Matthew 18:6-9

[Nightfly]

I am wondering how this works with sins of lust, sex, drugs, alcohol, pornogrophy and any other vices. . .

If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come! 8 If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Of course, we don’t take the verse as a command to maim oneself. Rather, see it as cutting off that particular habit of one’s eye or tongue or hand or whatever. For example, if we say, pluck out your lustfully gazing eye, we don’t mean to cut out your eye that sees purely. It’s a poetic way of saying “cut off the lustful side of your eye” meaning don’t use it that way.

 

[SonCatcher]

Since the first part of the passage in question is about scandal, it would primarily apply to those who sell pornography, doctors who enable drug abuse, inattentive bartenders (i.e. one who allows a person who has already had too much to buy more alcohol), etc.

As for the person who commits the sin, himself, he should be more concerned about Matthew 15:18-20 and its parallel Mark 7:20-23.

The last part of the passage has never been seen as advocating maiming one’s self (AKA - “Why isn’t the great theologian Origen regarded as a saint?”)

 

[MarcoPolo]

The last part of the passage has never been seen as advocating maiming one’s self (AKA - “Why isn’t the great theologian Origen regarded as a saint?”)

Origen said one should maim oneself?

 

[SonCatcher]

Origen said one should maim oneself?

The problem was not what he wrote (his writings are among the most valuable among the Fathers). Rather, the historical record indicates that he castrated himself - taking a literal reading of the passage in the OP (or perhaps Matt 19:12 - either way, maiming one’s self is a serious offence).

 

[MarcoPolo]

The problem was not what he wrote (his writings are among the most valuable among the Fathers). Rather, the historical record indicates that he castrated himself - taking a literal reading of the passage in the OP (or perhaps Matt 19:12 - either way, maiming one’s self is a serious offence).

Hmm…that doesn’t ring a bell. I did a quick search and found this, so who knows:The issue of Origen’s castration is a hotly debated topic for much ink has been spilled on the subject. Eusebius recorded that Origen interpreted Matthew 19.12 literally and then castrated himself, and in secret Origen told the news to Demetrios.[iii] Eusibius described how Demetrios admired the zeal of Origen and continued to encourage the catechist of his school; however, when word of his ordination went public, Demetrios levied the charge against Origen’s qualification of ordination. Although Eusibius’ account was written shortly after the time of Origen, the internal witness of Origen’s writings indicate that he would not interpret the verse literally. In his commentary on Matthew, Origen declares that “only an idiot would take that position.”[iv] Therefore, the internal witness of Origen’s writings attest that the castration account is apocryphally fiction.