The Upper Room

12:38 AM

@TRiG A lot of humans feel a lot of things, but the Bible doesn't prescribe many rituals for the New Testament church.

A: Why do some Christians believe it is moral to be a homosexual?

@TRiG Okay, that whole thing is just too funny!

@TRiG Fortunately, the worst "ritual" I ever did in church was to spritz way too much frankincense-like essence into the air during an Advent children's talk, setting the congregation to coughing and running to open the windows! ;-)

@TRiG Incidentally, my first point in my answer to the (old) question below is that the outsized emphasis on the evils of homosexuality among evangelicals compared to its scant mention in the Bible should be a tip-off that this is really more of a cultural issue than a biblical one.

9

The question is: Some faithful Christians believe that it is not a sin to be homosexual. I would like to know the line of reasoning and/or Scripture passages that they use as their basis. I can answer this from the perspective of a minister in the Swedenborgian Church of North America, ...

12:54 AM

Every generation has different emphases on different doctrines depending on cultural influences both within and without the church. Traditionally homosexuality hasn't been a big topic of discussion in the church generally, but recently it has been a popular topic in culture, so it is not unimportant for the church to address it. Hopefully without neglecting the rest of the Scriptures :)

In fact, most of the sex-related issues that evangelicals get all hung up about, such as premarital sex, abortion, and masturbation are either not clearly forbidden in the Bible or are not mentioned at all. And on the ones that are clearly forbidden, such as adultery, evangelicals don't seem to have much better a track record than the general population.

@Birdie Unfortunately, the evangelicals loudly condemning homosexuality don't even understand the Scriptures. For example, they try to make the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 be all about homosexuality when it really has little or nothing to do with it. It's like saying that the parallel story of heterosexual gang rape in Judges 19 means that heterosexuality is evil.

The Bible itself says what the sin of Sodom was, and it has nothing to do with homosexuality:

> Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. (Ezekiel 16:49–50)

It's pretty clear that among the detestable things they did, homosexuality was included. Certainly other passages of Scripture do show homosexuality to be detestable.

In preparing my articles on the subject, I read extensively in conservative Christian anti-homosexual arguments, and the biblical ignorance in them was appalling.

@Birdie Do you even know what the Hebrew word translated "detestable" means?

It means "ritually unclean."

Abortion's clearly covered by "thou shalt not murder", masturbation's covered by "thou shalt not commit adultery".

@Birdie And the total number of passages in the Bible that even mention same-sex sexual relations is five or six.

1:04 AM

@LeeWoofenden That doesn't change anything.

@LeeWoofenden Does that make them invalid, just because it is fairly rarely mentioned?

@Birdie LOL! This is exactly the ignorance of the Bible that I'm talking about. Masturbation is not adultery. And whether or not abortion is murder, the Bible doesn't say it's murder.

@Birdie There are more commandments to sacrifice cows in the Bible than there are not to engage in same-sex sexual relations.

@LeeWoofenden Does it invalidate the ones that forbid homosexuality?

Do you base your doctrine on the percentage of verses mentioning a subject?

El'endia Starman

@TRiG Nice article!

What's the minimum amount of verses discussing a subject before you believe what is said?

10? 20?

The OT explicitly mentions same-sex relations exactly twice, in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. Both apply only to men, and say nothing about women. And Paul's mentions of it in the NT draw on the same passages.

There is no clear mention of female-female sexual relations in the Bible. Nothing that could be said to be a definite law against it. Does that mean that only male-male sexual relations are forbidden, and not female-female? That it's okay to be a lesbian, but not okay to be gay?

Can you tell my why the OT forbids male-male sexual relations, but is silent on female-female sexual relations?

@Birdie And why don't you sacrifice cows? There are dozens, if not hundreds of passages in the Bible that command us to sacrifice cows. Jesus himself told someone to go make the offering in the temple that was prescribed by the Mosaic law. Why, then, do you ignore dozens and hundreds of commandments in the Bible?

1:09 AM

@LeeWoofenden Because much of Scripture uses men as examples.

@LeeWoofenden Because the ceremonial temple law was done away with when Jesus died on the cross.

Confirmed by the destruction of the temple later on

@Birdie No. Because in OT Israelite culture, the idea of women having sex with women would have sounded ridiculous. Their conception of sex was of a dominant, higher status person penetrating a submissive, lower status person. Women can't penetrate, ergo a woman can't have sex with another woman.

@LeeWoofenden The Bible doesn't actually say that though.

@Birdie And yet, selected OT laws are still considered to be in effect. How do you decide which ones are still in effect, and which ones aren't?

@Birdie That's why it's necessary to understand the cultures of the Bible. If you don't, you're going to misread vast swathes of the Bible.

@LeeWoofenden The ones which are explicitly fulfilled are fulfilled, the ones which aren't are not.

@Birdie That's a nice idea, but where does the Bible say that? And how does it apply? Are we still required to do no work on the Sabbath? Can we make statues? Can we harvest the corners of our fields? Should we stone wayward sons to death?

The Sabbath, incidentally, is Saturday, not Sunday.

1:13 AM

@LeeWoofenden You're missing the overall message of the Bible and marriage if you think that homosexual practice was forbidden only in the OT due to cultural interpretation of penetration and submission.

@Birdie No, you're missing the overall message of the Bible if you think that homosexuality is forbidden for reasons other than the cultural norms of the day.

Do you think that women should still be required to cover their heads in church, and not speak? Do you think that slaves should still obey their masters?

@LeeWoofenden Do you understand that marriage is representative of the relationship between Christ and the church?

@Birdie Of course I do. And notice that the church consists of both men and women. Does that mean that Christ is a homosexual?

Yes, slaves should obey their masters. No, we shouldn't make idol statues.

@Birdie So you believe that slavery is still good and valid?

1:16 AM

@LeeWoofenden The church is the (female) bride of Christ. Christ is the bridegroom, the church is the bride. Male and female.

@LeeWoofenden Depends on what you mean by slavery and "still".

@Birdie That is the metaphor, yes. But if you start trying to make it literal, you're going to tie yourself into all sorts of knots. Does Christ have sex with the church?

@Birdie Okay, now you're just worrying me. Do you really think there is any justification whatsoever for slavery of any kind?

@LeeWoofenden Sure, debt slavery would be justified if it were legal.

@Birdie Debt slavery?

@LeeWoofenden Yes, the main form of Biblical slavery in Israel.

It's distinct from chattel slavery and men-stealing.

@Birdie I presume you mean among Israelites. So you think that people should be allowed to sell themselves into slavery?

1:19 AM

@LeeWoofenden Yes, essentially. It's certainly not an ideal circumstance.

Besides, much of the slavery in the Bible was foreigners being owned as slaves.

@Birdie This is why biblical literalism is so wrong, bad, and yes, evil.

Slavery means one person owning another person.

It is not the same as indentured servitude. And even that is a questionable institution.

@LeeWoofenden Yes, and the Bible explicitly allowed debt slavery among the Israelites and gave rules as to how to administer it correctly. It also gave rules for how to treat forbidden chattel slaves, and rules on how to behave if you were a slave or a master in a society that allowed slavery, and so on.

The entire conservative wing of Christianity has basically gone to the devil because it has clung to the letter, and the flesh, that kills rather than being inspired by the spirit that gives life.

Those passages are not possible to take non-literally. Not every passage in the Bible is literal, but the ones on slavery pretty much all are with a few exceptions.

@Birdie And you believe that those rules should still be in effect in society today?

Jesus himself spoke of Moses giving them laws "because of the hardness of their hearts."

1:22 AM

@LeeWoofenden Regarding debt slavery, it seems fairly reasonable, so sure.

@LeeWoofenden Yes, hence giving laws on chattel slavery even though it was forbidden, giving laws on bad divorces etc.

@Birdie Yep. Biblical literalism is a scourge on today's society. It is the main reactionary force in the Western world.

@LeeWoofenden What do you mean exactly by Biblical literalism? Is any of the Bible literal or is it purely metaphorical?

Most of the really virulent hatred and bigotry in the Western world today is perpetrated in the name of the Bible.

@Birdie Some of the Bible is literal. Such as, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength" and "You shall love your neighbor as yourselves." But most of it is metaphorical.

And incidentally, Jesus himself did not say one word about homosexuality. If it had been an important thing for Christians to condemn homosexuality, I think Jesus Christ would have said something about it.

@LeeWoofenden Did Adam and Eve literally exist? Did God create the world in 6 days? Did the Patriarchs exist literally? Was Israel a real country? Did the exodus actually happen? Did Mount Sinai actually occur? Where do you draw the line on what is real and what is metaphor?

Jesus is God, God wrote the Bible, anything in the Bible forbidding homosexuality is Jesus forbidding homosexuality.

@Birdie An excellent question. One that biblical literalists try to avoid by just taking it all literally. And that's a lazy person's way out.

@Birdie But nothing in the Bible forbids homosexuality. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. The Bible doesn't really say anything about that. It forbids men from having sex with men. And it says that it is toebah, or ritually unclean. But we are no longer required to keep the rituals of the OT, so something that was ritually unclean for Israelites of OT times has no bearing on Christians today.

Paul was referring to the same OT laws, and doing so within the same basic culture with regard to human sexuality. In Paul's day homosexual sex almost universally meant either older men having sex with young boys or conquering armies having sex with conquered soldiers. Both of those are wrong and contrary to Christian principles.

Today's concept of marriage, including homosexual marriage, as a mutual, freely chosen relationship between two equal partners simply didn't exist in Bible times.

1:31 AM

@LeeWoofenden The overall scope of Scripture makes it abundantly clear that the action and the intent of the mind and heart cannot be separated. If the action of homosexuality is wrong, then by implication so is the desire to act homosexually. Same as not just murderous actions are forbidden, but murderous thoughts.

@Birdie You've got it backwards. It is the intention that determines whether the action is wrong. A soldier who kills an enemy soldier in battle is not a murderer, even though the action he does is precisely the same as a mafia enforcer gunning someone down in the streets. One has evil intent. The other has good intent. That's the difference.

And it is the intent behind the homosexual acts that were forbidden in the OT, and by extension in the NT, that caused them to be evil, not the actions themselves.

@LeeWoofenden Murder is evil. I didn't mention killing generally, but specifically murder. Homosexuality is evil, because homosexual practice is evil.

In those times, for one man to penetrate another was to reduce the other man to the status of a woman (in that culture). And that was contrary to principles in Jewish law and culture that all men were equal in God's eyes, and the same principle in Paul's mind as he worked to establish the new Christian church.

@LeeWoofenden Sure, nice theory, except that the Bible doesn't actually mention that as the reason. It simply says that men shall not have sex with other men.

@Birdie But how do you distinguish between murder and killing generally. The action is precisely the same? One person kills another person. Why is a murder on death row a murderer, but a soldier who killed many enemy soldiers is not? There is no difference at all between the actions of the two.

@Birdie That's why it's important, as @Trig was pointing out through his link above, to read the Bible in context, and understand the whole story and message of the Bible, and not just to read individual passages out of context and with no understanding of what those passages meant within the culture of the Bible.

@Birdie If you don't understand why the Bible says certain things, you will misunderstand the whole thing, because you are paying attention to the letter and not to the spirit. You're seeing the words, but not understanding what they mean and why they are there. And that is precisely what the conservative wing of Christianity has done with the entire Bible, so much so that they are wrong about almost everything they teach.

1:38 AM

@LeeWoofenden Legality and intent. The Bible makes it clear that some killing is legal, and can therefore be done with pure intent. It doesn't give that option for lying, and it doesn't give that option for homosexuality.

That's what Jesus was talking about in the aforementioned passage in which he says that Moses gave them that particular commandment (about giving their wives a bill of divorcement) because of the hardness of their hearts. By your argument, the response to Jesus is, "But that's what the Scriptures say." And that should have shut Jesus right up, eh?

@LeeWoofenden This is why I mentioned marriage, because God created marriage explicitly for teaching us about the relationship between Christ and the church. This is why there are so many laws about it and rules, and why divorce is such a terrible thing, and any perversion of marriage. Because any perversion of marriage destroys the picture of the holy union of Christ and the church.

@Birdie The Bible doesn't go into any detail about homosexuality. It makes a few brief references to it. The aforementioned two prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 20 are never discussed anywhere else in the OT. So we simply don't have the kind of detail on which you could base an argument that these are simply absolute prohibitions that have no culture or nuance behind them.

And I agree with you that there is an inordinate amount of attention paid to homosexuality out of all the various and more prolific perversions of marriage, but that doesn't invalidate homosexuality being a perversion of marriage. We should definitely as churches spend more time on adultery, pornography, divorce etc. than homosexuality but that doesn't mean we bend to the culture's wishes about having homosexuality be OK.

@Birdie And yet, what gays and lesbians want is marriage. They want to be able to have consensual, monogamous, loving relationships with one another that are recognized by society and by the church. The irony of conservative Christians' opposition to same-sex marriage is that they are opposing a sincere desire for marriage on the part of gays and lesbians--who did not choose to be gay or lesbian.

1:42 AM

@LeeWoofenden Again you're using an argument to scarcity to suggest that the passages are invalid. They are simple, very clear, and directly forbid sex between or among men.

@Birdie Pornography is also not mentioned in the Bible. But adultery is. And divorce is. Adultery and divorce are really the Bible's main concerns about marriage. But they get drowned out in all the outcry about same-sex marriage, masturbation, abortion, and many other sex-related issues that either aren't mentioned in the Bible at all or on which the Bible has no clear and explicit teaching.

@LeeWoofenden So you only permit drawing doctrine from explicit commands, of which there must be more than two verses about before it's valid for doctrine?

@Birdie You are also using an argument of scarcity by saying that because the Bible doesn't expand upon those passages, that means we must take them as absolute, cast-in-stone rules. And yet, there are many other rules that the Bible makes that are never discussed elsewhere that Christians feel free to ignore.

@LeeWoofenden Such as?

And that's not an argument of scarcity.

All those churches in which women don't have to wear veils are violating a plain rule given in the New Testament, no less. And what about women cutting their hair? Forbidden. Women talking in church. Forbidden.

The fact of the matter is that even conservative churches obey or disobey many biblical rules based primarily on the norms of their own culture.

1:46 AM

You're not really helping your case by saying "well the other team does it too!".

The idea that homosexuality is some absolute rule is just plain silly in the face of the many, many other rules in the Bible that are made and never negated that those same Christian churches feel perfectly free to ignore.

Saying the other team sucks at following their principles doesn't validate your own disobedience to the plain teaching of Scripture. It just shows that other people are flawed too (working from the assumption that you're correct in saying that they are misapplying said passages).

There is never any negation of the commandment in Deuteronomy that if a son is wayward and will not listen to his parents, he should be stoned to death. And yet, I'm not aware of a single Christian church today, even the most ultra-conservative, that insists that this is an absolute rule that must be obeyed today.

@LeeWoofenden Who cares what conservative churches think, I'm discussing your belief that homosexuality is OK.

It's a distraction from the actual issue, which is that the Bible forbids homosexual practice explicitly, and by implication homosexual thought.

@Birdie And so am I. And I'm saying that the conservative churches that condemn homosexuality because "the Bible says so" don't have a leg to stand on.

1:49 AM

Them being wrong about other issues DOES NOT make them wrong about this issue.

@Birdie And the Bible explicitly commands us to stone rebellious sons:

> If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place.

You have to address each point separately, or else you could just say "all republicans are wrong about everything", or "all democrats are wrong about everything". In actual fact, they are both right and wrong about various things.

> They shall say to the elders of his town, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.”Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

Why don't we obey that commandment? Why do we feel free to ignore it?

We're not discussing stoning rebellious sons. Please stop avoiding the actual issue.

You're using red herring arguments which do you no favours.

@Birdie You're the one avoiding the actual issue. You are arguing that because man-on-man sex is explicitly forbidden in the Bible, we must obey that law. And yet, there are many other explicit laws in the Bible that we do not obey.

That law about stoning rebellious suns sounds pretty stark and direct. Why can we ignore it, but we must pay attention to the one forbidding man-on-man sex?

1:52 AM

@LeeWoofenden In a more Christian society, perhaps we wouldn't ignore it.

@Birdie So a more "Christian" society would stone people to death? Even though Jesus Christ himself intervened to stop the society of his day from stoning a woman to death who had been caught in the act of adultery?

No. That would not at all be a more Christian society.

Christ came precisely to do away with that sort of brutal religion.

And conservative "Christianity" is not really Christian at all. It is a throwback to ancient, brutal, law-based Judaism of pre-Christian times.

That is what happens when you follow the letter that kills rather than the spirit that gives life.

You're missing the point. If there was no hypocrisy by someone who claimed that homosexuality was wrong because he also followed all the other explicit, non-done-away-with laws of the Bible, then what is your argument against him that homosexuality is actually OK now?

It is highly ironic that the same Christians who insist that it is faith alone that saves us, and that we are no longer under the Law, are the same ones that bang their Bibles and insist that we must obey every little law in the Bible or we will be damned to eternal hell by an angry God--which is the Old Testament God.

Are there two Gods in the Bible?

@Birdie What is your argument that we should continue to follow all of these laws in the Bible? Why are you arguing that in a more "Christian" society we would stone our wayward sons to death? Why, when that is diametrically opposed to what Jesus Christ himself taught and demonstrated in the Gospels?

You have completely missed the point of Jesus Christ's teachings.

And you've completely missed the point of Paul's teachings, and James's, and John's.

1:57 AM

@LeeWoofenden You're still missing the point. What is your ACTUAL ARGUMENT for allowing homosexuality? You continually distract from the issue at hand with red herrings about hypocritical behaviour, so I presented a hypothetical where there was no hypocrisy so you could actually address the issue.

The Bible explicitly forbids homosexual practice, on what basis do you permit what God has forbidden?

"the other guy is a hypocrite" is not an argument.

A: Why do some Christians believe it is moral to be a homosexual?

@Birdie You can see my short answer here:

9

The question is: Some faithful Christians believe that it is not a sin to be homosexual. I would like to know the line of reasoning and/or Scripture passages that they use as their basis. I can answer this from the perspective of a minister in the Swedenborgian Church of North America, ...

And my long answer here: Homosexuality, the Bible, and Christianity.

Right, I'll have a read of that later then.

I would like to know what you think about this though: "Are there two Gods in the Bible?"

Because you said there's an angry God in the OT which is presumably not the God of the NT, so there must be two Gods by that reasoning?

And about Genesis 19 here: What is the Sin of Sodom?.

@Birdie Of course there aren't two Gods. But God shows himself differently to different people, as you can read in Psalm 18:25-26:

With the loyal you show yourself loyal;
with the blameless you show yourself blameless;
with the pure you show yourself pure;
and with the crooked you show yourself perverse.

So God changed His personality from the OT to the NT?

To the people of Old Testament times, who were a harsh, brutal, unspiritual, and stiff-necked people, God frequently showed himself angry and stern. But in New Testament times, God was able to show more of his loving side.

@Birdie No. The people changed their personality, so that they were able to see God in a better light.

Isaiah 45:15 says, "Truly, you are a God who hides himself, O God of Israel, the Savior." That word "hides" means "to veil over, to conceal from view." So God conceals his true nature from the view of those who are wayward and stiff-necked. And much of the Bible is presenting God's veiled face to stiff-necked, wayward people.

But that veil is not God's true nature. It is what God must present to us when we are in opposition to God.

Ancient Jews saw God as a fearful, angry being because they were in opposition to the love and mercy of God. Similarly, modern fire-and-brimstone preachers see God as a fearful, angry being because they themselves are far from the real love and mercy of God as shown in Jesus Christ.

For some people, that is necessary. But it should not be confused with the real nature of God.

I believe that the whole fundamentalist wing of Christianity is adapted to a low, unspiritual, stiff-necked group of people who must see God as angry and punishing in order to keep themselves more or less on the strait and narrow. Unfortunately, it comes with the same sort of bigotry and xenophobia that characterized much of ancient Israelite society.

And that's why that group of people is so heavily drawn to various harsh Old Testament laws.

They are really Old Testament churches in Christian clothing.

2:17 AM

@LeeWoofenden I certainly don't disagree with that final statement, as I believe that the NT church is merely a continuation of the spiritual nation of Israel, and as such we are just OT churches in Christian clothing. Vehemently disagree with pretty much all the rest though :)

@Birdie Well then, you're welcome to continue being an Old Testament sort of guy, and I'll happily continue to follow the trajectory shown by Jesus Christ in the New Testament. ;-)

I would add that most of the doctrines of those fundamentalist churches simply aren't taught in the Bible at all, whether the Old Testament or the New Testament.

12:59 PM

It will never work to impose action and or result based ethical systems upon the morality of the God that said "But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart." and " But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person."

4:33 PM

@Joshua It is not the action itself, but the action as embodying a particular intention, as filtered through the particular person's knowledge of what is right and wrong. There is no "alone" anywhere in the system--just as the Bible never says anything "alone" accomplishes our salvation. Rather, it is a systemic process in which faith, intention, and action all play their part.

@Joshua You cannot impose on God a system of salvation that the Bible nowhere teaches.

4:56 PM

@LeeWoofenden 1) Jesus did not say whoever looks at a woman with lustful intent, that he then embodies by acting on it,... 2) Everyone here is my witness of your incessant need to redirect everything (when there was nothing in my post relating to it) to your crusade on your understanding of faith alone. Just stop. Please. Stop ambushing and hijacking sincere discussion.

You can connect the two topics. But there was nothing in my post to indicate I was attempting to. I was speaking of ethical systems being referenced earlier in what was being considered right or wrong vs what the bible specifically and directly commands in the most literalist way possible.

@Joshua Please just stop telling me to just stop. Stop trying to stop sincere discussion by telling people who disagree with you to stop.

5:11 PM

@LeeWoofenden No. That's not what I said. I said stop redirecting irrelevant discussion to your pet topic. I did not say you cannot have sincere discussion about your pet topic with whoever wishes to sincerely engage in that discussion. Just stop trying to force me to discuss it. I honestly can't tell when you mean to do it, but you misunderstand simple comments so often and then wonder why I don't your explanation of "basic meaning without interpretation".

And if you want to complain about me redirecting the discussion to point this out...well. I accept that irony.

@Joshua I would be happy to have you explain how my statement did not respond specifically to what you said. And if you want to further expand on what you meant by what you said, and why you said it, I'm all ears.

@Joshua However, the Greek word Jesus uses here that is translated "lust" is not a lightweight word. It's not talking about thinking, "Wow, she's hot!" It is a word that means to ardently burn with passion for. In other words, Jesus is talking about a driving passion that will impel a man to have sex with the woman if he possibly can. He's not just talking about fantasizing about having sex with the woman.

Interpreting that passage to mean that anyone who has sexual thoughts about another person has committed adultery with that person is simply not supported by the Greek wording of what Jesus said.

@Joshua If you don't want to respond to something I say, you don't have to. But this is an open discussion. And I think you're the one hijacking the discussion by turning it into an argument about what we can and can't discuss here, instead of dealing with the substance of what's under discussion.

@Joshua Back to this point, Jesus is not saying that just thinking something in your head is tantamount to committing it. He's saying that when we have a burning passion and desire to do something, that's tantamount to doing it because that's what drives us to do it, and we will do it if we can. That's what Jesus was talking about when he said:

> But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile. (Matthew 15:18-20)

So his teaching is that actions by themselves don't defile us. But actions that come from evil intentions in the heart do defile us.

6:25 PM

@LeeWoofenden Well the Greek doesn't support that strict meaning either. It simply means a strong or deep longing and desire. "Burning with passion" is a certainly correct in this context but Jesus did not say he ardently burned with passion to eat this Passover meal with the disciples...not in that same context. I did not say "think" you did. I said intent and desire.

@Joshua I think Jesus did ardently burn with passion to eat the Passover meal with the disciples. Obviously not sexual passion. The type of passion depends upon the context.

But lets go to the Greek in Matt 5 and see where he says "already/even now" is "ἤδη"and clearly shows the intent being declared sin before it has emerged as an act.

@LeeWoofenden Yes I literally just said that...

@Joshua So the point is, the word means a driving desire to do something--a desire of the sort that if the opportunity is available or we can make an opportunity to do it, we will do it. The particular thing we burn with passion to do is not the point. The point is that it is the burning passion that leads us to do the thing if we can.

@Joshua So yes, the intent is key, because that's where the act comes from. Intent without action if action is possible is not real intent. Someone who has that sort of intent will act on it if possible. And that's precisely why intention is key. Because it is the source.

But it would be missing the point to say, "See, the action doesn't matter!"

In the end, the action expresses the intent, and embodies the intent within itself.

8:38 PM

@LeeWoofenden I didn't say the action doesn't matter. But it's more of a spectrum than black and white. If you think about hitting me hypothetically, not a problem. Probably not healthy and won't go anywhere good, but haven't crossed a line until you actually want to hit me. That's the line between being carried off by your desire or not that James speaks of. Just because you can't physically fulfill the act does not remove the sin. That is a horrific concept.

The only difference between thinking and wanting to hit someone is desire. The only difference between desiring to hitting someone and actually hitting them...is simply more desire. What has changed in the heart the instant before one hits to the instant after?

Opportunity certainly is involved but it's also precisely why we know it's wrong either way. Too often we rename inhibition self control. Laws, punishments and other factors discourage people from doing evil things. They do not,make the person better or give them better self control, they simply provide obstacles and reasons not to do evil because it will hurt you. That's not self control, that's self preservation.

That's how we setup objective ethical systems so we can function in society. This includes the civil laws given to the Israelites. That is the context of The Sermon on the Mount. The Pharisees had Define morality by the rules. They said here's what you have to do and you are righteous. Jesus said no you lower the bar it's really always been the way up here

White washed thin righteousness cannot stand up to the scrutiny that Jesus presents. It cannot handle the idea that we sin constantly. Yes even in our negative thoughts and emotions that go unchecked. It's much easier to lower the bar and say we'll just don't do these bad things and you are okay. That's the point of The Sermon on the Mount.

"You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" is how Matt 5 ends after he's given example after example of how the standard was higher than they thought. It's like telling an algebra 1 class before the final test that it will be on calculus and the only passing grade is a 100. Impossible. That's the point.

Q: Source for Expression: "There is No Prophet For His Own Town"

8:54 PM

@Joshua No, the point isn't that it's impossible. And nowhere in the Bible itself does it say that it's impossible for us to be righteous. Also, "perfect" in the original languages does not have the same sense it does in English. It has more of a sense of "complete." In other words, don't stop short. Keep going until you've finished the job.

It also does not say, "And if you're not perfect, I'll throw you into hell." The Bible never says that. What Jesus is giving here is not an absolute standard, but an ideal and a goal that we are to seek for, and not rest. So he's saying that it's an ongoing process of moving toward perfection.

I do agree with most of the rest of what you're saying here. If we want to do something, but don't do it only because we'll get in trouble if we do, then we're still sinners because we would do that thing if we thought we could get away with it.

I would only add that if we strongly desire to do something, but we stop ourselves because we know and believe that it would be the wrong thing to do, then we are not held spiritually guilty of that as sin because even though we have the desire, our desire to be righteous and follow God's will and God's teachings prevails.

That's why it's important to understand that it is desire or intention that will result in action if the circumstances permit it in our mind that causes something to be sinful even if it is not acted upon. The intent to actually act upon something if we feel we can is critical to our innocence or guilt.

And there is a difference in a person's mind immediately after acting upon something compared to just before acting on it. Acting completes the intention, and gives it concrete reality. And once we have acted upon an evil desire, it becomes more fully a part of us. That is, if we don't realize it was wrong and repent of it. Also, acting upon it begins a whole chain of consequences that don't result if we don't act upon it.

So it is always better not to act upon evil desires even if we're restraining ourselves for the wrong reason, such as saving our own skin. If we at least get ourselves into the habit of acting rightly even if we have the wrong motives behind it, then over time God has the possibility of reaching our heart and changing our motives so that instead of doing the right thing for the wrong reason, we do the right thing for the right reason.

Once we start acting upon our evil desires, they become baked into our character, and that makes it harder to repent from them and let God change our heart. As a simple example, actually smoking cigarettes sets up an addictive pattern that is not present if we only want to smoke cigarettes but don't because we'll get in big trouble if we do (thinking in terms of a teenager contemplating smoking).

It's still better not to smoke cigarettes, even if it's for the wrong reasons. Later we might get smart and realize that it would be really stupid and addictive to start smoking.

Elisha and his Brethren

10:06 PM

1

There is an expression: אין נביא לעירו which apparently refers to the lack of control or respect wielded by local authorities over their own populace. The earliest source I know for this is the responsa of the Hattam Soffer (HM Vol. V:22) who attributes this to Hazal. ואיך ידחה הוא הרב המקוב...

sources-mekorot christianity provenance navi-prophets

11:09 PM

@LeeWoofenden your example betrays that you are still thinking in action based ways. There is nothing wrong with smoking a cigarette. What I am saying is admittedly extremely difficult to both understand and accept because it disagrees with so much that we've been programmed. It also can come off as relativism.

But one man can smoke a cigarette and a second can also. The first is sinning the second isn't. How is that possible? God searches the hearts of man. One man can eat food sacrificed to idols in front of someone who does not accept that and a second man does the same. First man is sinning the second is not. If a system cannot resolve these scenarios it both is unbiblical and useless.