Are all sins equal?

[Eurydius del Ark]

I heard limbo removed or scratched out from catholicism cause it didn't appeal in Africa, which has high baby mortalities. If thats even possible. <_<

Anyways.

So... is it safe to assume that Dante Inferno is ranked on the level of severity of the punishment?

[EndUnknown]

yes, the upper levels aren't very bad, but the lower you go the worse it is.

[nathanlawliet]

Originally Posted by Eurydius del Ark

I was wondering if there was some sort of secret hierarchy of sins I'm not aware of?

Like one that rates all the sins on a scale of "evil" of some sort.

I'm just kinda amazed how easy it is for some people to pick and choose which sins are an abomination and which are fine to do on a regular bases.

Is being a whore is higher or lower on the scale than being a fatass?

I mean.. God forbid you are attracted to the same sex... But judging someone then killing them is totally cool.

Well... unless it is a fetus... or yourself... or someone that wants to die.
Then thats totally not cool?

I don't think there is. People always choose sins that are worse than others, but that's humans just being human.

And being fat isn't a sin. With gay people/murdering people, it's just the way that people are. It's that simple.

People will never mature completely, but it's people like you and me who realize these things who will keep things in order (or something like that).

[Evander]

What I've never uunderstood is how Christianity can pick and choose some sins out of the Torah, but not others.

Stuff like homosexuality is evil, but lobster is delicious.

[Andre3000]

In Gods sight all sins are bad. IN our sight we consider certain sins worse than others.

[Evander]

Originally Posted by Andre3000

In Gods sight all sins are bad. IN our sight we consider certain sins worse than others.

Where does that come from, because Judaism definitely ranks which sins are worse than others.

[Little Horn]

Originally Posted by Evander

Where does that come from, because Judaism definitely ranks which sins are worse than others.

This is the first I've heard of this... citation please?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by floorpuncher

The idea of all sins being equal is a false statement depending on the branch of Christianity you subscribe to.

In almost all denominations of Christianity to denounce or reject God is an unforgivable sin. Suicide is another sin that is unforgivable. This would suggest that at least these two sins are not of the daily sin lot.

Catholics and a select few other branches of Christianity believe in the idea of Purgatory. It's a place in between Heaven and Hell where you are allowed to atone for the sins you may have perpetrated in life in order to gain entrance into Heaven. The question that comes to mind is which sins are worthy of this kind of forgiveness? This again, would imply that there are some sins that are worse than others in the eyes of God.

There are actually a small group of Christians that subscribe to the multi-layered Hell that Dante lays out in Inferno in the Divine Comedy. In this concept of hell you've got 9 "circles" or layers of Hell. These are broken down as such:

1st Circle (also called Limbo) - Here is where all the unbaptized children go. It's also a place for non-believers that may have led an otherwise "good life". It's not really a place of torment but just absent of God.

2nd Circle - This is where the lustful go.

3rd Circle - The ones guilty of gluttony are here

4th Circle - Basically this is where all the greedy people go.

5th Circle - All the people who spent their lives being pissed off and taking it out on everyone. Basically the wrathful

6th Circle - Heretics

7th Circle - The 7th circle is broken down into three sub-circles which house the violent, suicides and blashemers.

8th Circle - The 8th circle is broken down into like 9 or ten sub circles that contain varying degrees of liars and thieves

9th Circle - This circle is also broken down into a few sub circles each one named after a famous traitor i.e Zone 1 is named Caina after the character Cain in the book of Genesis all the way down to Judecca named after Judas Iscariot.

If you subscribe to this idea of hell it would certainly seem that there are verying degrees of transgressions.

Well, I must admit, I don't know the specifics of each Protestant denomination, but I'm fairly certain that there is no major one in which one can "lose their faith." According to standard doctrine, one is "eternally secure." Blasphemy or renunciation, in this case, refers to one who rejects Christ from the outset. One who never recieved the Holy Spirit. If someone is a Christian they can't just stop being a Christian; they can sin, but they are no longer slaves to their sin nature, because Christ conquered sin on the cross. While sin, by definition, displeases God, there is nothing we can do to make us not his. Now, this gets into the whole issue of predestination, which is still not a decided issue in many Christian circles, though most would agree there is nothing we can do to separate ourselves from God, be it suicide or by choice. If anyone can find a Biblical basis for such a claim, show me. Also, I didn't know that anyone actually took Dante seriously; it was a work of fiction, largely intended to vent some of Dante's frustration at those he saw as "traitors."

Originally Posted by Evander

What I've never uunderstood is how Christianity can pick and choose some sins out of the Torah, but not others.

Stuff like homosexuality is evil, but lobster is delicious.

Apparently, you've never read the epistles, especially Paul's, and James too, I believe. They're pretty clear that there's a difference between cermonial laws (such as your lobster example, which were done away with when the veil over the Holy of Holies split at Christ's death) and the others. For instance, there is the depiction of the weaker and stronger brother: the weaker brother would be someone who is sensitive to certain practises, such as eating pork or eating food sacrificied to idols, and the stronger would have no such compulsions. It is the stronger brother's duty not to do anything tat would tempt or act to the detriment of the weaker brother. And it's relatively easy to figure out which laws became unnecessary after Christ: most of them are the ones designed to protect them from unforseen dangers, be it certain foods, molds, etc. Now, this is not to say that Christ did away with the Law(note upper case, used to refer to the collection of Jewish laws), but rather that the laws were only in place because of sin. Christ conquered sin, so the Law became, not something to be ignored, but no longer the damning force in one's life. The Law was never intended to save anyone, but rather to make our errors both known and clear. With sin now eradicated, our Law is Christ, to follow his words and deeds and to be more like him. Though admittedly, being Christ-like is a scarce trait in today's Christians.

[EndUnknown]

Originally Posted by Locke

Though admittedly, being Christ-like is a scarce trait in today's Christians.

QFT.... the biggest stumbling block in my coming to faith was my church youth group. their belief in God seemed to stop at the church doors, and that made me feel it was all a sham, but then I met people(mostly older ppl of the congregation) who TRULY lived and breathed their faith. They stumbled, but they still loved the Lord with all their heart.

[Little Horn]

Originally Posted by Locke

Well, I must admit, I don't know the specifics of each Protestant denomination, but I'm fairly certain that there is no major one in which one can "lose their faith." According to standard doctrine, one is "eternally secure." Blasphemy or renunciation, in this case, refers to one who rejects Christ from the outset. One who never recieved the Holy Spirit. If someone is a Christian they can't just stop being a Christian; they can sin, but they are no longer slaves to their sin nature, because Christ conquered sin on the cross. While sin, by definition, displeases God, there is nothing we can do to make us not his. Now, this gets into the whole issue of predestination, which is still not a decided issue in many Christian circles, though most would agree there is nothing we can do to separate ourselves from God, be it suicide or by choice. If anyone can find a Biblical basis for such a claim, show me. Also, I didn't know that anyone actually took Dante seriously; it was a work of fiction, largely intended to vent some of Dante's frustration at those he saw as "traitors."

I wouldn't say that they take his work seriously but just that they subscribe to similar ideology in reference to the layers of hell.

I have been looking for scripture to support the idea of suicide and denouncing Jesus being unforgivable but have not really found anything definitive as of yet. Regardless, these are still ideas that the Catholic church preaches and stands by.

Originally Posted by Dark616

QFT.... the biggest stumbling block in my coming to faith was my church youth group. their belief in God seemed to stop at the church doors, and that made me feel it was all a sham, but then I met people(mostly older ppl of the congregation) who TRULY lived and breathed their faith. They stumbled, but they still loved the Lord with all their heart.

This is my main problem with religion. The Church seems to insist that Jesus is the only way to God but to get to Jesus you have to go through the clergy. However, there is so much hypocrisy within the church and the church leaders. It makes me sick.

[Evander]

Originally Posted by floorpuncher

This is the first I've heard of this... citation please?

The entire Talmud, for a start.

Judaism makes such a habit of catagorizing and ranking laws that there really is no particular source to give you; it's the entire religion.

But I can give you a great example. Passive vs. Active commandments. A passive commandment is one that commands you NOT to do something. There is no reward for fulfilling a passive commandment, since you would do so by doing nothing at all. There is punishment for trangressing, however. An active commandment, on the other hand, is on that commands a specific action. There is no punishment for not fulfilling this action, because you have littereally done nothing, but there is a reward for going out of your way to fulfill it.

There is much more, though, such as the three sins you should die rather than commit (meaning that ALL of the rest, and there are lots of them, you should commit rather than dying) and the argument in the Talmud about whether it is more important to go through the motions and structure of prayer regularly, or to only pray when you truely feel compelled to, etc.

Judaism is all about interpretation, and as such, things get ranked and ordered all the time.






As far as Paul and epistles and all that meshugas, Christians have dropped more than just the ceremonial laws over time, but seem to pick and choose certain Judaic laws to suit their fancy, and even push them to an extreme that Judaism doesn't go to, and never did.

[Little Horn]

Originally Posted by Evander

The entire Talmud, for a start.

Judaism makes such a habit of catagorizing and ranking laws that there really is no particular source to give you; it's the entire religion.

But I can give you a great example. Passive vs. Active commandments. A passive commandment is one that commands you NOT to do something. There is no reward for fulfilling a passive commandment, since you would do so by doing nothing at all. There is punishment for trangressing, however. An active commandment, on the other hand, is on that commands a specific action. There is no punishment for not fulfilling this action, because you have littereally done nothing, but there is a reward for going out of your way to fulfill it.

There is much more, though, such as the three sins you should die rather than commit (meaning that ALL of the rest, and there are lots of them, you should commit rather than dying) and the argument in the Talmud about whether it is more important to go through the motions and structure of prayer regularly, or to only pray when you truely feel compelled to, etc.

Judaism is all about interpretation, and as such, things get ranked and ordered all the time.






As far as Paul and epistles and all that meshugas, Christians have dropped more than just the ceremonial laws over time, but seem to pick and choose certain Judaic laws to suit their fancy, and even push them to an extreme that Judaism doesn't go to, and never did.

Interesting. I've never really read into this in the same way I read into Christianity. You've peaked my interest and now I feel compelled to read further. Thanks!

[Locke]

Originally Posted by floorpuncher

I wouldn't say that they take his work seriously but just that they subscribe to similar ideology in reference to the layers of hell.

I have been looking for scripture to support the idea of suicide and denouncing Jesus being unforgivable but have not really found anything definitive as of yet. Regardless, these are still ideas that the Catholic church preaches and stands by.



This is my main problem with religion. The Church seems to insist that Jesus is the only way to God but to get to Jesus you have to go through the clergy. However, there is so much hypocrisy within the church and the church leaders. It makes me sick.

It's good to see someone who is not a Christian to go through the Bible, and not for the sole purpose of mocking Christians either. I must applaud you for that, to be sure.

This is often refered to as the "get saved" mentality that many Christians have, or at least have appeared to fallen into, be it intentional or not. I've been reading the book unChristian recently, which is based on an extensive survey on how both Christians and non-Christians, specifically those in their early 20's to late 30's, percieve the church. Overwhelmingly, the perception of Christians is negative, ranging from hypocritical to homophobic to close-minded to insensitive; now, if the works and words of Christ were followed properly, such perceptions should not exist, so clearly we're doing something wrong. In fact, when non-Christians were asked if they thought Christians measured up to the standard of Christ, many said no. In a sort of "speck in the brother's eye, log in your own" mentality, Christians really ought to focus on knowing what they believe and practise it properly before they go off on a Holy War. That's something I've always admired in the Mormons, even if I disagree with them widely on their theology, eschatlogy, Christology, and all those other -ology's, they do have one thing going for them: they have a very clear and defined doctrine, along with a stringent moral standard, and many honestly do want the best for those not of their faith. Sure, a Mormon coming to your door can be creepy and awkward, but they don't do it for souls, they do it for you. Even though I believe them to be wrong, I can admire them for what they do right.

[Peace Keeper]

Did you know...

...that there is only one unforgivable sin?

[lpxxfaintxx]

All sins are NOT equal.

All sins are equal in that they keep you from truly bonding with God, but when it comes to judgment, they are not equal.

Mark 3:29

But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.

Matthew 5:19

Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

2 Kings 17:21

When he tore Israel away from the house of David, they made Jeroboam son of Nebat their king. Jeroboam enticed Israel away from following the LORD and caused them to commit a great sin.

[Little Horn]

Originally Posted by Peace Keeper

Did you know...

...that there is only one unforgivable sin?

Nice contribution Peace Keeper... what sin would that be?

Originally Posted by Locke

It's good to see someone who is not a Christian to go through the Bible, and not for the sole purpose of mocking Christians either. I must applaud you for that, to be sure.

This is often refered to as the "get saved" mentality that many Christians have, or at least have appeared to fallen into, be it intentional or not. I've been reading the book unChristian recently, which is based on an extensive survey on how both Christians and non-Christians, specifically those in their early 20's to late 30's, percieve the church. Overwhelmingly, the perception of Christians is negative, ranging from hypocritical to homophobic to close-minded to insensitive; now, if the works and words of Christ were followed properly, such perceptions should not exist, so clearly we're doing something wrong. In fact, when non-Christians were asked if they thought Christians measured up to the standard of Christ, many said no. In a sort of "speck in the brother's eye, log in your own" mentality, Christians really ought to focus on knowing what they believe and practise it properly before they go off on a Holy War. That's something I've always admired in the Mormons, even if I disagree with them widely on their theology, eschatlogy, Christology, and all those other -ology's, they do have one thing going for them: they have a very clear and defined doctrine, along with a stringent moral standard, and many honestly do want the best for those not of their faith. Sure, a Mormon coming to your door can be creepy and awkward, but they don't do it for souls, they do it for you. Even though I believe them to be wrong, I can admire them for what they do right.

I disagree about the Mormons. let me explain.

As much as they may truly be looking about for my soul there is no reason or excuse for what they do. I am concerned for people that subscribe to ancient ideology and I have a very real fear of the indoctrination of children. However, I do not feel that it is appropriate for me to go door to door and shove the evolutionary process or Darwinian theory down everyone's throats.

On subject of Christians being "Christ Like"...

I think that this is where Christianity shoots itself in the foot. On one hand you are told to love your neighbor regardless of his/her transgressions. On the other hand you are told that it is a sin to be gay, it is a sin to worship other gods, it is a sin to give into lust and you are taught intolerance of all these things and more through out the entire Bible. How can you teach about wickedness and then expect people to love the wicked ones? It's not in our nature to do so and regardless of how hard religion may try to erase all traces of our animalistic instincts it will never succeed in doing so.

[Marshillboy]

Originally Posted by floorpuncher

I think that this is where Christianity shoots itself in the foot. On one hand you are told to love your neighbor regardless of his/her transgressions. On the other hand you are told that it is a sin to be gay, it is a sin to worship other gods, it is a sin to give into lust and you are taught intolerance of all these things and more through out the entire Bible. How can you teach about wickedness and then expect people to love the wicked ones? It's not in our nature to do so and regardless of how hard religion may try to erase all traces of our animalistic instincts it will never succeed in doing so.

Christianity doesn't teach that these things are OK. It doesn't teach that these are "fine" and tolerable. Loving your neighbor doesn't mean that you love his sins, and it doesn't mean that you love his gayness or lust. Even pastors sin, but you can't hate them for being a fallen kind. You love them to show them the love of Jesus that is in you, not as a kind of tolerance.