tam wrote:
Didn't Christ say that all the prophets and the law hang on the two greatest commandments (love God with your whole heart and love your neighbor as yourself)? So none of the rest should have been necessary, except that the people needed them 'fleshed out' so to speak, (due to the hardness of their hearts; hearts too hard for the law - of love - to yet be written upon them).
Ok, so in other words, the bulk of the Bible is for "
other people" who have "
hardened hearts". Not for people like us.
Actually that idea is quite problematic itself and deserves an entire thread of its own.
tam wrote:
Love does not steal; love does not commit adultery; love does not bear false witness; love does not lust after what belongs to your neighbor (or even your enemy); love is merciful, love forgives; love gives to those in need, etc.
Exactly. So this doesn't apply to you and me then because we have no desire to do those things. In my family some of my uncles (my mother's brothers) were Christian Pastors. And some of them (also my mother's brothers) were atheists. So as you can probably imagine we had many campfire discussions about philosophy and religion. And these were never hostile or confrontational debates. All of my uncles were quite civil and behaved in an intelligent and mature manner. They had very civil discussions even though they had wildly opposing views concerning Christianity.
In any case, the reason I'm bringing this up is because one topic that kept coming up repeatedly was the fact that no one in our entire family seemed to have any desire to "
sin", especially regarding the main types of sin you just described. None my uncles ever cheated on their wives to my knowledge. And usually if something like that happens it get out. They all remained happily married until their death. And they are all indeed dead and gone. In fact my whole entire family is dead and gone save for my sister.
In any case, the point is that my uncles used to sit around and ask why it was that our family seems to have inherited a "Get out of Temptation Free" pass. Because no one in our family seems to have ever even been tempted to do these things. And this includes the uncles who were atheists. So it clearly can't have anything to do with the fact that some of the uncles were believers.
In fact, the atheist uncles were definitely the smartest of the bunch. And no one questioned that, not even the uncles who were pastors. That's an aside, but an important one I think.
In any case, why is it that you and I don't have these problems. Clearly you might credit your character to your belief in Christ. Maybe you even changed and at one time had a "hardened heart" where you weren't so loving?
But clearly that couldn't explain it because I don't have a hardened heart, and I didn't "
come to Christ". To the contrary I ultimately ended up rejecting the religion as being clearly false. So we can't attribute my loving heart to Jesus.
So why is it the people like you and me are so different from all these other people who have hardened hearts?
This isn't adding up for Christianity. We shouldn't be any different from anyone else.
Why were we given a "
loving heart" and others weren't?
tam wrote:
What constitutes a "sin". Only that which harms another?
Sin is error. Sin is wrongdoing. Most sins I think we commit on our own; some sins we are born with (such as sin - error - in the flesh that cause sickness and death).
But why accept this just because this religion claims it to be true?
Why embrace a religion that demands that we are "born in sin". Or that our physical body represents some for of "sinful flesh".
Isn't that basically nothing more than an extremely negative view of our reality? Why look at your body as a vessel of sin? Just because this religion says so?
I just see no reason to accept such a negative view of life. Especially when there's no reason to believe in this religion.
tam wrote:
I'm a single man. Let's say that I go out to a restaurant with the totally innocent intention of simply having a nice meal. So I go into the restaurant and sit down at a table. Shortly afterward a woman comes in and sits down at a table across the isle from me. She is very attractive and is even dressed in an extremely provocative way that exposes much of her flesh. My God-given male libido kicks in. I naturally notice the woman and naturally become sexually aroused. Not even my intent to do so. I just came here to eat.
Not sure why (or if) you assume that everything to do with the 'natural' impulses of your flesh are God-given.
Hey, God supposedly designed this body including all its hormones and reactions. There is simply no one else to blame for this. Unless you want to blame it on evolution, but evolution can hardly be held responsible for anything.
But a designer God is responsible for what he designs.
tam wrote:
This body has sin and death in it; this is the body that we inherited from Adam and Eve AFTER they ate of the tree of knowing good (life)
and bad (death). The flesh is very selfish. Feed me, clothe me, comfort me, pleasure me, etc.
Now you are talking about a body of flesh as though it has a mind of its own.
Also, are you forgetting that the "
clothe me" part is God's idea? God is the one who created Adam and Eve in naked sin. He should have designed clothes for them. Instead he created them naked and they had to hide behind fig leave.
How silly is that?
tam wrote:
Not saying that attraction is a sin. Just saying that not every impulse of the flesh is good just because it is 'natural'.
I didn't pass any judgement on whether its good or bad. All I did was point out that sexual desire is a natural part of being human. Especially for a single man. And it's Christianity that wants to make this into something "dirty" or sinful.
Christianity is what makes things "dirty".
tam wrote:
Regardless... so you are attracted to this woman.
None the less this sparks my sexual interest I start to imagine what it might be like to have an intimate loving relationship with this unknown woman. I have no clue whether the woman is married or not. If she's single then perhaps there's no sin in "lusting after her in my heart (or other important organs)". However, if she's married, then I'm committing the sin of lusting after another man's wife.
Yes, the whole point of the 'lusting after' is the
adultery one commits in one's heart (if you are married and you lust after someone else; or if you are lusting after someone else who is married).
It was not just about having desire.
Well, there you go. Then without knowing whether or not the woman is married I can't know whether having desire for her is a sin or not. So I'm not even in a position to be able to tell what is or isn't a sin.
tam wrote:
As for sinning in ignorance, take the law for example: if a person breaks a law in ignorance they have still broken the law, have they not? Leniency might be shown them because of their ignorance; perhaps the person is given only a warning; perhaps they are completely forgiven. But that does not mean the law was not broken. If I broke a law (or even just a rule or custom in someone else's house), out of ignorance, I would still apologize as soon as it was brought to my attention. Would love not do that?
But you are talking about secular law here.
According to Jesus ignorance of the law is a perfectly fine excuse for breaking the law. Have you forgotten Jesus famous words on the cross?
"Father forgive them for they know not what they do".
Obviously Jesus is prepared to forgive people if they simply don't know that what they are doing is wrong. He "
instructed" is Father to do the same. In fact, don't you find this odd that Jesus would need to instruct God on when God should forgive people? Don't you think God should already know what the rules are?
The mere fact that Jesus is instructing God one how to judge people suggests that these stories are totally made up fiction. And poorly thought-out fiction as well.
If God already knew that ignorance of the law is sufficient to be forgiven Jesus most certainly shouldn't have needed to tell him.
But now we know. As Christians, ignorance of sin is a perfectly fine excuse. Because Jesus tells us so. If we don't know that what we are doing is wrong, we are to be forgiven. That's what Jesus said to God.
So in Christianity ignorance of the law is a perfectly fine excuse. Don't try to get away with that in a secular courtroom. But with Jesus it's a perfectly acceptable defense.
In fact, we can take this even further. Any atheists who doesn't believe that any God's exist, must then be forgiven according to Jesus. Because "they know not what they do". As far as they are concerned there simply is no God. They don't know any better. So Jesus has to forgiven them if he plans on being consistent in his judgements.
Yet Paul claims that atheists are "
Without Excuse". So Paul differs from Jesus on this point. According to Jesus, if a person truly doesn't believe that any God exists, then they must be forgiven, "
For they know not what they do".
That's the law of Jesus.
Don't confuse this with secular law where ignorance of the law is no excuse. That's something entirely different. That's a man-made criteria there. That's not how Jesus deals with ignorance. Jesus forgives ignorance.
