Do These Acts Break Commandments?

[Ken Rank]

Sin is sin. One wrong doing (or sin) does not undo another sin (if that is what you are suggesting). Sins like fornication, prostitution, drug use, and witchcraft are clearly condemned in the Bible. It is not wrong to correct others by the Word of God for their thinking that certain sins are not wrong. They are in error.

As for hypocritical judgment: Are you implying that I am sinning because I am pointing another person's error? Paul judged the Corinthian church for allowing a man who committed sexual immorality to abide within their fellowship. Paul said not to keep company with fornicators. So Paul had a right to correct sin. Just as you and I can correct others if they sin. In other words, correcting those who sin does not automatically mean that the corrector is in sin themselves.

As for sins of ignorance: I believe sins of ignorance only applies to sins that do not lead unto the second death (like not being baptized (1 Peter 3:21), or causing divisions within the body (1 Corinthians 3), or hidden or secret faults (Psalms 19:12)). A person cannot murder others (and be ignorant of murder) and still be saved. 1 John 3:15 says no murderers have eternal life abiding within them. Revelation 21:8 says all liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire. So there are certain sins (whether one is ignorant or aware), they will die spiritually if they are committing them (Regardless of whether they believe Jesus is their Savior or not).


...

That is all nice religious talk that will allow you to use words so they fit your theology. Yeshua was a Jew, all the disciples save for two were Jewish. They all lived in a Semitic culture, two thousand years ago and regardless of what language the NT was written in.. the MINDSET behind it was Hebraic. That is easily recognizable when you become familiar with all the Hebraic idioms, figures of speech and other Hebraic nuances seen throughout the NT. If sin in THEIR MIND at THAT TIME was broken down into unintentional or unknown, short term disobedience, and rebellion... then that is what it is.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

That is all nice religious talk that will allow you to use words so they fit your theology. Yeshua was a Jew, all the disciples save for two were Jewish. They all lived in a Semitic culture, two thousand years ago and regardless of what language the NT was written in.. the MINDSET behind it was Hebraic. That is easily recognizable when you become familiar with all the Hebraic idioms, figures of speech and other Hebraic nuances seen throughout the NT. If sin in THEIR MIND at THAT TIME was broken down into unintentional or unknown, short term disobedience, and rebellion... then that is what it is.

I am simple. God is simple. God is not the author of confusion. God can easily communicate to me using my own language. God does not require me to know another language or culture to understand His Word. Can it help? Yes, but one has to be careful not to listen to the teachings of men in the process, though. Teachers can say certain things in the Word of God can mean "this or that", but they may be lying. The best way to understand God's Word is just you and GOD and His Word. Pray, and compare Scripture with Scripture. In other words, instead of just giving me definitions, try giving me the Word of God to prove your case.

In other words, if you believe a person can commit certain horrible sins like murder, or lying, or fornicating in ignorance and still be saved, then you need to show me a clear Biblical example of this in the New Testament.


...

 

[Ken Rank]

I am simple. God is simple. God is not the author of confusion. God can easily communicate to me using my own language. God does not require me to know another language or culture to understand His Word. Can it help? Yes, but one has to be careful not to listen to the teachings of men in the process, though. Teachers can say certain things in the Word of God can mean "this or that", but they may be lying. The best way to understand God's Word is just you and GOD and His Word. Pray, and compare Scripture with Scripture. In other words, instead of just giving me definitions, try giving me the Word of God to prove your case.

Ok then... do you want to prove to me your point? Can you give me a SHORT explanation of Romans 8:15. What does it mean to be adopted?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Ok then... do you want to prove to me your point? Can you give me a SHORT explanation of Romans 8:15. What does it mean to be adopted?

Everyone who has went to school knows what adoption means.
But this verse on adoption must be read in light of the surrounding text, though.

For Romans 8:15 is in context to the faithful saint.

For Romans 8 also says,

6 "For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God."
(Romans 8:6-8).

13 "For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God."
(Romans 8:13-14).

However, you must also realize that the Bible also teaches that sons can die, too (Regardless of whether they are adopted or not). In fact, we learn this by the Parable of the Prodigal Son. When the prodigal son came home, his father said twice that his son was dead (past tense) and he is alive again. The parable was speaking in spiritual terms. The prodigal son was dead spiritually when he was prodigal and he became alive again spiritually when he came home willing to repent before all of heaven and before his father.

I believe the Parable of the Prodigal Son is two fold in meaning. It is a message to the Jews and it is a message to the Gentiles (or mankind in general). The message that is to mankind in general is about how we all were once in favor with GOD when we were babies, but then when we grew up, we all went prodigal into sin and needed to return to the Father (thru Jesus Christ) and become His faithful servant.

Anyways, verse 14 (Romans 8:14) is the context of whether one is truly a real adopted son of God or not. Verses 6 and 13 describes how a true adopted son behaves versus those of this world (who are sinful).


...

 

[Ken Rank]

Everyone who has went to school knows what adoption means.
But this verse on adoption must be read in light of the surrounding text, though.

For Romans 8:15 is in context to the faithful saint.

For Romans 8 also says,

6 "For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God."
(Romans 8:6-8).

13 "For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God."
(Romans 8:13-14).

However, you must also realize that the Bible also teaches that sons can die, too (Regardless of whether they are adopted or not). In fact, we learn this by the Parable of the Prodigal Son. When the prodigal son came home, his father said twice that his son was dead (past tense) and he is alive again. The parable was speaking in spiritual terms. The prodigal son was dead spiritually when he was prodigal and he became alive again spiritually when he came home willing to repent before all of heaven and before his father.

I believe the Parable of the Prodigal Son is two fold in meaning. It is a message to the Jews and it is a message to the Gentiles (or mankind in general). The message that is to mankind in general is about how we all were once in favor with GOD when we were babies, but then we grew up, we all went prodigal into sin and needed to return to the Father (thru Jesus Christ) and become His faithful servant.

Anyways, verse 14 (Romans 8:14) is the context of whether one is truly a real adopted son of God or not.


...

Thank you. In modern English, "adoption" is the taking in of an orphan or homeless person, usually a child, and making them one of your own. You have applied that definition because that is what we do, we assume that the meaning of words do not change... but they do.

As recently as the Justinian Codes (early 6th century) and back through time as far as we can see, it was understood that adoption was NOT dealing with your definition, at least not exactly. You see Jason, you are only partly correct. Adoption is dealing with WORK.

If you were, say, a tent maker... and your son showed the ability and desire to become a good tent maker, you would adopt him into your business and he would learn it and become a partner in it with you. We have examples throughout time of grandfathers adopting their grandsons, a father adopting one son but not the other. When we become an adopted son of God it is because we have joined into His family to do the WORK of that family. The idea that we were spiritual orphans needing a spiritual home sounds great and fits the modern Christian picture of God's family... but while we are taken in and become a part of the family, it is because He has work He desires us to do.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Thank you. In modern English, "adoption" is the taking in of an orphan or homeless person, usually a child, and making them one of your own. You have applied that definition because that is what we do, we assume that the meaning of words do not change... but they do.

As recently as the Justinian Codes (early 6th century) and back through time as far as we can see, it was understood that adoption was NOT dealing with your definition, at least not exactly. You see Jason, you are only partly correct. Adoption is dealing with WORK.

If you were, say, a tent maker... and your son showed the ability and desire to become a good tent maker, you would adopt him into your business and he would learn it and become a partner in it with you. We have examples throughout time of grandfathers adopting their grandsons, a father adopting one son but not the other. When we become an adopted son of God it is because we have joined into His family to do the WORK of that family. The idea that we were spiritual orphans needing a spiritual home sounds great and fits the modern Christian picture of God's family... but while we are taken in and become a part of the family, it is because He has work He desires us to do.

Right, because light gathers where there is light and darkness gathers where there is darkness.

19 "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."
(John 3:19-21).

No man can serve two masters. One is a part of the devil's kingdom because of their sin (and non-repentance) or one is of the adoption of God's kingdom thru Jesus Christ whereby they have truly repented of their sin.

There are those today who deny Him (Jesus) in works (Titus 1:16 cf. 2 Corinthians 13:5); And there are those today who will not see the LORD because they are not living holy (Hebrews 12:14).


...

 

[Ken Rank]

Right, because light gathers where there is light and darkness gathers where there is darkness.

19 "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."
(John 3:19-21).

No man can serve two masters. One is a part of the devil's kingdom because of their sin (and non-repentance) or one is of the adoption of God's kingdom thru Jesus Christ whereby they have truly repented of their sin.

There are those today who deny Him (Jesus) in works (Titus 1:16 cf. 2 Corinthians 13:5).


...

Actually, one can belong to God and not be adopted. But I don't think you'll hear that one now. Anyway... we have gotten off tract, off the thread... and I would rather have this discussion on another thread or in person so if you don't mind, let's get back to the topic.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Right, because light gathers where there is light and darkness gathers where there is darkness.

19 "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."
(John 3:19-21).

Meaning, some people (Regardless of whether they claim to be Christian or not) will seek to justify their sin (darkness) and remain in darkness and others who are truly Christian will repent of their sins and follow Jesus and or seek to imitate his life (So as to give the LORD all the glory).


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Actually, one can belong to God and not be adopted. But I don't think you'll hear that one now. Anyway... we have gotten off tract, off the thread... and I would rather have this discussion on another thread or in person so if you don't mind, let's get back to the topic.

A person can belong to GOD and not be adopted? While this might have been the case for Adam and Eve before the fall, this would not be the case aftewards. To say so otherwise is crazy talk. But give me a thread link when you think you got a good case with Scripture on this one.


...

 

[Ken Rank]

A person can belong to GOD and not be adopted? That's crazy talk. But give me a thread link when you think you got a good case with Scripture on this one.


...

Yes, it is true but your response (calling it crazy talk BEFORE proving or disproving my point) proves I was correct, you won't hear it now. Back to the thread topic please.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yes, it is true but your response (calling it crazy talk BEFORE proving or disproving my point) proves I was correct, you won't hear it now. Back to the thread topic please.

I asked you to prove your case with Scripture in another thread. If I didn't want to hear you, I wouldn't have asked you to do that. Besides Adam and Eve before the fall, nobody automatically belongs to God (in a salvation sense) without His adoption thru His Son. For there is no other name under Heaven whereby men can be saved.


....

 

[Ken Rank]

I asked you to prove your case with Scripture in another thread. If I didn't want to hear you, I wouldn't have asked you to do that. Besides Adam and Eve before the fall, nobody automatically belongs to God (in a salvation sense) without His adoption thru His Son. For there is no other name under Heaven whereby men can be saved.


....

Dude, come on... you called it crazy talk and then asked for proof. That isn't how two adult Christians treat one another. As for adoption... and this is my last post in this thread on it... you are using YOUR definition, your MODERN ENGLISH definition and imposing it on Scripture. You said you can do that and don't need to learn any other languages or perhaps even study certain rules of exegesis? I mean, Paul uses a few of the 7 Rules of Hillel over 30 times in his writings and they are there SPECIFICALLY to affect context... but you said you don't need to know any of those things.... just your bible and prayer. We are to STUDY to show ourselves approved and STUDY includes taking into consideration the FACT that we are reading a book of translated copies at least 3 languages from the original. But it doesn't matter because you said it doesn't.

Just let it go brother, we both have better things to do.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Dude, come on... you called it crazy talk and then asked for proof. That isn't how two adult Christians treat one another.

I do not believe it is disrespectful to say something that is of the faith as not being true as .... "crazy talk." How would you like it if somebody told you that one of God's precious promises to you was a lie? I do not know where you come from, but the words "crazy talk" is not an offensive phrase where I come from. I asked you to show me Scripture. If you do not want to show me, I will then concede that you do not have any Scripture worthwhile to truly prove your point. For why should you suppress the truth on my account?

As for adoption... and this is my last post in this thread on it... you are using YOUR definition, your MODERN ENGLISH definition and imposing it on Scripture.

Because in Acts chapter 2, GOD had no problem in communicating to everyone so that they understood each other in their own language. Granted, I am not saying that certain English words can have different meanings than how we understand it back in the 1600's, but to say that GOD did not preserve His Word for the world language of English today would mean that His Word is not true. God says His Word is perfect and that He would preserve His Word for all generations. God is not the author of confusion whereby He requires me to study an ancient dead language.

You said you can do that and don't need to learn any other languages or perhaps even study certain rules of exegesis? I mean, Paul uses a few of the 7 Rules of Hillel over 30 times in his writings and they are there SPECIFICALLY to affect context... but you said you don't need to know any of those things.... just your bible and prayer.

Yep. What I said is true. Give me a Biblical example whereby GOD requires us to study the ancient languages in order to understand Him.

We are to STUDY to show ourselves approved and STUDY includes taking into consideration the FACT that we are reading a book of translated copies at least 3 languages from the original. But it doesn't matter because you said it doesn't.

Just let it go brother, we both have better things to do.

So you think GOD has failed to preserve His Word from the original languages? We are talking about GOD. He created the entire universe we see around us in 6 literal 24 days; There is nothing that is beyond His capabilties. For why would GOD want us to not trust our own Bibles? It doesn't make sense. Why would He make it harder for people to understand Him? Is GOD looking for that special elite class that study Hebrew and Greek only? Or do you think GOD can simply teach us by His Spirit?

Did not Jesus warn us about the Scribes?
The Scribes are those who trans-SCRIBE the Law or the written texts.
In other words, we should test what scholars say and we should not blindly accept what they are saying.


....

 

[ljglazner]

All this talk about commandments is making me wonder about something. We can point at the ten commandments, and there they are. "Don't do this" "Do that": but what about a lot of other things that, seem to be viewed as "sinful"; I was wondering, where is the commandment for some of these? I'm going to go ahead and forgo the ten-thousand ton elephant in the room:

1. Drug use. Let's have this meaning, drugs like, alcohol, marijuana since these seem to be two big "that's sinful"s; but also putting in all manner of drugs from LSD to cocaine to, whatever the streets are hawking these days. Also, would we add drugs to this list? Not, drug drugs; but, drugs like from a pharmacy?

2. Fornication. This one gets people hopping mad at this "sin" but I don't see it on the ten commandments, so why is this a sin? Technically this word in scripture looks to mean "prostitution" but people seem to categorize it as relations prior to marriage; so I'm giving it its own place on the list.

3. Gambling. Sinful breaking of a commandment?

4. Musical instruments in the church service?

5. Dancing?

6. Prostitution?

7. What about occult practitioners? Here I mean, people who are professing Christians who practice "magick" (yes, with a "k"; it's ridiculous, I know but that's how they spell it). All of their occult rituals are all "in the name of Christ" and they call it "Christian white magick": I presume this can get people stomping mad at sin, but where is the commandment?

8. Tatoos and piercings? Is this a sinful practice?

That's all I can think of right now. Let me be clear in case anyone jumps the gun here; I'm not advocating any of this, I'm wondering where the commandment to not do these things is at? This is a sincere question. It's that I'm looking at the ten commandments and wondering now if I actually break any commandments. The only one that looks "ify" to me is "adultery" but that only in application to Jesus further adding that, even lusting is an act of adultery. But, then again, I'm not married so, can I even commit adultery by lusting? Or, would I have to have a wife to be commiting "mental adultery"?

My take on the adultery issue, mental adultery I think you called it, is that you cannot commit adultery as a single person by desiring another single person. If this was wrong, nobody could get married.

 

[ljglazner]

Sure, I'm aware of verses such as this; what I'm asking is: why is Paul speaking about things that don't seem to have commandments forbidding them? Is Paul adding commandments to the law? Or, or we misunderstanding Paul in some way? What I'm looking for is actual scripture that says "do no X"



By what command? Bear in mind, this thread is not "what do you call sin?" but "where is the commandment forbidding what you call sin"?



Again, what is Jesus refering to here? What commandments? When the rich ruler asked what he must do, Jesus said "Obey the commandments" and then stated them. Fornication was not on the list. So, is Jesus here saying that "fornication" is a breaking of a commandment? What commandment?



It tells me that soldiers cast lots. The apostles also cast lots. Is that sinful? If so, by what command?



How is that obvious? By what command?



Again, by what command?



Some Christians (not me, but they exist) say it is sinful before it is adding to the word of God who says in the new covenant to sing songs, but doesn't say to play musical instruments; thus anyone who does is "adding presumptuous sin" to the scripture. They say that musical instruments in church service is "sinful" and the congregation is damned for being in a state of unrepentance.



They say it is "lustful" and say that it is "clearly sin"; and that any who dance are unrepentant sinners who are damned.



Still looking for a "command" to be broken in both cases. Otherwise it seems that everything is up for grabs as we all infer and speculate according to our own opinions.



Based on what command? What form of magic were they practicing? Was it evil spirit magic? This verse says nothing about what "magic" actually is. Was Daniel a sinner for being "master of magicians"?




Ah, there are 364(?) commandments in the old covenant? Are they all indicative of "sin"? Meaning, is wearing mixed fabrics "sinful"? If no, why are we arbitraily picking commands?

In Acts there is the early church's decision on what needs to come forward from the Old Testament. It lists three things; one dealing with false gods, which the OT says a lot about, one dealing with sexual issues, which the NT tends to simply conglomerate around "sexual immorality" but the OT goes into great detail about, and the third is about eating meat with the blood in it, something we now know is an issue of health. Other than that, Paul says that "All things are lawful for me, but not all are helpful. All things are lawful, but I will not be enslaved by any of them." I think it is dangerous to add to the Biblical lists of sins and call things sin which God does not call sin. I call it "being holier than God"

 

[John Hyperspace]

My take on the adultery issue, mental adultery I think you called it, is that you cannot commit adultery as a single person by desiring another single person. If this was wrong, nobody could get married.

That could be the case, and it seems consistent to me given the general understanding of the word, adultery. But one of the things I'm wondering about is, how do we actually define these things? What is adultery, by definition of scripture? When we start looking at the "letter of the law" things begin to become really vague, almost indecipherable. I would ask, "What is adultery?" and one may reply, "Extra-marital relationships" to which I might then ask, "What is marriage?" What is biblical God-sanctioned marriage? Is it the same as civil marriage? Or, different? When I look at the bible, I would say, "It seems strongly to say that the union of marriage is consummated in the act of sex; thus, the first person with whom you consummate: this is your God-sanctioned spouse; whether civil-sanctioned or not." Now, I'm not wanting to dwell on that, but it is entirely possible by scripture to be the case. So what is marriage? What is adultery?

Again, many are against same-sex civil marriage; but this is civil-sanctioned: thus, is it also by default God-sanctioned? If not, then civil-sanctioned marriage is not by default God-sanctioned. If it is not God-sanctioned, can one of the members of the relationship commit adultery by engaging with another person? The letter of the law opens many legitimate questions as to, how is this command actually obeyed? And most of the time there doesn't seem to be a letter of the law answer, but just endless lawyering.

BUT, when I take love into account; then I don't really need the letter of the law. If I'm in a relationship with another, then I know that "cheating" will hurt that other person. By hurting that other person, I'll hurt my own conscience and know "I have sinned against them" in that I hurt them. Then comes the begging for forgiveness. When love comes into the heart, the letter of the law can go out the window because that spirit of love engraves "do no hurt to others" into the heart and mind.

So, as far as I'm being lead to understand; there can be only one true and sure "law" which can be obeyed and disobeyed, and that is the "law of love" which is a "law unto itself" which is a sure guide to "sin" in that, hurting others will hurt your conscience. A man can then ask, "Did you commit adultery?" and I would reply "By the letter of the law; I have no idea. But it sure does hurt someone else, and that hurts my conscience, and it's then, sin": I can see no other real law, but, love of others which works no ill toward others.

 

[John Hyperspace]

My take on the adultery issue, mental adultery I think you called it, is that you cannot commit adultery as a single person by desiring another single person. If this was wrong, nobody could get married.

Quickly addressing "mental adultery" the question in my mind is, what is Jesus meaning by the "letter" when He says "lust"? If I'm married, and I see an attractive woman, and have certain thoughts about her, is this "mental adultery"? Or, is Jesus meaning "lust" in the sense of, actually beginning to think "I want to be with that woman; I'm going to try to advance on her"? I can't tell by the letter what Jesus is meaning.

By love, I know that the former "lust" doesn't hurt anyone. But the latter, is plotting to hurt the spouse in thought, if not, in deed (or, not yet birthing the act of adultery itself). Every angle from which I look at these legal concepts, I see no recourse but to fall back on love, and, love alone, as the sure guide, and the sure law. Everything else, I am confident people can think they know what the "letter of the law" means; but also confident that when it actually comes down to it, we have no idea what the "letter of the law" actually means, and, how it is actually obeyed; excepting by the law of, "love" and "do no hurt to others" - everything else seems to me to be, lawyering and Phariseeing into self-righteousness that doesn't even actually exist in obedience to "letter of command" but is a fantastic illusion of self-righteousness. That, love, and, love alone, can be obeyed or disobeyed by hurting others, or, working no harm to others; and this can only manifest condemnation in the conscience of the man.

 

[John Hyperspace]

In Acts there is the early church's decision on what needs to come forward from the Old Testament. It lists three things; one dealing with false gods, which the OT says a lot about, one dealing with sexual issues, which the NT tends to simply conglomerate around "sexual immorality" but the OT goes into great detail about, and the third is about eating meat with the blood in it, something we now know is an issue of health. Other than that, Paul says that "All things are lawful for me, but not all are helpful. All things are lawful, but I will not be enslaved by any of them." I think it is dangerous to add to the Biblical lists of sins and call things sin which God does not call sin. I call it "being holier than God"

True, and you raise an excellent point in that the apostles did not relay the ten commandments to the Gentiles but only those three things they imparted by way of message. It seems clear to me that the letter of commandments was fading away to be "born anew" in the spirit of love, and so that theme is constant in the command of Jesus and the writings of the apostles, being called the "royal law" by James: James 2:8 by which "ye do well"

I will say to one that harms another "You do sin" but other than that? I'll let others engage in that judgment if they wish. Because I, myself, cannot comprehend the letter of the law.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No. Matthew 5:28-30 is clearly talking about when a married person looks upon a woman in lust, they are committing the physical act of adultery in their heart whereby they are in dangering their own soul in being cast into hell fire for such a sin. Jesus is giving the mental sin before it leads to the actual physical sin. 1 John 3:15 says that a person is a murderer if they merely hate their brother (And no murderer has eternal life abiding within them). Meaning, anybody that hates their brother does not have eternal life abiding in them. Fornication is sex before marriage. Not being married does not give a man free reign to look at women in lust anymore than sleeping with them. If a person thinks about having sex with a woman before marriage, they are committing fornication with that woman in their heart. If that was not the case, then you can induldge in watching porn. However, porn is surely not a thing of GOD. For example: If you have wishful fantasies of stealing and yet you did not steal, you would still be committing the sin of theft in your heart. That is the point that Jesus is making with the Law of adultery in Matthew 5:28-30. He says the Law on adultery goes much deeper than the physical act. It first starts out as an actual sin within one's heart.

One is not loving their neighbor if they desire to have sex with them without their consent or without being married to them.

Think about it.

Besides, the safer play is to be more conservative with God's laws instead of being foot loose and fancy free with them. For why take the chance with a particular sin if it will cost one their own soul?

...

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Mental indulgence in lustful thoughts is sin whether in or outside of marriage (unless towards ones wife/husband). It is sin because it leads to disconnection with ones spouse emotionally and spiritually. It is sin because it can lead to sex/marriage before a wise commitment to that person is chosen. It is not a loving thought to dwell on, sexual thoughts in which one gives the mental "yes" rather than commanding them to go, unless towards ones life partner, are sin. They are not of love.