The other day, some friends and I were at lunch. One of my friends is looked at as "all-knowing" in the area of religion. For all practical purposes lets call him Bill.
The other friend that made the comment that caused the controversy is one who constantly talks about girls. I mean, he can't even let them walk by without talking about having his way with them. Unfortunately, we all think the same things, we are just able to keep them to ourselves. Also to make it easy, let's call this friend Joe.
So anyway, Joe is talking about what he would like to do with this girl, and says, "In god's eyes, isn't talking about it just as bad as doing it?" He directed towards Bill, because for some reason people think he's all knowing in the area of religion.
This is when I chime in and say, "Of course it doesn't mean that!"
Bill disagrees and says, "That is true!"
I come back with, "So you're telling me that If I think about murdering someone and dont do it, it's exactly the same as murdering them"?
"Yes," Bill says, "It's committing murder in your heart!"
"Give me a break," I said, "You actually believe that?"
"You can't believe some parts or the bible and not believe all of it!" Bill said.
So at this time, Joe stops the argument that had unexpectedly erupted.
So here's my question:
I've read in the bible what Bill was talking about. But I feel like what that part means is that, In order to be the best christian person you can be, you should scold yourself for thinking about sinning as bad as you would for committing the sin. In other words, if you think about having sex outside of marriage, you should scold yourself to the same extent as if you had actually committed the act.
But... to tell my friend Joe that him thinking about girls in a sexual way is just as bad as him going out and having his way with them is absolutely ridiculous in my eyes. If this is the case, then why should Joe just think about these things? If it's the same in god's eyes why should Joe not just go ahead and get his money's worth.
The fact of the matter is, I feel like I understand what god meant when he said that when one lusts about something they are committing the sin in their heart.
But, I feel that Bill definately has the wrong idea about what this means.
To say that there are no degrees to sin is only true to a certain extent. Maybe god sees them as the same, but if we tell people that all sins are the same, why only think about the sins?? Why not go out and do them???
One might argue that it is worse to know something is wrong and commit the sin anyway... Or, If you had the correct type of faith you would know that It was not right to knowingly commit these sins.
These arguments are only valid if there are indeed degrees of sin.
What it all boils down to, is if there are no degrees of sin, what's the incentive to suppress the urge of actually carrying out the act.
How can anyone tell me that my friend talking or thinking about having his way with girls and not going through with the act is just as bad as him doing the acts he is thinking about.
An argument in this direction seems ridiculous to me.
Could someone maybe provide some insight to this. Maybe I'm wrong, but If I am wrong, I'd like to know why?
Thank you for reading.. Sorry about the long post.
The other friend that made the comment that caused the controversy is one who constantly talks about girls. I mean, he can't even let them walk by without talking about having his way with them. Unfortunately, we all think the same things, we are just able to keep them to ourselves. Also to make it easy, let's call this friend Joe.
So anyway, Joe is talking about what he would like to do with this girl, and says, "In god's eyes, isn't talking about it just as bad as doing it?" He directed towards Bill, because for some reason people think he's all knowing in the area of religion.
This is when I chime in and say, "Of course it doesn't mean that!"
Bill disagrees and says, "That is true!"
I come back with, "So you're telling me that If I think about murdering someone and dont do it, it's exactly the same as murdering them"?
"Yes," Bill says, "It's committing murder in your heart!"
"Give me a break," I said, "You actually believe that?"
"You can't believe some parts or the bible and not believe all of it!" Bill said.
So at this time, Joe stops the argument that had unexpectedly erupted.
So here's my question:
I've read in the bible what Bill was talking about. But I feel like what that part means is that, In order to be the best christian person you can be, you should scold yourself for thinking about sinning as bad as you would for committing the sin. In other words, if you think about having sex outside of marriage, you should scold yourself to the same extent as if you had actually committed the act.
But... to tell my friend Joe that him thinking about girls in a sexual way is just as bad as him going out and having his way with them is absolutely ridiculous in my eyes. If this is the case, then why should Joe just think about these things? If it's the same in god's eyes why should Joe not just go ahead and get his money's worth.
The fact of the matter is, I feel like I understand what god meant when he said that when one lusts about something they are committing the sin in their heart.
But, I feel that Bill definately has the wrong idea about what this means.
To say that there are no degrees to sin is only true to a certain extent. Maybe god sees them as the same, but if we tell people that all sins are the same, why only think about the sins?? Why not go out and do them???
One might argue that it is worse to know something is wrong and commit the sin anyway... Or, If you had the correct type of faith you would know that It was not right to knowingly commit these sins.
These arguments are only valid if there are indeed degrees of sin.
What it all boils down to, is if there are no degrees of sin, what's the incentive to suppress the urge of actually carrying out the act.
How can anyone tell me that my friend talking or thinking about having his way with girls and not going through with the act is just as bad as him doing the acts he is thinking about.
An argument in this direction seems ridiculous to me.
Could someone maybe provide some insight to this. Maybe I'm wrong, but If I am wrong, I'd like to know why?
Thank you for reading.. Sorry about the long post.