Empathy

[partinobodycular]

Laws do not judge character. Laws judge acts.

Which is exactly my point. As Jesus pointed out in Matthew 5:28 it's actually lust that's the sin, but the law can't tell what's in a person's heart and so it judges them according to the act alone, and not according to what's in their heart. Homosexuality is thus universally condemned because of the act itself, regardless of whether that act was born out of lust or love. Therein lies the law's flaw... it cannot judge hearts. But God can, and hopefully the members of His church can, and it's this ability to judge people by what's in their heart that allows divorced people and homosexual people to be welcome in God's church.

 

[zippy2006]

Your argument, that attributing our highest aspirations to transcendent figures is just projection...

If we're just doing strawmen then I'll say that your argument that no one ever projects their personal beliefs on cultural heroes is naive.

 

[zippy2006]

As Jesus pointed out in Matthew 5:28 it's actually lust that's the sin, but the law can't tell what's in a person's heart and so it judges them according to the act alone, and not according to what's in their heart.

You imply that Jesus thinks the act of adultery may or may not involve lust, and we just can't know. That's not true at all.

Homosexuality is thus universally condemned because of the act itself, regardless of whether that act was born out of lust or love. Therein lies the law's flaw... it cannot judge hearts.

You are trying to say that the law is insufficient because breaking the law might actually be a good thing. That's a form of antinomianism, a Christian heresy. It has nothing to do with Jesus, who said that "not even the smallest part of the law will be abrogated." The point about judging the heart has to do with those, like the Pharisees, who fulfilled the letter of the law but did not fulfill the spirit of the law. It did not have to do with people who outright break the letter of the law. Laws literally exist so that vice can be rooted out. Your notion that we can't enforce laws because laws concern behavior but we should judge the heart rather than focusing on any particular behavior is rather crazy. Again, Jesus is a rigorist. He is not saying, "Don't worry about adultery. Feel free to commit adultery all you like as long as you don't lust therein." He is saying, "Adultery is a terrible sin of lust, but just because you have avoided that terrible sin of lust does not mean that you have avoided the sin of lust."

 

[partinobodycular]

He is not saying, "Don't worry about adultery. Feel free to commit adultery all you like as long as you don't lust therein." He is saying, "Adultery is a terrible sin of lust, but just because you have avoided that terrible sin of lust does not mean that you have avoided the sin of lust."

But if I understand my Catholicism correctly aren't all sins born out of the 'capital vices'? As such shouldn't there be a 'capital vice' from which adultery is born? If not lust, then what?

 

[FireDragon76]

If we're just doing strawmen then I'll say that your argument that no one ever projects their personal beliefs on cultural heroes is naive.

That's not my argument. My argument is often it's the very place that God meets us. What matters is discernment, are we exhibiting the fruits of the Spirit and personal transformation? I don't care about some Integralist intepretation of natural law, frankly. That's not a mature way of discerning people's spiritual disposition.

 

[zippy2006]

But

"But" indicates that you disagree, and that what follows your 'but' contradicts something that I have said. So what do you disagree with in what I said, and how does anything that you have said contradict it?

 

[Hans Blaster]

You are trying to say that the law is insufficient because breaking the law might actually be a good thing. That's a form of antinomianism, a Christian heresy. It has nothing to do with Jesus, who said that "not even the smallest part of the law will be abrogated." The point about judging the heart has to do with those, like the Pharisees, who fulfilled the letter of the law but did not fulfill the spirit of the law. It did not have to do with people who outright break the letter of the law. Laws literally exist so that vice can be rooted out. Your notion that we can't enforce laws because laws concern behavior but we should judge the heart rather than focusing on any particular behavior is rather crazy. Again, Jesus is a rigorist. He is not saying, "Don't worry about adultery. Feel free to commit adultery all you like as long as you don't lust therein." He is saying, "Adultery is a terrible sin of lust, but just because you have avoided that terrible sin of lust does not mean that you have avoided the sin of lust."

Jesus (or rather the Jesus who speaks in the Gospels) is definitely a "obey the laws of Moses" guy who make following the law harder (lust is adultery, etc.). This is but one reason I am not particularly impressed by the morality of Jesus. Paul seems to have other ideas about the law.

 

[FireDragon76]

Jesus (or rather the Jesus who speaks in the Gospels) is definitely a "obey the laws of Moses" guy who make following the law harder (lust is adultery, etc.). This is but one reason I am not particularly impressed by the morality of Jesus. Paul seems to have other ideas about the law.

Jesus isn't speaking as much as you'ld think about conventional morality. He's interested in what is in the heart, not external rules. The word "hypocrite" that he uses alot, actually refers to an actor wearing a mask, pretending to be something he isn't. So maybe Jesus teachings are really about pointing to a deeper kind of authenticity, one beneath mere performativity.

 

[partinobodycular]

"But" indicates that you disagree, and that what follows your 'but' contradicts something that I have said. So what do you disagree with in what I said, and how does anything that you have said contradict it?

Then please, let me attempt to clarify. The following is the hyperbole to which I object.

He is not saying, "Don't worry about adultery. Feel free to commit adultery all you like as long as you don't lust therein."

Marriage for the most part comes with a solemn promise of fidelity between a man and his wife. In adultery, it's not the sexual act itself that's the sin, it's the breaking of the promise that's the sin.

The second thing that we need to consider is just what Christ meant by 'lust'. Did He simply mean that anytime that a man looks at a woman other than his wife, and thinks hubba-hubba... that's lust? Or was he talking about a man who actively desires a woman other than his wife, even though he doesn't have the opportunity to fulfill that desire. To my reading anyway, that's when Christ is saying that the man has already committed adultery with her in his heart. It's a vow broken, if not in body, then at least in spirit. If on the other hand the man has those thoughts, but actively suppresses them as inappropriate, then it's not a vow broken... it's not adultery, it's fidelity.

Once again, the law can't judge the heart, but God can.

Oh, and @Hans Blaster, it's not simply a matter of thinking the thoughts in one's head, it's about having the active desire to fulfill them, rather than voluntarily suppressing them. A married man can have those thoughts, but if they're subsequently followed by a faithfulness to his promise, then that's what we call fidelity.