Yudhishthira, Christianity, and the Mahabharata

Watch the Peter Brook version. It's 5 hours long, but it's really really good. It's the one I linked in the OP. The whole movie is up on youtube as well. The Chopra version is long as hell and full of corny Bollywood acting.

>Can you imagine a Christian or a Jew in that situation? If one of God's angels comes down with orders they'll do whatever song and dance is asked of them without any critical reflection.
You need faith to obey him, and you need an even bigger faith to question him. There is a difference between private revelation happening to a mortal living in the current year, and the authority of Scripture and the Church founded by Christ.
>What would Yudhishthira have done if one of God's angels came down and told him to sacrifice his favorite son? I don't think he would have acted like Abraham.
Abraham wasn't a Jew, let alone a Christian. Abraham was a Mesopotamian who laughed at God's promise (Gen 17:17), he wouldn't have been surprised if God behaved like any other idol demanding human sacrifice, for example of his child. Abraham is testing God as much as God is testing Abraham, as a faithful servant does what he's told, and an benevolent God would also give a command not to execute the sacrifice. Meanwhile human sacrifice continues as usual in 21st century India, a place notoriously infested with the kind of basic dignity Christianity supposedly lacks:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2892333.stm
Yes, divine command theory.

It is basically schizophrenic, as much as they want to conceal it. If Christianity wants to survive in the contemporary world it will have to embrace universalism. Nobody takes this stuff about Hell and suffering seriously, and if they do it's damaging for children to really believe in it - there's enough real world stuff to he terrified about without telling you that masturbating brings the wrath of God upon you.
I firmly believe that no possible crime can warrant eternal suffering. Going through mental gymnastics to account for why a supposedly loving God would be less merciful than the western penitential system is a fruitless exercise.

You're post is confusing to me. What point are you making there? I don't see any decisive statements or claims of any kind. For example, perhaps you could clarify why you bring up divine command theory in response to that post?

Universalist sects are imploding. Literally dying. Hardcore Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Traditionalist Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox Churches are expanding. Faggy liberalism is going to die soon. Any Church that ties its boat to that dock is going to wake up underwater.

Your frustration with Christianity is completely understandable. It's a synthesis of so many different things that it's hard to get a sense of that unity when you only have a partial understanding, and it doesn't help that the tradition of passing that understanding on has really died off over the last 50 years or so.

>Is Christianity basically utilitarian in the sense of pursuing heavenly delights and avoiding eternal suffering as the main motives?

Christianity is not utilitarian at all. The only reason I can think someone would think that is because of Christianity's emphasis on community, which I suppose at a superficial level resembles utilitarianism's concern for hte "greatest good for the greatest number".

The way I understand Christianity is that it is about love that transcends life and death. It is about us loving God, who is barely perceptible, and God loving us, who would burst into flames if he got too near. It's a delicate, distant, patient exercise, and ultimately one that doesn't care about outcome, consequences, prudence, etc. It is only an incidental outcome that God's goodness manifests itself in a prolonged, patterned way, so as to ensure that future generations can have the opportunity to love and be loved, and so that eventually all of creation can be saved.

That's probably rambly but it's late at night where I am so sorry lol

When I read the bible, it had an effect on me the same as reading profound cosmic horror.

>It is basically schizophrenic, as much as they want to conceal it
I don't think they try to hide it. My local priest has said to me that if most "Christians" actually took their faith seriously it'd give them a headspin. To quote him again, he once said to me that Christianity is "more Nietzschean than Nietzsche".

It always kills me seeing people preface the most boilerplate, cliched opinions with "To me" or "I think" or "In my opinion".

Divine command theory is a meta-ethical theory that has nothing to do with maximizing utility, thus it is not utilitarian. You are confused because you're not in the position to talk about any of the following topics: meta-ethics, religious ethics, Christian theology, Hindu theology, human sacrifice, eschatology, angelology, biblical hermeneutics, comparative religion, human dignity, among others.

You read the Bible properly, then. It's a special kind of otherworldly fear that excites awe. It's called the numinous. It's how you're supposed to feel when you sense the presence of God. CS Lewis:

>Suppose you were told there was a tiger in the next room: you would know that you were in danger and would probably feel fear. But if you were told "There is a ghost in the next room," and believed it, you would feel, indeed, what is often called fear, but of a different kind. It would not be based on the knowledge of danger, for no one is primarily afraid of what a ghost may do to him, but of the mere fact that it is a ghost. It is "uncanny" rather than dangerous, and the special kind of fear it excites may be called Dread. With the Uncanny one has reached the fringes of the Numinous. Now suppose that you were told simply "There is a mighty spirit in the room," and believed it. Your feelings would then be even less like the mere fear of danger: but the disturbance would be profound. You would feel wonder and a certain shrinking—a sense of inadequacy to cope with such a visitant and of prostration before it—an emotion which might be expressed in Shakespeare's words "Under it my genius is rebuked." This feeling may be described as awe, and the object which excites it as the Numinous.

>cliched opinions
I'm not trying to have original opinions, I'm trying to understand the motives behind the Christian religion. Anyway you've basically just done that in your own post, prefacing your disdain for "cliched opinions" with how it "kills me". Seems like a pretty cliche opinion.
What you describe almost sounds like bhakti yoga. Intensification of love for God in order to achieve Union with him. Would you say it's a fair comparison?

All mysticism is fundamentally the same, at least the ascetic kind, so possibly. I don't know much about yoga desu (apart from the Western commodification of it)

Eh, why am I not "qualified" to discuss them? How do you expect me to learn? Or is it because you consider me to be "swine" like this poster suggested and so you don't want to toss your pearls before me? I can see divine command theory playing a prominent role in Judaism, but in Christianity it seems to play a secondary role. I imagine many Christians would lose hope in their religion if they weren't also offered the incentive of heaven, and if they were told that their purpose was to follow God's commandments without any promise for reward and no matter what those commandments were.

What I don't get is how the Christians still portray Christ as a welcoming, peaceful figure.
Christ is the most terrifying, inhuman creature in the whole Bible. He makes demands that are impossible to meet, he talks about suffering and hell more than anyone else, he wants complete, uncomprising obedience, he wants you to hate your family and friends in favor of following him.
With the Old Testament God, shit was pretty simple - you followed his commandments and he didn't destroy your whole city. Sure it kind of sucks to be wiped out with natural disasters for disobeying, but there was no concept of eternal damnation, and the Jews were just as critical of God's actions and his failing to meet his end of the bargain.

Then you get to Christ, and all bets are off. You don't only have to obey, but LOVE him while obeying. If you don't emotionally menipulate yourself enough to love him, you're screwed.
This was somehow seen as an easier bargain than the old one, and it's hard to fathom why. Even harder to fathom is the secular, hippy version of Jesus, who completely misses the most basic representation of who Christ is biblically. Can you imagine staring into the eyes of God in human form, who has utterly no regard for human agency and wants your complete submission? This is no fucking joke. Either it's a massive lie to promote a fucked up system of ethics, or the entire fabric of western civilization is pointless and cruel joke to distract you from the most loaded wager you can imagine.

If you knew that Christianity was absolutely true, as you've outlined it, would you follow that religion or refuse out of principle? That's the really fundamental question. Of course? There is always the possibility that you've just mischaracterized Christianity, but I'll leave it to the Christians to say if that's so. Still, I'm curious how you would answer that question I've posed to you.

did not mean to put a question mark after "of course", should be a comma instead.

I couldn't make myself love such a God, simple as that. We are told that He knows all of our feelings, and deceiving him is impossible - but how could I do anything but deceive him, since I'm COMMANDED to love him unconditionally without debate? If I tried following such a demand, I'd turn into a bitter, hateful person, stuck in an impossible situation. Or I guess I'd get hooked on drugs that make me susceptible so that I could maybe manipulate myself into feeling a certain way.
I don't really see a way out, except just putting it our of your mind and hoping for the best. I just don't see myself having the mental capacity to not only believe in a set of propositions or following orders, but also ordering my feelings correctly so Christ doesn't eternally punish me.

Problem is, Jesus is perfectly human, just as human as you or I. He suffered (tortured to death) and died and went to Hell just like anyone else. And He offers forgiveness for sins. The Law of the Old Testament was just as impossible for us to follow, because it's the same Law. Did you not read the Old Testament? Obedience to the Law won't save you since you can't be obedient to the Law. Only love for the Lawgiver will.

>why am I not "qualified" to discuss them?
I know because you yourself tell me, for instance:
>I can see divine command theory playing a prominent role in Judaism, but in Christianity it seems to play a secondary role.
>I imagine many Christians would lose hope in their religion if they weren't also offered the incentive of heaven
See? You see things. You imagine things. You argue from your own imagination, your fantasy. You don't examine your meta-beliefs and speculations about what people believe. You don't research things. It's a completely unreasonable behavior that makes you unqualified for any kind of philosophizing. A renunciation to philosophy, a surrender to prejudice.
>How do you expect me to learn?
You have ghosts in your head. It could help if you would come up with a better method.

theravada=judaism
mahayana=Islam
vajrayana=christian

I'm by no means an expert on these topics but my argument makes sense to me and I've seen other posters so far confirm what I've said. You contradict it but don't provide much in the way of an explantion. I'm curious to see an actual explanation out of you.

>If Christianity wants to survive in the contemporary world it will have to embrace universalism.
They already did, they call it secular humanism/ Their followers are classical or new liberals and their spawns.

Vajrayana may be better compared to catholicism and mahaya to protestantism. I don't see how you could relate mahayana to islam (specially considering how mahayana is seen as more "progressive", or at least embarks the most "progressive" forms of Buddhism)

>other posters
Why are you getting your education from Veeky Forums anyway?
>an actual explanation
- Supposed angels appearing to current year mortals are neither the Scripture nor the Church, and thus their authority can and will be questioned by Christians
- Abraham was still imperfect and ignorant about the monotheism he was founding, Christians follow Jesus instead of Abraham on the topic of sacrifice, or any other really
- Divine command theory is not an utilitarian meta-ethical theory
Since you have such massive problems with understanding the latter point in Christianity, we can add:
- Divine command theory is in the Gospels, the most obvious example in Matthew 28:18-20. At no point does Jesus advocate an utilitarian ethics of maximization of utility, and I challenge you to prove a verse where Jesus tells his disciple something like: "Go forth and maximize utility", since you're so confident and that makes sense so much to you, for reasons that you yourself admit that you wouldn't know

Also anti-utilitarian sayings of Jesus: Mark 12:41--3, Mark 14:3-7.

You seem to be lacking basic Judeo-Christian concepts. The most fundamental one is that man has been wholly estranged from God ever since he chose autonomy over a loving relationship with the divine being that created him. In his estrangement, this is the decision mankind must make: autonomy, which he chose, or obedience, which he neglected. The philosophical question you must ask is that, has man really done anything good with his autonomy? Is man's progress actually progress? The Christian answer should be obvious and that is why their ultimate goal is to reunite with God and the peace they took for granted in the mystical prelapsarian union. Man's autonomy says "you are free to chose between different ways to fulfill your desires," but the Christian idea is that you are never truly free because you remain bound by the fact that you must satiate your desires. God's freedom is the ability to not be a slave to your desires altogether, to live in actual autonomy, free from necessity, but this comes at one simple cost: submit yourself back into your rightful place in the divine union, to have only one thing necessary, the cross. Make no mistake, God already is necessary, he sustains the sun and the planets. The question is, will you now accept the cross as necessary?

You can't go back on human autonomy and centuries of revolutionary philosophical development. Traditional Christianity is just a comfy anachronism, it hasn't made a worthwhile contribution to human thought for decades, and most of them are still struggling with Kant. If you can't deal with the banter then you have no excuse to whine about being irrelevant.

Damn OP, I really want you to see this.

I, as a christian, have a sufficient answer to this question that no other religion has or could ever understand. I believe in a short Latin phrase known as sola fide. What does sola fide mean you might ask? It means "Faith Alone," and it is the key to salvation. The bible says in Ephesians 2:8-9

> For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

We are saved by "faith alone" apart from, as in away from, works. This is so that the saved individual has no room or prospective to boast. This is because if salvation includes any work from man, then he would have a substance to measure his salvation by and be able to attribute that to himself and go to another person, who might do less work, and feel as sense of superiority.

Commonly to demonstrate this the example of Abraham is used who in genesis 15:6 he believes a promise God gives him and then is made righteous.

But then this just leads one to ask. Can a person who has faith go out and stat raping and pillaging all he want but as long as he has faith can go to heaven? No, God forbid. We also believe that after someone has "true" saving faith, work will follow. You see, when we do good works it is not to impress God or get out of hell but rather out of our love for him. We know that our faith saves us but that gift of God IE faith, moves us to do acts of devotion to him out of love.

This is why I became a Christian and think that Christianity is the one true religion.

BTW, I'm at work so quickly typed this and will most likely not be able to respond to any replies soon or at all. but I hope this sparks a charitable discussion.

Noice

Protestanta trivialise the concept of belief and fall into incoherency. You can't just make yourself believe something out of the blue if it doesn't convince you. Read some philosophy you fucking mega plebeian.

In your post God seems like a boring asshole.

When will Christians be good at the jhanas?

>Imaginary evil is romantic and varied; real evil is gloomy, monotonous, barren, boring. Imaginary good is boring; real good is always new, marvellous, intoxicating
If you think a union with the creator of the universe is boring, that's on you

How would you know if your faith is true or not then is the question. It's interesting how Lutheranism seems to me to have developed into two opposites of a comfortable faith with plenty of love and kindness. And the other madness, anxiety, neurosis. And isn't that Luthers mind in the first place? These two states of counsciousness.

God is love. Not a separate thing which is loved, but that love which is exercised toward things.

Christ presents a paradox: on the one hand he preaches love, on the other hate - how do these go together? They go together in that he demands a love of others which recognizes their full autonomy, and not a love which holds them to their social role or position. You should love your mother and father as living conscious things, in their universal aspect, and not as representatives of social norms and hierarchy, for example loving them as the heads of family.

Christ essentially proposes a new way of relating to people, which is horizontal rather than vertical.

Obedience to God is sweet: the demand to love others is not only good for them who are loved but also for you that loves; the opposite of love, judgement, holds a person to a particular aspect and reduces them to that fact alone; reducing the other to a fact subordinated to or mastered by oneself in fact diminishes one's experience of reality to nothing other than an egotistical monologue - forgiving the other, absolving them of the fact to which they are held, makes possible the recognition of them as fully other, thereby also at the same time making possible the realization of one's own reality as something properly communal and shared, something created by a plurality and not proceeding from one point only.

>>God is love. Not a separate thing which is loved,
why do people need a layer of dubious interpretation on what they experience, instead of sticking to what is experienced before they run wild with their fantasies which is asking to be mocked and ridiculed ?

ah sense-certainty! what a world to dwell in! here is a table; it is a table - and there the sky, it is a sky, what else could be involved here but the sky being the sky and the table being the table?

>You can't just make yourself believe something out of the blue if it doesn't convince you.
True, but I disagree with your use of the word convince. This is where I would like to bring in in 1 Corinthians 2:4

>My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power,

You see, we do not come to believe by our own critical thinking or by weighing the scales to to see where the evidence tips to. It is by the spirit we believe. This is an unmerited gift and work of God that will be lead to completion as we see in Philippians 1:6

>And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

Also, sorry for the late reply. Like I said, I am at work and so wont be able to come back at you with quick replies. Also, your comment was well put and I had to take a time to come up with a good biblical response.
Also, after I'm done with the bible and early church fathers, I'm gonna do the "start with the Greeks" thing. Wanna know what all the buzz is about.

>How would you know if your faith is true or not then is the question.
That's a really good question and is one I have thought about a lot. I pretty much believe in the typical reformed Calvinist view of salvation that the saints will persevere to the end. The only thing I may disagree on is whether or not we can know if we are the elect. I have pondered on it and have come to the conclusion that you cannot know, at least with 100% certainty, that you are part of the elect until you're on your death bed or at least sometime close to that time. The reason why I say this is because there have been a ton of apostates throughout history who have been good Christians and perhaps even thought they were the elect but in the end fell away. We are not to fool ourselves and say that we are until we have finished the race. You do not celebrate until you have crossed the finishing line. I believe this concept explains a lot if the warning passages you see in the bible, especially in Hebrews.
This does not mean that we should fear and lose the peace we have with God but rather that if you are a christian and believe in the fundamental concepts and are growing in grace and are bearing fruit, as a true reborn, justified and sanctified believer would, then you have nothing to fear. I mean, if you did ever fall away why would you care? You're not even a christian anymore so it's nothing more than fairy tales to you.

soto zen = islam

>sparing me the peril he put me in in the first place by causing me to be is somehow a gift

Okay then

Do you really think you can continue to exist personally while being fully reconciled with the divine?

>wait until he finds out Origen was a purgatorial universalist

Imma laugh

Oh,I know all about origen. He's an example of why you must stick to scripture and once you try to implement worldly knowledge into divine scripture.

I still like plato though[\spoiler]

The gift is the offer to escape the peril.
There's a way out. You just have to find it.

first of all its extremely well known that hindu karm is a system of divine justice and punishment for sin. second of all a caste system is not dignified no matter how badly nietzsche wants it to be. giving the poor clean water and the ability to not starve has nothing to do with degeneracy and everything to do with not wanting to look at ugliness. Hindus live in fucking filth, they smell awful, they eat disgusting diets, they constantly slaughter animals for blood sacrifices and they’ve long practiced ritual homosexuality, transsexuality and blood magic, fire magic, all other perversions of ancient Steppe and Drav cultisms. If a man does not live within his Dharma, creates bad karmic conditions say by blaspheming a god like Shiva and neglecting to pay priests to do sacrifices HAHAHAHA weird how that works isn’t it? he goes to hell, and you can stay in hindu hell for a very long time, Buddhists have hell too! and its extremely unpleasant, i assure you, i’ve witness it before. The next thing, Hinduism demands warfare, blood shed and the subjugation of man to idols, idolatry and superstitious attachment to signs rule that faith. Primitive christianity has none of these frivolities whatsoever, if the cross becomes an idol you throw it away. Lastly, Abraham was just doing what the voice told him to do you fucking nerd, he had no choice. It was blatantly obvious a divine being was commanding him to do its bidding, what was he supposed to incur holy retribution by ignoring him? you know what it means when evil people are in heaven? your gods are evil. is that what’s being taught in the Mahabharata? of course not! you lying sack. but logically, if we think for ourselves a moment, how does this man know these people were evil? is he a moral authority? if yes, then obviously the gods are retards and not divine. if no, them his interpetation is false and he’s a blasphemer and belongs in hell. and if it doesn’t matter because its DIVINELY REVEALED that they’re evil, then the gods are evil or this man is a fucking idiot. either way, you’re a pathetic occidentalist coward and again i assure you hindu hell is awful, you don’t want to be there. and Shiva is supposed to come and burn all the humans alive, destroy the entire cosmos in holy flame at the end of the Yuga

For my money, Plato's cosmology seems so resonant and intuitive that it must be true.

Would that be the same peril that came with that other gift of questionable generosity called "life"?

>To actually believe that there is a Hell where people suffer for all eternity, sometimes for the most inconsequential of reasons, and to accept this fact simply, is just horrid

People choose to go to Hell. The bar for eternal salvation is unbelievably high. But, do you realize that the bar for forgiveness is just as high?
If someone knows of the Gospels, Christianity(Catholicism), and Christ and still refuses it or does not ask for forgiveness, he will most likely go to Hell. Let's pray he chooses not to do so.

>sometimes for the most inconsequential of reasons
You mean like something along the lines of say?:

you get angry and yell at your dad, ten minutes later you die and you go to Hell.

That sin is more than likely a venial sin. It hinders but does not break the bond between you and God. If you have an unforgiven mortal sin, like genuinely wishing death upon someone, you would go to Hell. That's a serious consequential sin.

It really seems like you lack a deep understanding in Christianity man. There's so much more wrong, that I haven't touched upon. This is just the biggest issue.

Oh,
>What would Yudhishthira have done if one of God's angels came down and told him to sacrifice his favorite son? I don't think he would have acted like Abraham.
Issac was more than likely 18-25 yo man who was willing to be sacrificed (in jewish tradtion) and it is more probable as such. How would a 7 year old kid carry sacrificial wood that was intended to burn an entire human body? a small child couldn't do that...

oh about the binding of Issac:

Issac was traveling with that wood for three days, definitely a grown man. And even if he didn't want to be sacrificed, he could've easily escaped a 100+ year old man

here's more on that:

gotquestions.org/how-old-was-Isaac.html

>tfw you realise that Hinduism is the only true purely metaphysical doctrine
>tfw western philosophy and science all stem from the Vedas

>people choose to be born

It just occurred to me that the religious trolley problem has no switch and comes down to the question of if you put a person on the tracks just to see if they can get off the tracks in time.

You must be seriously damaged to think like this

abraham was a hebrew. the bible labels him such, i just read this in it yesterday, but I'll be damned if I'm looking it up

You must be seriously damaged to willingly bring a person into this hell

what the hell are you saying?

I think you'll like Aquinas

Hey, who said life is peril? Just make the most of it and try to being as much happiness as you can into the world. Remember, were sojourners of this planet and soon our end will come.

The bible says people have obtained righteousness in God's eyes by obedience to the law

Despair is your own fault. Sort your shit out.

Mortal sin is a bizarre irrational concept not found in the bible.

jesus is a buddha

Read Girard, shit stain

amazon.com/Sacrifice-Breakthroughs-Mimetic-Theory-Girard/dp/0870139924

Essentially he says "ya nearly had it, but not quite, champ"

I bet you two will find traditionalist literature to be of interest.
Both of you should read Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling since the main focus is on the faith vs. ethics issue of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac.

Man I hope the rest wake up

The Bible says a lot of things. That's why you have to take the Bible as a whole, not just a single uncited verse (apparently taken out of context), along with the Church Fathers, the sacred tradition, and the doctrines of the Church, and consider them all together. Otherwise you end up with heretical opinions like yours.

>who said life is Peril

Well, Jesus and all Christians and Muslims in the sense they've created the impression that life by default is a short means of conveyance to a pit of eternal agony.

Mortal sin is literally found in the second chapter of Genesis when God tells Adam and Eve that eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil means death.

Christians are absolutely blithe, sick, thoughtless individuals for putting people in such jeopardy.

>inb4 that one dictate to the only two men who were capable of creating humanity in the first place but I can still eat bacon

Not only (((western))) philosophy. Aryans also moved east. Daoism, jainism, buddhism. Did you know aryans actually came from the moon? (The majority of them; the vaivasvatas came from the sun)

No u

>"venial sin" "mortal sin"

These concepts are found nowhere in the Bible. It does however teach that man is born into sin and is unable to save himself. There is no distinction in severity of sin. All sin is equal in the eyes of a Holy God. What is covered in the Bible is that the blood of Christ is sufficient to cover all sin; not just the "truly evil stuff". A person that truly submits to Christ is washed clean of sin committed in the past and future. There is no sin, confessed or not, that can separate a Christian from the love of God. Do Christians still sin? Absolutely. Look around a church: they're still just people.
Now, just because sin is "covered", does that give Christians the green light to sin all they want, knowing that God will show grace? No. The apostle Paul poses this question rhetorically and answers it with a resounding no. "By no means!" he says.

>To me the Christian religion seems to be lacking in any basic dignity
Lol

Yeah Europeans are elves from the moon

How is he wrong? There's no reason for humans to feel dignified. The Bible doesn't dignify people and it shouldn't either.

>tfw im enlighteneed
>tfw i want others to be to
>tfw people just want to debate me
>but they never want to date me

What are the nordics then dude

Humans are made in the image of God. Desecrating the image of God is blasphemy. Humans have a basic dignity.

God has a different face to everyone tho.

What is your point? What is the threshold of to much toe stepping?

The Bible says a lot of things aren't found in the Bible.

as atoms of divinity maybe, not as personal agents.

There is only one God. Deal with it.

Sin is the threshold. When you sin you desecrate the image of God in yourself and/or in others.

Wow hot opinion you have there. Thanks for sharing.

>he thought Jesus was a "get out of hell" free card

me: the Bible says X
you: yeah but here in all these other places in says not X
Answer me simple yes or no, was the Evangelist mistaken when he said Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous in the eyes of God and blamelessly observing the Law (Luke 1:6)

>There is no sin, confessed or not, that can separate a Christian from the love of God.
"Unless your righteousness abounds above that of the Pharisees and teachers of the Law, you will surely not enter the kingdom of heaven."

that's because all sin is mortal. The apostle instructs us that "the wages of sin is death" not "the wages of serious sin is death"

That isn't how systematic exegesis works. What you're really asking is if basing entire doctrines on single verses read in isolation is valid exegesis. I answer no.