(03-13-2014, 01:30 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: [ -> ]Although that's still a stupid thing to say, the reason why they say that is because...Biblically, all sins are the same. What I mean is, there isn't a scale of bad, worse, worst. Every sin is just sin and therefore bad.
That actually depends on which branch of Christianity you practice. In Catholic practice, you have mortal sins and venial sins. Mortal sins are characterized by serious or grave matter, and if one dies in the state of mortal sin, it would seem one is destined to Hell. On the other hand, venial sins are less grave and instead merely add penance to the sinner (i.e. more time in purgatory).
I find the fact that all (mortal) sins are the equal to be ridiculous, honestly, and it's one of the few things that keeps me away from Christianity on a personal level, as it's one of the most solid and evidenced religions I've read about (although it is the religion I've read the most about, so I could be biased).
(03-13-2014, 01:45 AM)Grungie Wrote: [ -> ]This reminds me, we need a hug emoticon, animated. So you guys should go find us a hug emoticon, and don't be lazy and take the UG one.
Very yes.
![[Image: smiley-hug005.gif]](http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-hug005.gif)
![[Image: smiley-hug002.gif]](http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-hug002.gif)
(03-13-2014, 01:46 AM)JoelCarli Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2014, 01:30 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: [ -> ]Although that's still a stupid thing to say, the reason why they say that is because...Biblically, all sins are the same. What I mean is, there isn't a scale of bad, worse, worst. Every sin is just sin and therefore bad.
That actually depends on which branch of Christianity you practice. In Catholic practice, you have mortal sins and venial sins. Mortal sins are characterized by serious or grave matter, and if one dies in the state of mortal sin, it would seem one is destined to Hell. On the other hand, venial sins are less grave and instead merely add penance to the sinner (i.e. more time in purgatory).
That's great. But none of that is in the Bible. In fact, Catholicism took a bunch of stuff that was originally pagan and made it "Christian", including the concept of certain sins being worse than others.
But since that stuff isn't in the Bible, it doesn't matter to me. Biblically, all sins are equal. They're all just sin. Now, there are different punishments for different sins. The Torah refers to these as curses, often.
Biblically, the way it works is that you repent for your sins (which means you NEVER do that particular sin(s) again), and they're forgiven. BUT you still pay a price in the mortal realm, so to speak. Note that the price of not repenting would be much greater, potentially. But, in the Bible, God views sin as what separates humans from him. So, concepts like "this one is worse than that one" don't seem to matter to the God of the Bible. As Paul said (paraphrased), "If you offend in one point, you are guilty of offending in all" (which is referring to that if you sin in one area, you broke the Law and/or sinned). In terms of severity, there is no scale.
Anyway, concepts such as "mortal and venial sin" and "purgatory" are not in the Bible.
Now, in terms of how things affect society...murder is obviously worse than stealing. So, society does (and should) punish murders with a harsher sentence. And Levictus actually lays out some of those kind of ideas. For instance, if a man kills another man willfully (it wasn't an accident), the killer is sentenced to death. But if a man kills another man's oxen, he has to pay the price of the oxen.
I'm assuming the Catholic church got to those conclusions through theological means
hrug:
Again, I was just speaking from the Catholic standpoint as it's the point I know the best (coming from a Catholic background).
(03-13-2014, 02:24 AM)JoelCarli Wrote: [ -> ]I'm assuming the Catholic church got to those conclusions through theological means hrug:
Well, basically. I mean, a lot of it had to do with getting people to pay for indulgences and such. But then they revised the reasoning after the 1600s, when the College of Cardinals reformed the Catholic Church.
Quote:Again, I was just speaking from the Catholic standpoint as it's the point I know the best (coming from a Catholic background).
No, no...I understand. I was just saying my reasoning, coming from a Messianic Jewish standpoint.
(03-13-2014, 02:40 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: [ -> ]Well, basically. I mean, a lot of it had to do with getting people to pay for indulgences and such. But then they revised the reasoning after the 1600s, when the College of Cardinals reformed the Catholic Church.
I dunno. It's incredibly difficult (read: impossible) for me to figure out this mishmash of existential confusion I go through on a daily basis, so finding the right religion (let alone branch) to me is like looking for a needle in a haystack.
(03-13-2014, 02:40 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: [ -> ]No, no...I understand. I was just saying my reasoning, coming from a Messianic Jewish standpoint.
Haha yeah, I got it.
(03-13-2014, 03:12 AM)JoelCarli Wrote: [ -> ]I dunno. It's incredibly difficult (read: impossible) for me to figure out this mishmash of existential confusion I go through on a daily basis, so finding the right religion (let alone branch) to me is like looking for a needle in a haystack.
No worries, man. I'm just going on what I know from history. Religion isn't just something that should be a snap decision, so to speak.
Quote:Haha yeah, I got it.
Cool, cool.
UG articles like this one depress me:
http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/ug_n...ml#4898441
"Metalcore formally emerged in the early 2000s, but it's seeds were sewn decades ago. Born from hardcore punk and heavy metal, it's all about big riffs and extreme screaming, often with a melodic twist."
Yeah, no...Metalcore started in the early '90s. And it kind of is a mix of hardcore punk and heavy metal, but it's more accurate to say that it's actually hardcore punk with metal influence. And there can be a "melodic twist", but that's not a requirement at all. UGH!
While I do know it's immature that I still call people faggot, but let's discuss the common usage of the word rather than gay slander. Have you ever met someone that fits that definition where you just think "wow, what a faggot"?
I'm talking about cigarettes, like he's always got a lit cig and smells like one, so we say "he's basically a walking fag"
Oh, well...isn't that more of an English thing? I've never heard anyone in the US use the term "fag" to refer to a cigarette. Maybe we should though...the term makes a bit of sense.
