Which is more damaging?

[Copperpennies12]

The question begs an either or answer.

This assumes the original question is a valid question. (Google: false dilemma/false dichotomy)

 

[Inquisition]

This is a loaded question. Whoever asks it is usually wanting to excuse sexual immorality by saying "well at least I'm charitable". The person who answered "both" is proabably closest to the truth. I would say that sexual immorality is one evidence or expression of a lack of charity.

It is clearly a question requiring some careful thought. On that I think all can agree. I do not how ever see how there is any attempt to excuse anything in the question. I for one find both to be damaging, but I would have to say that lack of Charity is all the more damaging because it causes harm to others. I think Christ gives us a perfect assessment of the two in that on the one hand when he is presented with a woman taken in an act of sexual immorality - he tells her to go and sin no more. On the other hand when he finds men in the act of being uncharitable in the temple ( I refer here to the money changers) he not only (for lack of a better word) attacks them verbally, he also attacks them physically driving them from the temple with a whip overturning their tables.

In short, I would say that being uncharitable is a sin against the Spirit of God while sexual immorality is a sin against the flesh of man.

 

[Inquisition]

The Last Judgment of Matthew (25:31-46) takes charity as its sole criterion for salvation. If not attaining salvation is the worst that can happen, then the cause for being rejected for salvation, which is lack of charity, is the most damaging. Chastity may also be important, but nowhere in the New Testament is it taken as the sole criterion, as charity is.

valid point.

 

[Penumbra]

What do you mean by sexual immorality?

Are you talking about things like adultery that emotionally devastate other people? Or are you talking about things like consensual homosexual sex, kinky stuff, or masturbation that don't affect anyone against their will?

Because my answer for which is worse (for anyone, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, or whatever) directly depends on which kind you're talking about.

-Lyn

 

[Inquisition]

This should not be an either or question as both is the answer.

Please explain how you conclude that it should not be an either or question. Clearly they are not the same thing and effect the individuals life and the lives of those around the individual differently.

 

[Inquisition]

This assumes the original question is a valid question. (Google: false dilemma/false dichotomy)

Please explain what you see to be the equivocation here.

 

[Beanieboy]

Which is more damaging to the heart and soul of a Christian? Sexual immorality - or lack of charity?

Good question.

I think it depends on your definition of "Sexual Immorality," but I think they are the same thing (6 or 1/2 dozen).

Regardless of the sexes of the two adults involved, if one is having sex as a form of intimacy, and seeing the experience as giving to one another, rather than taking, that's not immoral.

Guys often lie to girls to sleep with them. If the lying is ok, the sleeping with a girl you never want to see again is ok, you stop seeing the girl as your neighbor, but as your conquest. You don't care about what kids at school may say about her, you may not care whether or not you get her pregnant, may want her to give to you, but you won't give to her, etc.

Rape is a violation of body and soul. You feel violated even in your spirit. It is sex used as a weapon. In ancient times, soldiers would sometimes rape their male enemies as a final act of humiliation. Straight men in prisons rape guys as an aggressive act, an act of dominance, revenge, with the intent of harm, control, humiliation and causing fear.

Seducing children, who are not sexually ready, messes them up for a long time, and is done in deceit, presented as a game, to kids who don't know any better, who may trust the adult more than they should have.

Some people say that homosexuality is immoral, but I don't believe that. However, it is often heterosexuals telling homosexuals to be celebate, while fornicating themselves, marrying, divorcing and remarrying, living a life a adultery according to the bible.

I would be a fool to even listen to such people for a minute. I think the real issue is that some who are so strong about it don't love gay people. Make them straight and they may be able to. It says more about the obsessed straight person, personally.

My relationship is very edifying, and heals my heart and soul. You can call it a sin if you wish, and you can also tell me that I am blue. It doesn't make it so.

With charity, it works in a similar way. When you refuse to give to others, you start to ONLY love yourself, and stop loving your neighbor. You begin to not help others in any form, because they should help themselves. You cut yourself off from community.

In the Sheep and the Goats, Jesus said, "I was hungry, and you did not feed me." Whenever we love one another, no matter how lowly, we love Christ, and whenever we do not love another, see someone starving and tell them that it isn't our problem, hear that a women's shelter is about to close and simply shrug, it snowballs.

When I was studying Buddhism, they spoke of having respect for all sentient beings. The monks would sweep the sidewalks after it rained so that the worms wouldn't be stepped on. They would take a spider and bring it outside. When I started to do this, bringing an ant outside, or a Spider, and once, and inchworm that had found its way to my hand, I realized something. If you respect the life God gave to each of these creatures, how much more then you respected the lives of humans. You carried the spider outside, knowing that the spider can't return the favor. You then offer your neighbor some help that he may not even know he needs, and ask nothing in return.

If you keep all the commandments, but don't have love, you have nothing, you are nothing, a noisy clanging gong in your songs of worship.

So, I would say that it is lack of love that is the most damaging, and because the love is not there, but sometimes the law, the person will judge quickly, but forgive themselves, will laugh at your misfortune and say it is punishment from God, will focus on the sins of others and not their own.

With each act, even though they might think that they are doing God's will, they harden their heart a little more, do not love their neighbor as themselves but only themselves, and keep quieting the voice of God, a candle holder so filled with the soot of selfishness, that no light gets through.

 

[Beanieboy]

This is a loaded question. Whoever asks it is usually wanting to excuse sexual immorality by saying "well at least I'm charitable". The person who answered "both" is proabably closest to the truth. I would say that sexual immorality is one evidence or expression of a lack of charity.

Yeah, this.

Charity is to generously give to others - time, money, clothes, etc.
If one is taking rather than giving, even sexually, it is a lack of charity, because you love yourself, but not the other.

 

[The Nihilist]

Good question.

I think it depends on your definition of "Sexual Immorality," but I think they are the same thing (6 or 1/2 dozen).

Regardless of the sexes of the two adults involved, if one is having sex as a form of intimacy, and seeing the experience as giving to one another, rather than taking, that's not immoral.

Guys often lie to girls to sleep with them. If the lying is ok, the sleeping with a girl you never want to see again is ok, you stop seeing the girl as your neighbor, but as your conquest. You don't care about what kids at school may say about her, you may not care whether or not you get her pregnant, may want her to give to you, but you won't give to her, etc.

Rape is a violation of body and soul. You feel violated even in your spirit. It is sex used as a weapon. In ancient times, soldiers would sometimes rape their male enemies as a final act of humiliation. Straight men in prisons rape guys as an aggressive act, an act of dominance, revenge, with the intent of harm, control, humiliation and causing fear.

Seducing children, who are not sexually ready, messes them up for a long time, and is done in deceit, presented as a game, to kids who don't know any better, who may trust the adult more than they should have.

Some people say that homosexuality is immoral, but I don't believe that. However, it is often heterosexuals telling homosexuals to be celebate, while fornicating themselves, marrying, divorcing and remarrying, living a life a adultery according to the bible.

I would be a fool to even listen to such people for a minute. I think the real issue is that some who are so strong about it don't love gay people. Make them straight and they may be able to. It says more about the obsessed straight person, personally.

My relationship is very edifying, and heals my heart and soul. You can call it a sin if you wish, and you can also tell me that I am blue. It doesn't make it so.

With charity, it works in a similar way. When you refuse to give to others, you start to ONLY love yourself, and stop loving your neighbor. You begin to not help others in any form, because they should help themselves. You cut yourself off from community.

In the Sheep and the Goats, Jesus said, "I was hungry, and you did not feed me." Whenever we love one another, no matter how lowly, we love Christ, and whenever we do not love another, see someone starving and tell them that it isn't our problem, hear that a women's shelter is about to close and simply shrug, it snowballs.

When I was studying Buddhism, they spoke of having respect for all sentient beings. The monks would sweep the sidewalks after it rained so that the worms wouldn't be stepped on. They would take a spider and bring it outside. When I started to do this, bringing an ant outside, or a Spider, and once, and inchworm that had found its way to my hand, I realized something. If you respect the life God gave to each of these creatures, how much more then you respected the lives of humans. You carried the spider outside, knowing that the spider can't return the favor. You then offer your neighbor some help that he may not even know he needs, and ask nothing in return.

If you keep all the commandments, but don't have love, you have nothing, you are nothing, a noisy clanging gong in your songs of worship.

So, I would say that it is lack of love that is the most damaging, and because the love is not there, but sometimes the law, the person will judge quickly, but forgive themselves, will laugh at your misfortune and say it is punishment from God, will focus on the sins of others and not their own.

With each act, even though they might think that they are doing God's will, they harden their heart a little more, do not love their neighbor as themselves but only themselves, and keep quieting the voice of God, a candle holder so filled with the soot of selfishness, that no light gets through.

Beanie, that's a lot of words. Goodness gracious. I think, though, that you're discussing sexual immorality as a kind of immorality in which the sexual element is almost incidental; lying is wrong, hurting others is wrong, etc. When christians discuss sexual immorality, I generally understand it as all sex that happens outside the confines of heterosexual marriage.
That being said, I think a much more interesting question than that posed in the OP that you seem to be addressing is whether sin is more harmful than is the failure to be charitable.

 

[Beanieboy]

Aha.

I actually kinda understand your point there.

But many of the 'sexually immoral' don't see their own actions as damaging (after all, the damaging effect on the soul is quite hard to quantify). When I engage in pre-marital sex, I don't see anything "evil" about it.

However, a lack of charity has clear direct effects*. Me deciding to buy that fancy iPod instead of donating to the Red Cross means that a bunch of kids in Africa are going to die. When buying that iPod, I know that I'm being an hedonistic bastard who cares more about my own little pleasures than about the suffering of my fellow man.

So the two mindsets are actually pretty different. The sexually immoral often doesn't think that he's doing anything wrong, while the uncharitable knows that he's wrong but just doesn't care.

*secondary, tertiary, quaternary, etc effects of charity (or any other action) are often/always too complicated and dependent on other factors to take into account, so I'll ignore those, just as most people ignore them when deciding what course is "right".

A man can be married, as in The Color Purple, mistreat her, have her feel like sex is "like going to the bathroom on me", and think he is doing nothing wrong, because he is married.

I don't think that the married/unmarried sex is necessarily what is immoral. I have heard of men raping their wives. Why would you rape, let alone, rape someone whom you love, that says no?

Yet, men do. Even beat their wives, and think they have done nothing wrong.

One could probably create a list of questions that would help show whether it is loving or not.

However, many people are a Law over Love practitioner, because they can use the Law, not to follow, not to seek guidance, but to condemn others. Such verses are often over stressed, which not stressed in the bible, questionable (such as eating pork in the 20th Century), and like the Pharisees of the Bible, are laid as traps, as they were with Jesus.

No longer frustrated, I am now kind of tickled when discussing homosexuality. I point to adultery - breaks trust in a marriage, false witness - creates mistrust, stealing - takes something that isn't yours, hurts the owner and makes them more distrustful and angry, etc.

And homosexuality?
"It's just wrong."

Right. "Because I said so."

That works when you are 7.

There was a reason I had to eat my vegetables. They are good for you.
There is a reason why I had to look both ways before crossing - little kids are little, and might get hit.

But nothing my parents told me to do was "just because...I don't know how it is harmful....It just is....It goes against nature..."

On top of that, they downplay love, so, I tell them that when they have a good enough reason, I'll listen. You can't find one.

 

[Fantine]

Christianity puts a lot of emphasis on sexual morality (homosexuality, contraception, abortion, as well.)

It's easy to forget lack of charity while you're trying to wade through the big pile of "thou shalt nots."

When Jesus gave the two great commandments, neither was a "thou shalt not." They were positive and pro-active.

And the Pharisees, who had the "thou shalt nots" down to a science, didn't get much respect from Jesus....

 

[Beanieboy]

Beanie, that's a lot of words. Goodness gracious. I think, though, that you're discussing sexual immorality as a kind of immorality in which the sexual element is almost incidental; lying is wrong, hurting others is wrong, etc. When christians discuss sexual immorality, I generally understand it as all sex that happens outside the confines of heterosexual marriage.
That being said, I think a much more interesting question than that posed in the OP that you seem to be addressing is whether sin is more harmful than is the failure to be charitable.

It is lack of love. Which is more harmful?
Lying to girls to sleep with them, and then never calling them is different than
molesting children which is different that
premarital sex between two people in love with is different than
prostitution which is different than
pornography which is different than
rape
a heterosexual marriage

You have to define "sexual immorality.
Can one be sexually immoral in a heterosexual marriage? Of course.
You can rape your wife, regardless of what the law recognizes, and that will harm your spirit and hers.

But the lack of love is the most harmful.

You are asking: Is sexual immorality (which can range from raping a child to two unmarried people in love having loving sex in a monogamous long term relationship) or lack of charity (giving) more harmful.

That's like saying, "Honey, which would be worse? If I beat you up pretty bad on a regular basis, constantly pointed out your faults until you cried and hated yourself, if I raped you, or I cheated on you? Which would hurt our marriage most?"

What kind of question is that?
You want to know which of the 5 you can get away with?

I would answer: Yes, they would all be very damaging to our relationship, each in a different way. And the fact that you want to know which is worse, which would be the most harmful, shows me that you don't think: how can I demonstrate my love a little more today, but rather, I want to act unlovingly towards you, and when I do, I can say, "Yeah, well at least I didn't..."

So, wanting to know which sin harms oneself more (first of all, they harm others FAR more) rather than discuss ways in which one can live Christ, can act in love, means that I think the point is completely lost.

You are to love your neighbor as yourself.
Neither do that, and one isn't lesser than the other.

 

[Beanieboy]

Christianity puts a lot of emphasis on sexual morality (homosexuality, contraception, abortion, as well.)

It's easy to forget lack of charity while you're trying to wade through the big pile of "thou shalt nots."

When Jesus gave the two great commandments, neither was a "thou shalt not." They were positive and pro-active.

And the Pharisees, who had the "thou shalt nots" down to a science, didn't get much respect from Jesus....

Exactly.
Gee, how times have changed...

 

[The Nihilist]

It is lack of love. Which is more harmful?
Lying to girls to sleep with them, and then never calling them is different than
molesting children which is different that
premarital sex between two people in love with is different than
prostitution which is different than
pornography which is different than
rape
a heterosexual marriage

You have to define "sexual immorality.
Can one be sexually immoral in a heterosexual marriage? Of course.
You can rape your wife, regardless of what the law recognizes, and that will harm your spirit and hers.

But the lack of love is the most harmful.

You are asking: Is sexual immorality (which can range from raping a child to two unmarried people in love having loving sex in a monogamous long term relationship) or lack of charity (giving) more harmful.

That's like saying, "Honey, which would be worse? If I beat you up pretty bad on a regular basis, constantly pointed out your faults until you cried and hated yourself, if I raped you, or I cheated on you? Which would hurt our marriage most?"

What kind of question is that?
You want to know which of the 5 you can get away with?

I would answer: Yes, they would all be very damaging to our relationship, each in a different way. And the fact that you want to know which is worse, which would be the most harmful, shows me that you don't think: how can I demonstrate my love a little more today, but rather, I want to act unlovingly towards you, and when I do, I can say, "Yeah, well at least I didn't..."

So, wanting to know which sin harms oneself more (first of all, they harm others FAR more) rather than discuss ways in which one can live Christ, can act in love, means that I think the point is completely lost.

You are to love your neighbor as yourself.
Neither do that, and one isn't lesser than the other.

The OP is not clear. We could definitely use a definition of sexual immorality.

 

[talitha]

You are asking: Is sexual immorality (which can range from raping a child to two unmarried people in love having loving sex in a monogamous long term relationship) or lack of charity (giving) more harmful.

That's like saying, "Honey, which would be worse? If I beat you up pretty bad on a regular basis, constantly pointed out your faults until you cried and hated yourself, if I raped you, or I cheated on you? Which would hurt our marriage most?"

What kind of question is that?
You want to know which of the 5 you can get away with?

That's what I'm talkin' about.

 

[Inquisition]

The OP is not clear. We could definitely use a definition of sexual immorality.

By the same token we could say that charity is unclear based on the OP. Would you care to offer a definition?

 

[The Nihilist]

By the same token we could say that charity is unclear based on the OP. Would you care to offer a definition?

I think the common usage of charity works just fine and I don't see a reason to think otherwise. If you're still curious about what that is, I'm sure there are any number of resources on the internet that will aid you in your search.

 

[Beanieboy]

I think it is irrelevant.

It's like asking which is more damaging to Jesus, killing or lying.
Jesus said that who ever simply wishes someone dead has committed murder.
Man doesn't think wishing they could kill someone is bad, only the action.
So, which does more damage?

YES. Do you understand yet?

 

[b&wpac4]

Christianity puts a lot of emphasis on sexual morality (homosexuality, contraception, abortion, as well.)

It's easy to forget lack of charity while you're trying to wade through the big pile of "thou shalt nots."

When Jesus gave the two great commandments, neither was a "thou shalt not." They were positive and pro-active.

And the Pharisees, who had the "thou shalt nots" down to a science, didn't get much respect from Jesus....

Well, at least the characters in the New Testament portraying the Pharisees did...

 

[Uncle Tommy]

Which is more damaging to the heart and soul of a Christian? Sexual immorality - or lack of charity?

A strong argument can be made for both. Besides it's not an either or scenario there is no reason a Christian can't be sexually pure and charitable.