Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish

hinault · 05-02-2020 06:52PM

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 · 05-02-2020 09:09PM

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 · 05-02-2020 10:07PM

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 · 06-02-2020 07:47AM

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 · 06-02-2020 07:57AM

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 · 06-02-2020 08:29AM

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 · 06-02-2020 08:42AM

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 · 06-02-2020 08:55AM

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 · 06-02-2020 09:25AM

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 · 06-02-2020 09:28AM

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 · 06-02-2020 09:44AM

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 · 06-02-2020 09:50AM

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 · 06-02-2020 10:07AM

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 · 06-02-2020 10:33AM

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 · 06-02-2020 10:58AM

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 · 06-02-2020 10:44PM

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 · 06-02-2020 11:29PM

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 · 06-02-2020 11:44PM

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 · 06-02-2020 11:59PM

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 · 07-02-2020 12:05AM

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.

hinault · 07-02-2020 12:11AM

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?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

There's no quid pro quo in that instance, as it doesn't explain any benefit an individual derives from another individual accepting, or rejecting, the warning cited in the OP.

Cabaal · 07-02-2020 08:24AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

Sounds like a protection racket used by the mafia.

Pay us money and nothing bad will happen to you.

El_Duderino 09 · 07-02-2020 08:24AM

hinault wrote: »

There's no quid pro quo in that instance, as it doesn't explain any benefit an individual derives from another individual accepting, or rejecting, the warning cited in the OP.

Of course there is a quid pro quo. Selling the religion people carries cudos within that religion. The Mormon lads going door to door are getting religious credit by trying to sell the religion to people. This passage is doing the exact same thing. The passage is using fear to encourage people to convert, or “comply” as I think you phrased it a few posts ago.

It’s just a sales pitch using fear. So, what would you think of a similar threat and sales pitch by a character in a different religion to which you don’t subscribe?

El_Duderino 09 · 07-02-2020 08:26AM

Cabaal wrote: »

Sounds like a protection racket used by the mafia.

Pay us money and nothing bad will happen to you.

It would be exactly the same if some people came out on the side of the mafia guys and argued they were just trying to protect you.

antiskeptic · 07-02-2020 09:12AM

A topic attracting a significant amount of push back from our next door neighbours.

The idea of Repentance (and it's equally horrifying option, reaping what you sow) seems to have triggered something

(although the televangelists promising holy prosperity if you sow 'seed' capital does have a certain financial investment instrument whiff off it,)

theological · 07-02-2020 09:18AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

A topic attracting a significant amount of push back from our next door neighbours.

The idea of Repentance (and it's equally horrifying option, reaping what you sow) seems to have triggered something

(although the televangelists promising holy prosperity if you sow 'seed' capital does have a certain financial investment instrument whiff off it,)

It's fair enough that the next door neighbours object to the idea that Jesus is the universal Lord of creation. They are welcome to it. Sin is central to the gospel. It is only by seeing the ugly reality of how we treat God and treat one another that shows us how much we need Jesus.

Claiming that we are good even when the evidence shows that isn't true is the only way to hide from having to repent. This is what Jesus refers to as hiding in darkness on John 3.

looksee raises an interesting question of whether repentance just means saying sorry. I think from a Christian view that wouldn't cut it unless there is a real desire to change. One example from Scripture that makes me think that way is Acts 2 where it refers to people being cut to the heart at Peter's preaching asking what must I do?

I think it's great that we've got a lot more discussion from Christians in the last few weeks and that the conversation isn't dominated by atheists here any longer. That's huge progress. It shows that if we want to discuss about meatier topics we need to set the agenda by creating threads.

antiskeptic · 07-02-2020 09:46AM

theological wrote: »

It's fair enough that the next door neighbours object to the idea that Jesus is the universal Lord of creation. They are welcome to it. Sin is central to the gospel. It is only by seeing the ugly reality of how we treat God and treat one another that shows us how much we need Jesus.

Claiming that we are good even when the evidence shows that isn't true is the only way to hide from having to repent. This is what Jesus refers to as hiding in darkness on John 3.

looksee raises an interesting question of whether repentance just means saying sorry. I think from a Christian view that wouldn't cut it unless there is a real desire to change. One example from Scripture that makes me think that way is Acts 2 where it refers to people being cut to the heart at Peter's preaching asking what must I do?

Repentance vs perishing isn't I think, turning from your sins (since you can't, the person who tries will find - see Romans 7 man)

I think it means turning from your original sin, the sin from which all other sin blossoms. Dig out the root (and be saved as a consequence) and the rest will whither. Look after the pound and the pennies will look after themselves

The original sin is self sufficiency. Better knock out Hitler and his cronies with a well landed bomb than fighting from Normandy's beaches all the way to Berlin.

I think it's great that we've got a lot more discussion from Christians in the last few weeks and that the conversation isn't dominated by atheists here any longer. That's huge progress. It shows that if we want to discuss about meatier topics we need to set the agenda by creating threads.

Agreed. So well done for taking the initiative.

El_Duderino 09 · 07-02-2020 09:55AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

A topic attracting a significant amount of push back from our next door neighbours.

The idea of Repentance (and it's equally horrifying option, reaping what you sow) seems to have triggered something

Yeah, it might also be the direct question to atheists in the OP that caused atheists to respond.

hinault · 07-02-2020 11:59AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Of course there is a quid pro quo. Selling the religion people carries cudos within that religion. The Mormon lads going door to door are getting religious credit by trying to sell the religion to people. This passage is doing the exact same thing. The passage is using fear to encourage people to convert, or “comply” as I think you phrased it a few posts ago.

It’s just a sales pitch using fear. So, what would you think of a similar threat and sales pitch by a character in a different religion to which you don’t subscribe?

I can't speak for the Mormons calling door to door.

There is no personal benefit, or cost, for me should you accept, or reject, Church teaching.
Therefore no quid pro quo exists. Therefore the warning is given in all charity.

El_Duderino 09 · 07-02-2020 12:01PM

hinault wrote: »

I can't speak for the Mormons calling door to door.

There is no personal benefit, or cost, for me should you accept, or reject, Church teaching.
Therefore no quid pro quo exists. Therefore the warning is given in all charity.

OK. You don't see the quod pro quo. I see it fairly plainly.

So, what would you think of a similar threat and sales pitch by a character in a different religion to which you don’t subscribe?

Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish

Comments