There are two ways of talking about these things in the church. We can either talk about the things we know by our experience, because of our personal relationship with the triune god or think about them and speaking not from the experience of the things relationship with God gives us, but from our own thoughts.
We can discuss about what the bible actually says and make arguments and try to understand the book or we can approach the bible already knowing what it says, because we already experience God and we are in a relationship with Him.
For those that choose the first approach, the book can guide us. We don't need extra-biblical sources or ideas. We don't need to impose restrictions where such restrictions are not apparent in the book. The book gives us a framework to guide us in our lives.
But for those that take the latter approach, the issue of sin is not something we can focus on. In fact, we are not able to judge; we cannot say which things are sins and which aren't. Judgment is Christ's. He will judge when He sees fit. So, the issue is not about sins and judgment, or even getting guidance through life. It's about maintaining a relationship with God. This is what becomes crucial, because in Him we experience a different kind of life; we don't want that new life to get diminished. We want to experience it more and more, until we succeed a state where we experience Him steadily.
This is why the gospel cannot and should not be imposed. Nobody can make someone live the new life Christ talked about. This is why talking about these things and creating laws outside the special relationship Christ's followers are to have with Him is meaningless and it can even be harmful.
There is point in spirituality. There are many ways with which man tried to give answers to really important questions. With your statement, you underestimate the importance of man's effort to understand the world in a deep way. Humanity always tried to find out how to live, and to understand why we exist and what it means to exist.
Religions are also needed by man. They give man an advantage in man's struggle for survival. They provide with a frame, with which man secures his place in the world and in front of God.
Eternal punishment is not something some priests made up.
Since this is not a place for showing the antiquity of that concept, I'll just point you to what Jesus showed to John: "and anyone whose name was not found in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire." (Revelation 20.15) Because Jesus will give "living water" to those that "will conquer", but to the rest, "their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death." (Revelation 21.8)
Just in case the Revelation is not enough, I point you to the end of Isaiah, where it is written: "And they shall go out and look at the dead bodies of the people who have rebelled against me; for their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh." (Isaiah 66.24)
Jesus taught that "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law untill all is accomplished. (Matthew 5.18) and "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a letter in the law to be dropped." (Luke 16.17)
Not really. Leviticus is the Law given by God to the Hebrews. It's not supposed to bind the non-Hebrews. The Law was an agreement with the people of Israel. The people of Israel may or may not honour their part of that agreement. The rest, i.e. the non-Hebrews, didn't make such an agreement with God.
The Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth, himself god, was the source of an agreement between god and the rest of mankind.
Therefore, the rest of the world is not bound by what the hebrews agreed with God. There is another agreement, and we may or may not honour our part of that agreement.
Leviticus itself shows that what it includes is supposed to be kept by the people of Israel; it's not supposed to bind all mankind.
Slashdot Mirror
There are two ways of talking about these things in the church. We can either talk about the things we know by our experience, because of our personal relationship with the triune god or think about them and speaking not from the experience of the things relationship with God gives us, but from our own thoughts.
We can discuss about what the bible actually says and make arguments and try to understand the book or we can approach the bible already knowing what it says, because we already experience God and we are in a relationship with Him.
For those that choose the first approach, the book can guide us. We don't need extra-biblical sources or ideas. We don't need to impose restrictions where such restrictions are not apparent in the book. The book gives us a framework to guide us in our lives.
But for those that take the latter approach, the issue of sin is not something we can focus on. In fact, we are not able to judge; we cannot say which things are sins and which aren't. Judgment is Christ's. He will judge when He sees fit. So, the issue is not about sins and judgment, or even getting guidance through life. It's about maintaining a relationship with God. This is what becomes crucial, because in Him we experience a different kind of life; we don't want that new life to get diminished. We want to experience it more and more, until we succeed a state where we experience Him steadily.
This is why the gospel cannot and should not be imposed. Nobody can make someone live the new life Christ talked about. This is why talking about these things and creating laws outside the special relationship Christ's followers are to have with Him is meaningless and it can even be harmful.
There is point in spirituality. There are many ways with which man tried to give answers to really important questions. With your statement, you underestimate the importance of man's effort to understand the world in a deep way. Humanity always tried to find out how to live, and to understand why we exist and what it means to exist.
Religions are also needed by man. They give man an advantage in man's struggle for survival. They provide with a frame, with which man secures his place in the world and in front of God.
Eternal punishment is not something some priests made up.
Since this is not a place for showing the antiquity of that concept, I'll just point you to what Jesus showed to John: "and anyone whose name was not found in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire." (Revelation 20.15) Because Jesus will give "living water" to those that "will conquer", but to the rest, "their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death." (Revelation 21.8)
Just in case the Revelation is not enough, I point you to the end of Isaiah, where it is written: "And they shall go out and look at the dead bodies of the people who have rebelled against me; for their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh." (Isaiah 66.24)
Jesus taught that "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law untill all is accomplished. (Matthew 5.18) and "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a letter in the law to be dropped." (Luke 16.17)
Therefore Jesus didn't "do away with anything".
Not really. Leviticus is the Law given by God to the Hebrews. It's not supposed to bind the non-Hebrews. The Law was an agreement with the people of Israel. The people of Israel may or may not honour their part of that agreement. The rest, i.e. the non-Hebrews, didn't make such an agreement with God.
The Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth, himself god, was the source of an agreement between god and the rest of mankind.
Therefore, the rest of the world is not bound by what the hebrews agreed with God. There is another agreement, and we may or may not honour our part of that agreement.
Leviticus itself shows that what it includes is supposed to be kept by the people of Israel; it's not supposed to bind all mankind.