Originally posted by NemesioYour eyes may cause you to see something you lust after thereby
You're either a liar or you can't read. Or are you seriously claiming that your eyes don't cause
you to sin?
Nemesio
being the thing that led sin into your life, but your eyes only
cause you to see, seeing alone does not make one sin. If you didn't
lust after what you don't have you wouldn't be sinning by just looking
at some thing or some one. If it were not for the lust in our hearts
we could admire all things or even people without lusting after them.
Godliness with contentment is great gain.
Kelly
What passes as honest debate around here is absolutely laughable. When a believer claims that the Bible must be interpreted according to the time in which it was written, to necessarily include language, culture, exegetical considerations and etc., said Christian is immediately seized upon as playing fast and loose with Scripture.
The self-declared unbelievers have a field day, really, as soon as anything resembling the word interpretation enters into the picture--- as though the only reading of Scripture ought to be the straight-forward, superficial one: no other information is allowed to cast any light upon the subjects at hand, whatsoever. The meaning is the meaning, period, regardless of any outside influences or historical impacts. Well, self-declared unbelievers, get to it, then. Go back to the original languages of Scripture and get your own superficial meaning to the words therein. Do not allow even one vestige of extra-biblical trivia to inform any understanding of even one passage. Moreover, do not allow even one passage of Scripture to shed light on any other passage: every sentence, every word stands on its own. Let's see how far you get with those obstacles.
Originally posted by twhiteheadMy answers would be :
Maybe you could summarize it again? Your previous posts were very unclear and contradicted each other. And other people disagreed with you. And why do you have a problem with me persisting? Do you not want me to know the answer?
I don't need it dumbed down, I need it explained clearly and in language I can understand.
To help you, try answering thes ...[text shortened]... ?
3. Do your eyes ever cause you to sin?
4. Is it possible for your eyes to cause you to sin?
1. Yes, that was not a parable
2. NA
3. Yes - your eyes cause you to lust after women, property, nice cars and other worldly possessions.
4. NA
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI agree...its like banging your head on a wall!!!
What passes as honest debate around here is absolutely laughable. When a believer claims that the Bible must be interpreted according to the time in which it was written, to necessarily include language, culture, exegetical considerations and etc., said Christian is immediately seized upon as playing fast and loose with Scripture.
The self-declared unb ...[text shortened]... every sentence, every word stands on its own. Let's see how far you get with those obstacles.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI keep going over it and you dont respond so im not going to keep repeating myself to you... i was clear and Knight meister agreed with me...so i think you need to go back over what we said earlier and try thinking a bit deeper...you seem to skim surfaces.
Thank you for the answers. Go back and read the thread and you will find that your posts are far from clear and that every other Christian who commented appears to disagree with you. Your refusal to re-summarize your position makes me suspect you can already see the flaws in it and don't want to face up to it.
So, if your eyes cannot cause you to sin, ...[text shortened]... r eyes cannot cause you to sin then what can cause you to sin that Jesus wants you to cut off?
Your eyes allow you to see sin and then the mind registers it...if you were to cut out your eyes you would be unable to see sin so your mind would not be corrupted.... so he said its better to lose one part of your body than the WHOLE of it to be cast into hell....... think about it more....c'mon!!!!
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhen a believer claims that the Bible must be interpreted according to the time in which it was written, to necessarily include language, culture, exegetical considerations and etc., said Christian is immediately seized upon as playing fast and loose with Scripture --------------------FREAKY----
What passes as honest debate around here is absolutely laughable. When a believer claims that the Bible must be interpreted according to the time in which it was written, to necessarily include language, culture, exegetical considerations and etc., said Christian is immediately seized upon as playing fast and loose with Scripture.
The self-declared unb ...[text shortened]... every sentence, every word stands on its own. Let's see how far you get with those obstacles.
...and if we take everything literally we must be brain dead fundies!!!
It's a classic double bind , heads they win tails we lose --- it's high time we exposed this nonsense.
Originally posted by knightmeisterAbsolutley..... well said sir im with you!!!
When a believer claims that the Bible must be interpreted according to the time in which it was written, to necessarily include language, culture, exegetical considerations and etc., said Christian is immediately seized upon as playing fast and loose with Scripture --------------------FREAKY----
...and if we take everything literally we must be brai ...[text shortened]... lassic double bind , heads they win tails we lose --- it's high time we exposed this nonsense.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI wouldn't call it "sarcasm" exactly. Perhaps Dr Scribbles would be able to tell you what type of argumentation it is better than myself. Christ is exposing the fallacy of a certain line of reasoning by following its consequences to the extreme. What sane person would pluck his own eyeball out or chop off his own hand? If the Pharisees were sincere about their devotion to outward cleanliness they would be doing just that: plucking out their own eyes. Christ challenges them to remain true to their conception of holiness. By doing so He exposes their error and reveals the impossibility of living up to God's standard.
So your saying that it means the complete opposite of what it appear to mean. ie that our eyes/limbs etc cannot cause us to sin and thus cutting them off would be a waste of time?
So is it not a parable at all but sarcasm?
The original question had to do with whether to take passages literally. It appears from your interpretation that some passages can mean the complete opposite of what they appear to be at face value.
Jesus Christ is the most intelligent Man alive, and it should come as no surprise to find Him to be intellectually challenging.
I actually think Epiphenehas is (partially) correct on this one. After all, what we have are written accounts probably at least partly fashioned from a few years of oral stories (e.g., the so-called “Q” source). When the stories were being transmitted orally, they may have been acted out to an extent, as storytellers are wont to do. Jesus himself may have well acted them out a bit: we have no idea when and if he rolled his eyeballs, placed his tongue firmly in his cheek, laughed at his own pedagogical antics, etc. Some idiomatic humorisms are likely lost to us as well.
Anyone who has read enough play-scripts (for a modern example) realizes that the playwright generally does not write like a novelist, or overload his work with too many stage directions, but lets the actors and director determine a lot in terms of bringing the play to life. The synoptic gospel writers—again, working in some measure from oral tellings—seem to have left a great deal of emotional description out of their texts (not all; but what is there is pretty spare). In other words, they tended to write more like a playwright, and less like a novelist—or someone trying to present a “living” biography. At the time of their writing, the continuing oral tradition could have contributed to how they were read, generally aloud. (This is in line with the hypothesis put forth by some, that the synoptic gospels were originally intended as readings—in sections conducive to an annual lectionary—for liturgy.)
Quite frankly, if you read the gospel accounts in the fairly deadpan style that they appear to us, you end up with a pretty deadpan Jesus—what would be called today a pretty “cardboard” character, simply saying his lines by rote, with little oomph. And people tend to read them that way—which really does seem to create a kind of surrealist deadpan quality.
I don’t think one needs to assume, in their strict attachment to the written text, that J was above some absurdist theatrics in his teaching.
If the early post-apostolic church interpreted Jesus at all correctly, then it’s pretty clear that he did not think that trespass was caused by the eye or the hand, but by the mind (nous). Was he being sarcastic? Yeah, I think so—and maybe rolling his eyes while he was at it.
___________________________________
😉 😛 😕 🙄
Originally posted by vistesdBut remember Christ said the same thing about family members and about money and property and worldly goods.
I actually think Epiphenehas is (partially) correct on this one. After all, what we have are written accounts probably at least partly fashioned from a few years of oral stories (e.g., the so-called “Q” source). When the stories were being transmitted orally, they may have been acted out to an extent, as storytellers are wont to do. Jesus himself may have ...[text shortened]... ling his eyes while he was at it.
___________________________________
😉 😛 😕 🙄
The point remains the same ... get rid of all hindrances to salvation ... avoid the hindrances if possible but if the only way is to cut them off then cut them off .
Christ was dead serious about getting rid of
- family members
- money and worldly goods
- and offensive body parts that are in the way of salvation.
If I can summarise what Christ said it might read like this ... You are better off spending this life without a wife, without money and without a hand if those things will endanger your salvation. This body and this life is nothing if it leads to eternal damnation.
Originally posted by Rajk999..and have you managed to get rid of all these distractions?
But remember Christ said the same thing about family members and about money and property and worldly goods.
The point remains the same ... [b]get rid of all hindrances to salvation ... avoid the hindrances if possible but if the only way is to cut them off then cut them off .
Christ was dead serious about getting rid of
- family members
- money ...[text shortened]... danger your salvation. This body and this life is nothing if it leads to eternal damnation. [/b][/b]
Originally posted by snowinscotlandIts a very small minded person that tries to make a poster look ridiculous by personalising the issue. The discussion is about interpreting what Christ said, not about who is doing what with their life. Try to focus or go play with yourself if you cant make a meaningful contribution.
..and have you managed to get rid of all these distractions?
Originally posted by Rajk999Nice to disagree with you! 🙂
But remember Christ said the same thing about family members and about money and property and worldly goods.
The point remains the same ... [b]get rid of all hindrances to salvation ... avoid the hindrances if possible but if the only way is to cut them off then cut them off .
Christ was dead serious about getting rid of
- family members
- money ...[text shortened]... danger your salvation. This body and this life is nothing if it leads to eternal damnation. [/b][/b]
Imagine an actor on a stage: if he delivers all his lines in the same tone of voice, with the same (perhaps deadpan) expression on his face, with exactly the same (or no) physical gestures—we might read the same import into every statement, whether he was talking about the taste of his food at supper or requirements for eternal life. That’s a simplistic example, I know. Nevertheless, that seems to be how people often read the gospel texts and the sayings and doings of Jesus. (Because all we have is the bare texts, to so otherwise requires some imagination: see my comments on eisegesis/exegesis below.)
Now—at the very least—I think he had to be talking about cutting off body-parts metaphorically; and I’m quite willing to accept that as an alternative to sarcasm or irony (without abandoning the latter as a possibility!). And, in that sense, we might not be disagreeing so much.
Does your hand have a mind of its own? Does it act without your consent (even the implied consent of not paying attention)? If you make a real decision not to touch something, does your hand of its own accord reach out and touch it, say in defiance? (Note: I’m not denying subconscious impulses here, just stating that they, too, are from the mind/brain.)
Now, suppose my visual sense keeps producing mirages, delusions—isn’t the hallucination actually taking place in my brain? Would I be better off to pluck out my eyes and be blind?
Did Jesus really think that eyes and hands (and other body parts) have a “mind of their own”? I don’t think so. So I think, among the examples that you listed, the body-parts one has to be taken at least metaphorically.
_____________________________________
From the point of view of eisegesis/exegesis, I should expand a bit on what I said in the other thread. I have no problem pre se with eisegesis—I think it is inescapable that we read into the text, and not strictly out of it. But I think that we need to try to acknowledge that when we do it, if it isn’t apparent (and I, too, may sometimes assume it’s apparent when it isn’t). I also think that eisegesis ought to be used only to open the possibilities—or recognize that openness that I think is there—not to restrict them. My “sarcasm hypothesis” is eisegesis in that sense, based on what I see as the nature of the received text, as I noted above. I don’t, however, see a literal reading as making much sense here.
BTW, I think there’s only one hindrance to salvation—as I understand salvation (or even as other people understand it, for that matter)—and when I can say it the way I want to, I will; haven’t been able to yet... 🙁
_______________________________________
EDIT: My inclusion of all those facey-things in the post above was for illustration: How many times on here has someone been misunderstood (likely taken with deadpan seriousness) because they did not include, say, a winky-face in the post? How many times have people come back and said, "Hey, I meant that tongue-in-cheek"? So, we see what can happen on here when reading simple text...