Threat or Warning? Moral or Immoral?

[A Troubled Man]

I'm not threatening you, I'm giving you some good advice. Take it or leave it.

...God created both heaven and hell. Those who put their faith in Him will go to heaven, those who reject Him will go to hell. Yes, I believe God is moral in everything He does, so that would include in creating both hell and heaven.

Is the "advice" we get from believers threats or warnings regarding Heaven and Hell?

Is it moral or immoral for believers to reiterate their "advice" to others?

Would you conclude the "advice" is reason to reject any religion that offers it?

[Wootah]

We are all evil / have sinned. Easily recognisable.

We are not evil, we are compassionate and altruistic by nature.

If you believe you are evil, then you will begin behaving that way.

If we keep thinking that we are evil, then we will be. This pessimism leads to evil behavior. Nice post TM.

It's only because (I presume) you view evil as rapists and murderers and paedophiles and serial killers that you think that way.

Through Jesus's explanation of sin via the beatitudes we can understand that
sin is a lot more commonplace than we at first admit and that we do commit many spiritual acts that are just as violent as the physical acts. Looking on a woman lustfully is spiritually as bad as raping her, wanting your brother dead is spiritually as bad as murdering them.

I think reality is the opposite of the statements you and ATM are making.
A drunk does not change until they call themselves a drunk. Recognising the evil/sin is the first step in the path to change. Not recognising who we are causes all sorts of problems. For instance, far too many people die tragically because they do not remember their limits, a car crash caused by tiredness is a simple example of this.

I stress again how I think reality is the opposite of your claims and would like you to argue how I am incorrect here.

[10CC]

We are all evil / have sinned. Easily recognisable.

We are not evil, we are compassionate and altruistic by nature.

If you believe you are evil, then you will begin behaving that way.

If we keep thinking that we are evil, then we will be. This pessimism leads to evil behavior. Nice post TM.

It's only because (I presume) you view evil as rapists and murderers and paedophiles and serial killers that you think that way.

Through Jesus's explanation of sin via the beatitudes we can understand that
sin is a lot more commonplace than we at first admit and that we do commit many spiritual acts that are just as violent as the physical acts. Looking on a woman lustfully is spiritually as bad as raping her, wanting your brother dead is spiritually as bad as murdering them.

I think reality is the opposite of the statements you and ATM are making.
A drunk does not change until they call themselves a drunk. Recognising the evil/sin is the first step in the path to change. Not recognising who we are causes all sorts of problems. For instance, far too many people die tragically because they do not remember their limits, a car crash caused by tiredness is a simple example of this.

I stress again how I think reality is the opposite of your claims and would like you to argue how I am incorrect here.

And through jesus' declaration that the thought was equal to the sin we know that jesus sinned and was therefore not the unblemished lamb.

We need to read all of the book and put it all into context allegedly, but only if it conforms to the story the believer wants it to tell.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 62 by 10CC]
Well that is your faith statement. My faith statement is that Jesus did not sin in thought. It explains our beliefs about Jesus.

[10CC]

[Replying to post 62 by 10CC]
Well that is your faith statement. My faith statement is that Jesus did not sin in thought. It explains our beliefs about Jesus.

It's not my faith statement I take the statement directly from his authorised biography.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 62 by 10CC]
Well that is your faith statement. My faith statement is that Jesus did not sin in thought. It explains our beliefs about Jesus.

It's not my faith statement I take the statement directly from his authorised biography.

which part can you quote from the bible that says jesus sinned in thought?

[Goat]

[Replying to post 62 by 10CC]
Well that is your faith statement. My faith statement is that Jesus did not sin in thought. It explains our beliefs about Jesus.

It's not my faith statement I take the statement directly from his authorised biography.

which part can you quote from the bible that says jesus sinned in thought?

Well, when he was out in the desert, and heard Satan's voice, that is 'sinning in thought'.. being tempted by power.

[Sonofason]

[Replying to post 62 by 10CC]
Well that is your faith statement. My faith statement is that Jesus did not sin in thought. It explains our beliefs about Jesus.

It's not my faith statement I take the statement directly from his authorised biography.

which part can you quote from the bible that says jesus sinned in thought?

Well, when he was out in the desert, and heard Satan's voice, that is 'sinning in thought'.. being tempted by power.

I believe you are mistaken. Here's the problem. Words often have more than one meaning. When a word is used, it is rarely the authors intent to employ all possible meanings of a word, but only the meaning of the word that actually applies to the authors intent. It is clear from the context of the passages about Jesus being tempted by the devil that the following meaning was intended.
tempt -
1: to try to persuade someone to do something by making it seem attractive.
http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/tempt

A person is not committing a sin if someone else is trying to persuade them to do something by making it seem attractive. Hearing Satan is not a sin.

If someone has tried, in the past, to tempt someone, then they have tempted someone. I know there are meanings of the word "to tempt" that do imply that what you are saying is true. But you are wrong in thinking that this was the intent of the author. I will provide a definition now for the word tempt that does not apply to the context of the passages you have referred to.

2: to make someone want to have or do something, even though they know they really should not.
http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/tempt

You see, Jesus did not want to do anything that Satan tried to tempt Him to do. Definition 2 does not apply. Definition 1 does apply here.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 62 by 10CC]
Well that is your faith statement. My faith statement is that Jesus did not sin in thought. It explains our beliefs about Jesus.

It's not my faith statement I take the statement directly from his authorised biography.

which part can you quote from the bible that says jesus sinned in thought?

Well, when he was out in the desert, and heard Satan's voice, that is 'sinning in thought'.. being tempted by power.

I believe you are mistaken. Here's the problem. Words often have more than one meaning. When a word is used, it is rarely the authors intent to employ all possible meanings of a word, but only the meaning of the word that actually applies to the authors intent. It is clear from the context of the passages about Jesus being tempted by the devil that the following meaning was intended.
tempt -
1: to try to persuade someone to do something by making it seem attractive.
http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/tempt

A person is not committing a sin if someone else is trying to persuade them to do something by making it seem attractive. Hearing Satan is not a sin.

If someone has tried, in the past, to tempt someone, then they have tempted someone. I know there are meanings of the word "to tempt" that do imply that what you are saying is true. But you are wrong in thinking that this was the intent of the author. I will provide a definition now for the word tempt that does not apply to the context of the passages you have referred to.

2: to make someone want to have or do something, even though they know they really should not.
http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/tempt

You see, Jesus did not want to do anything that Satan tried to tempt Him to do. Definition 2 does not apply. Definition 1 does apply here.

I personally don't see how your explanation fits the story, in fact, it seems to make the entire story totally worthless as a story.

Sorry, your explanation just doesn't make any sense what so ever.

[Sonofason]

[Replying to post 62 by 10CC]
Well that is your faith statement. My faith statement is that Jesus did not sin in thought. It explains our beliefs about Jesus.

It's not my faith statement I take the statement directly from his authorised biography.

which part can you quote from the bible that says jesus sinned in thought?

Well, when he was out in the desert, and heard Satan's voice, that is 'sinning in thought'.. being tempted by power.

I believe you are mistaken. Here's the problem. Words often have more than one meaning. When a word is used, it is rarely the authors intent to employ all possible meanings of a word, but only the meaning of the word that actually applies to the authors intent. It is clear from the context of the passages about Jesus being tempted by the devil that the following meaning was intended.
tempt -
1: to try to persuade someone to do something by making it seem attractive.
http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/tempt

A person is not committing a sin if someone else is trying to persuade them to do something by making it seem attractive. Hearing Satan is not a sin.

If someone has tried, in the past, to tempt someone, then they have tempted someone. I know there are meanings of the word "to tempt" that do imply that what you are saying is true. But you are wrong in thinking that this was the intent of the author. I will provide a definition now for the word tempt that does not apply to the context of the passages you have referred to.

2: to make someone want to have or do something, even though they know they really should not.
http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/tempt

You see, Jesus did not want to do anything that Satan tried to tempt Him to do. Definition 2 does not apply. Definition 1 does apply here.

I personally don't see how your explanation fits the story, in fact, it seems to make the entire story totally worthless as a story.

Sorry, your explanation just doesn't make any sense what so ever.

The truth isn't always apparent. It's hard to see when your eyes are closed.

[10CC]

[Replying to post 62 by 10CC]
Well that is your faith statement. My faith statement is that Jesus did not sin in thought. It explains our beliefs about Jesus.

It's not my faith statement I take the statement directly from his authorised biography.

which part can you quote from the bible that says jesus sinned in thought?

Well, when he was out in the desert, and heard Satan's voice, that is 'sinning in thought'.. being tempted by power.

I believe you are mistaken. Here's the problem. Words often have more than one meaning. When a word is used, it is rarely the authors intent to employ all possible meanings of a word, but only the meaning of the word that actually applies to the authors intent. It is clear from the context of the passages about Jesus being tempted by the devil that the following meaning was intended.
tempt -
1: to try to persuade someone to do something by making it seem attractive.
http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/tempt

A person is not committing a sin if someone else is trying to persuade them to do something by making it seem attractive. Hearing Satan is not a sin.

If someone has tried, in the past, to tempt someone, then they have tempted someone. I know there are meanings of the word "to tempt" that do imply that what you are saying is true. But you are wrong in thinking that this was the intent of the author. I will provide a definition now for the word tempt that does not apply to the context of the passages you have referred to.

2: to make someone want to have or do something, even though they know they really should not.
http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/tempt

You see, Jesus did not want to do anything that Satan tried to tempt Him to do. Definition 2 does not apply. Definition 1 does apply here.

I personally don't see how your explanation fits the story, in fact, it seems to make the entire story totally worthless as a story.

Sorry, your explanation just doesn't make any sense what so ever.

The truth isn't always apparent. It's hard to see when your eyes are closed.

So are you saying that jesus never really thought about these temptations and therefore did not commit the sin?