Hebrews 6 - Am I screwed?

Originally posted by twhitehead
You're contradicting yourself. Last time you said it meant:
"It is better to lose a part of your body than the whole body be condemned to sin."
Which is quite a different thing.

So why shouldn't you cut your eyes out?

First you say it highlights the seriousness of the message, now you seem to be saying that it is not really serious enough to start cutting.

It seems to me that what Christ is truly stressing in this passage, within its context, is the absurdity of the Pharisaic conception of holiness. Jesus says of the Pharisees, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness" (Matthew 23:27). If you were to pluck out your eyes or cut off your hand and throw it away, doing so would by no means change your heart. The outward manifestation of sin is not the problem, it is the inner man which is the problem. Instead of condoning self-mutilation, Christ is promoting a change of heart. A man could have all his limbs removed, both his eyes poked out, etc., yet within remain "full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness." The Pharisaic conception of holiness is absurd and Christ exposes its flawed logic by following it to the extreme.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
It seems to me that what Christ is truly stressing in this passage, within its context, is the absurdity of the Pharisaic conception of holiness. Jesus says of the Pharisees, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all of holiness is absurd and Christ exposes its flawed logic by following it to the extreme.

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.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You're contradicting yourself. Last time you said it meant:
"It is better to lose a part of your body than the whole body be condemned to sin."
Which is quite a different thing.

So why shouldn't you cut your eyes out?

First you say it highlights the seriousness of the message, now you seem to be saying that it is not really serious enough to start cutting.

Thats entirely up to you but then you are not understanding the message,the previous poster had a good explanation re:video games.
Rid yourself of whats causing sin,games,alcohol etc,etc.....

Originally posted by twhitehead
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.

Look for the underlying message and it will become clear...

Originally posted by stepnkev
If the young man realized what’s important, the marriage might not have been in trouble. This parable is advice to the young man to get rid of that which is causing grief - In this case, the games. Sure, it may feel like plucking an eye out. Many of us love our games. Is it not best for the young man to get rid of what is causing his wife grief or possibly causing one of them to consider cheating on the other?

Actually, it's the wife's fault. She should play the video games with him.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So by calling it a parable you are expressing the fact that it is very serious?

So, now that we have established that it is not a parable and that it is very very serious, how many eyes do you have left and why haven't you plucked them out, because there is absolutely no doubt that they have at one time or another caused you to sin.

So by calling it a parable you are expressing the fact that it is very serious?

So, now that we have established that it is not a parable and that it is very very serious, how many eyes do you have left and why haven't you plucked them out, because there is absolutely no doubt that they have at one time or another caused you to sin.---whitey---

Isn't this just pedantic playful disingenuous nonsense on your part? You are not arguing in good faith at all here. Jesus is obviously saying that we make a clean break with sin and sometimes we have to be quite brutal about it and make drastic decisions. It's not as if he never spoke in parables and I don't think you really believe that he meant we should gouge our eyes out.

This is dissappointing from someone who seems to accuse Christians of not being up front and being deceptive. Now , are you a wind up merchant or are you wanting honest debate?

Originally posted by Von Sulla
As a recovering Christian, I've recently become curious about this passage:

"It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to t ...[text shortened]...
Does this mean that even if I return to the Church, I'm still bound for eternal damnation?

Who cares if you were in a church of man or not, did you ever have a
right relationship with God in Christ? Did you know Christ as your
Lord, did you have a relationship with God through Jesus Christ? Did
you leave Jesus, or did you leave a group of people that hung out
together and said the same spiritual things to one another?
Kelly

Originally posted by knightmeister
Isn't this just pedantic playful disingenuous nonsense on your part?

No. Go read through the various posts again. I am getting a number of different contradictory explanations from various Christians, sometimes they even appear to be contradicting themselves. I am merely trying to clarify what they each mean. I notice that you are criticizing me but not your fellow Christians who clearly have different interpretations from you.
What is interesting is that most seem to be saying that if something cause you to sin then get rid of it, but no-one is willing to actually do so if that something is their own eyes, coming up with all sorts of excuses as to why not, most of which render the passage useless. Makes you wonder why Jesus even bothered.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No. Go read through the various posts again. I am getting a number of different contradictory explanations from various Christians, sometimes they even appear to be contradicting themselves. I am merely trying to clarify what they each mean. I notice that you are criticizing me but not your fellow Christians who clearly have different interpretations from ...[text shortened]... to why not, most of which render the passage useless. Makes you wonder why Jesus even bothered.

I think you need to stop playing dumb and tell us what YOU think Jesus meant. Is it possible he did have a sense of irony? Could he have realised that using a dramatic metaphor like plucking out your eyes might get people's attention? Was he refering to the approach we need to have to sin (ie decisive and clear cut) ?

Stop playing with people and say what you think for a change. What's your assessment of what he is saying given the context of the passage and the surrounding context of the other things he says and does? Personally I think you know that he wasn't suggesting we engage in violent self mutilation.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I think you need to stop playing dumb and tell us what YOU think Jesus meant. Is it possible he did have a sense of irony? Could he have realised that using a dramatic metaphor like plucking out your eyes might get people's attention? Was he refering to the approach we need to have to sin (ie decisive and clear cut) ?

Stop playing with people and s ...[text shortened]... ? Personally I think you know that he wasn't suggesting we engage in violent self mutilation.

Thank you KM everything i post seems to have this response from him..... you couldn't have expressed it better!!!

Originally posted by knightmeister
I think you need to stop playing dumb and tell us what YOU think Jesus meant. Is it possible he did have a sense of irony? Could he have realised that using a dramatic metaphor like plucking out your eyes might get people's attention? Was he refering to the approach we need to have to sin (ie decisive and clear cut) ?
Stop playing with people and say the context of the passage and the surrounding context of the other things he says and does?

I have not read the passage and don't have a specific opinion on the matter.

Personally I think you know that he wasn't suggesting we engage in violent self mutilation.
I do not know that. In fact, I cant understand where you get that from at all. People have repeatedly said that the message is extremely important and that it shows that we should do anything, absolutely anything, to avoid sin. So why not violent self mutilation? Why would Jesus specifically talk about violent self mutilation if he did not mean it?
I think you are deliberately avoiding the issue and relying on the old "I don't have to answer your question because I think you know the answer".
Why do Christians resort to that so often? Why do they keep saying "Its obvious" but cant explain it? If its so obvious why is it so hard to explain? And if it is so obvious why do different Christians come up with such a wide variety of conflicting explanations, sometimes even contradicting themselves?
Next you'll be telling me I either need a secret decoder ring or I need to become a Christian to understand it.

One minute you are saying that Jesus is being overly dramatic in order to get people attention, the next minute you are saying that the message is very serious. Christ frequently asked his followers to do difficult things, and we are told that his disciples actually did some of them. Why is it that Christians nowadays dismiss almost all his words as merely being over dramatic to get peoples attention and you don't actually have to do anything Jesus said?

I guess thats why Paul is more popular because he just said "have faith" .

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have not read the passage and don't have a specific opinion on the matter.

[b]Personally I think you know that he wasn't suggesting we engage in violent self mutilation.
I do not know that. In fact, I cant understand where you get that from at all. People have repeatedly said that the message is extremely important and that it shows that we shou ...[text shortened]... s said?

I guess thats why Paul is more popular because he just said "have faith" .[/b]

I tried explaining it to you dumbed down but still you persist!!!

Originally posted by Jay Joos
I tried explaining it to you dumbed down but still you persist!!!

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 these questions:
1. Did Jesus mean it literally?
2. If he was exaggerating, then why did he exaggerate?
3. Do your eyes ever cause you to sin?
4. Is it possible for your eyes to cause you to sin?

Originally posted by twhitehead
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?

Im not going over it again my posts were clear enough and i dont recall others disagreeing...

1.no
2.he wasn't exaggerating
3.no
4.no.

Originally posted by Jay Joos
Im not going over it again my posts were clear enough and i dont recall others disagreeing...

1.no
2.he wasn't exaggerating
3.no
4.no.

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, doesn't it seem weird that Jesus would suggest that they can?
If your eyes cannot cause you to sin then what can cause you to sin that Jesus wants you to cut off?