholic; do you disagree with anything I've said above? If so, why?

I am Catholic.

To be clear, I'm not saying that we tell non-Christians that doing good things puts them right in God's sight.

What I am saying is that (1) there is an onus on all Christians to make all non-Christians aware of the Good News, (2) through good example, encourage/convert non-Christians to Christianity.

Cabaal

hinault wrote: »

So groups that commit despicable behaviour should not be hated?

Both you and I know I'm referring to many Christians views on gay men in particular... For some odd reason they don't appeal as threatened by lesbians.

Odd that.

hinault

Cabaal wrote: »

Both you and I know I'm referring to many Christians views on gay men in particular... For some odd reason they don't appeal as threatened by lesbians.

Odd that.

You made no mention of homosexuals in your initial post

Hence my question to you

theological

Cabaal wrote: »

Both you and I know I'm referring to many Christians views on gay men in particular... For some odd reason they don't appeal as threatened by lesbians.

Odd that.

There are plenty of threads for this elsewhere on this forum. This thread is about the need to repent generally and what Jesus has said on it.

smacl

theological wrote: »

There are plenty of threads for this elsewhere on this forum. This thread is about the need to repent generally and what Jesus has said on it.

With respect, if you need to repent, questioning why you need to repent seems entirely on-topic. Repenting for something that we'd all consider wrong such as murder is one thing. Being told to repent for who you are or what you believe, even though you might not be a Christian, is something else.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

With respect, if you need to repent, questioning why you need to repent seems entirely on-topic. Repenting for something that we'd all consider wrong such as murder is one thing. Being told to repent for who you are or what you believe, even though you might not be a Christian, is something else.

Yeah. But the text concerned contains no hint at all of what it is that people have to repent of. It's not about that.

So what is being complained about here is not the text, but the use that some readers (it is said) choose to make of the text; calling on it to castigate this group or that group when, in fact, there is nothing in the text itself to justify selective application. Quite the opposite, in fact.

(Which, to be fair, is exactly what Cabaal said in his first post that he was complaining about.)

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yeah. But the text concerned contains no hint at all of what it is that people have to repent of. It's not about that.

So what is being complained about here is not the text, but the use that some readers (it is said) choose to make of the text; calling on it to castigate this group or that group when, in fact, there is nothing in the text itself to justify selective application. Quite the opposite, in fact.

(Which, to be fair, is exactly what Cabaal said in his first post that he was complaining about.)

Given the text does however make reference to people perishing for their sins, I for one would like a little more detail on the nature of those sins. While as an atheist I don't consider myself non-perishable in the first instance, I still see the passage as a veiled threat albeit an empty one.

theological

smacl wrote: »

With respect, if you need to repent, questioning why you need to repent seems entirely on-topic. Repenting for something that we'd all consider wrong such as murder is one thing. Being told to repent for who you are or what you believe, even though you might not be a Christian, is something else.

Yes, there a load of areas that we need to repent in our daily lives from the love of money to being envious of others to bearing false witness to eachother, to being arrogant. We're not interested in the preoccupation you and others seem to have with sex if it prevents us having a wider discussion. Going over your objections to the Christian view on sexuality on every thread repeatedly is actually not helpful.

And people say it is the Christians who obsess over this topic. Honestly, it isn't.

Always Tired

I find it a bit confusing all the talk of Galileans ad sacrifices but the gist of it, to me, is kinda saying that it's not so much the gravity of a person's sin that matters but whether or not they are sorry for it. And I would imagine the almighty God will know if you are or not.

Like a person could drink 4 pints and go driving home, make it home safe and go to bed. Another could drink two and go driving home, hit someone on the way home and kill them. I think He's kind of saying that the former could just as easily be the latter, and should be equally sorry, while likewise don't go thinking you're any better than anyone else just because they made a mistake that seems worse/has worse consequences.

El_Duderino 09

As a non Christian is seems like an empty threat. Do what I say or else something bad will happen.

It’s a very old sales pitch based on fear and threat of something unspecified but unpleasant happening if you don’t buy the product they’re selling.

Question for the OP: what would you think of a character from another religion making the same threat towards you?

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Given the text does however make reference to people perishing for their sins, I for one would like a little more detail on the nature of those sins.

No, it doesn't; reread the text. Jesus specifically says that the people killed by Pilate and by the falling tower did not perish on account of their sins. And while he does say that we must all repent or perish, he doesn't say that we must repent of our sins specifically, or that we wil perish on account of our sins.

smacl wrote: »

While as an atheist I don't consider myself non-perishable in the first instance, I still see the passage as a veiled threat albeit an empty one.

As an atheist, you ought surely to accept that far from being an "empty threat" the passage asserts an undoubted truth; we are all going to perish, if not at the hand of a murderous ruler or under a collapsing building them from some other cause. And you presumably also accept the message that this is not on account of, or a retribution for, any sins we may have committed.

You might be on stronger ground if you said that, as an atheist, you felt the passage made a false promise; that we could avoid perishing if we repented. And that would prompt a discussion of what it means to repent, and what it means to avoid perishing. Not that I want to put words into your mouth or anything.

looksee

The meaning of the word perish seems to be moving to and fro between simply dying and dying with added torment. Repentance isn't going to stop people dying but it may remove the torment and even have benefits. And repentance of what? Some people are using it to mean being sorry for doing things that are socially unacceptable - with or without changing that behaviour, others mean repentance for not believing in whatever (that person) believes. It would make it easier to follow the argument if the basic terminology were a bit more specific.

smacl

theological wrote: »

Yes, there a load of areas that we need to repent in our daily lives from the love of money to being envious of others to bearing false witness to eachother, to being arrogant. We're not interested in the preoccupation you and others seem to have with sex if it prevents us having a wider discussion. Going over your objections to the Christian view on sexuality on every thread repeatedly is actually not helpful.

And people say it is the Christians who obsess over this topic. Honestly, it isn't.

Apologies if the conversation comes back to sex more often than you'd like. On my part the reason for this is that sex and sexuality are probably the largest area where Christian morality runs contrary to a morality more centered around basic human rights. The other area is religious intolerance (blasphemy, heresy, apostasy, etc...) but sexuality is the better illustrator for argument against Christian notions of morality as it relates to basic human nature rather than choice. That said, freedom of religious expression also seems to be a major bone of contention with you with respect to who may or may not refer to themselves as a Christian.

Our notions of morality surrounding envy, love of money and arrogance are likely to overlap to a large extent and hence somewhat moot.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

That said, freedom of religious expression also seems to be a major bone of contention with you with respect to who may or may not refer to themselves as a Christian.

I'm not going to speak for theological, but I do share his definition of what a Christian is. Anyone is free to call themselves whatever they like, and I wouldn't want to restrict their right to do so. But that doesn't mean I have to endorse what they say or agree with it.

I don't think this is a freedom of expression issue; disagreement does not equal discrimination.

hinault

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

As a non Christian is seems like an empty threat. Do what I say or else something bad will happen.

It’s a very old sales pitch based on fear and threat of something unspecified but unpleasant happening if you don’t buy the product they’re selling.

Question for the OP: what would you think of a character from another religion making the same threat towards you?

Time will tell if the warning is empty, or not.

However the warning is given in all charity. It is given in the hope that each individual will conform their behaviour as best they can, in order to obtain salvation.

Obviously the warning can be accepted and adhered to, or it can be rejected and ignored.

To your point about warnings made by a character from another religion, did you have a specific warning in mind that should be discussed?

El_Duderino 09

hinault wrote: »

Time will tell if the warning is empty, or not.

However the warning is given in all charity. It is given in the hope that each individual will conform their behaviour as best they can, in order to obtain salvation.

Obviously the warning can be accepted and adhered to, or it can be rejected and ignored.

To your point about warnings made by a character from another religion, did you have a specific warning in mind that should be discussed?

Well, you assert that’s the warning is made in all charity. But that’s an integral part of the sales pitch.

And no I don’t have a warning in mind. Just a warning from a character in a religion that you don’t believe in or adhere to.

hinault

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well, you assert that’s the warning is made in all charity. But that’s an integral part of the sales pitch.

And no I don’t have a warning in mind. Just a warning from a character in a religion that you don’t believe in or adhere to.

I take issue with your description of this as a sales pitch.
Sales involves quid pro quo, between buyer and seller.

There's no "sales pitch" to what is cited in the OP.

Otherwise explain what benefit does an individual derive from another individual accepting, or rejecting, the warning cited in the OP?

El_Duderino 09

hinault wrote: »

I take issue with your description of this as a sales pitch.
Sales involves quid pro quo, between buyer and seller.

There's no "sales pitch" to what is cited in the OP.

Otherwise explain what benefit does an individual derive from another individual accepting, or rejecting, the warning cited in the OP?

The sales pitch is to join the religion. You join the club and you reduce the chances of the thing I just threatened you with, from happening to you.

It's a very old sales pitch for religions.