1. Subscribermoonbus
    Über-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    8144
    05 Mar '16 15:45
    Originally posted by divegeester
    No, I'm one of those people who, when offered a Cardinal's opinion when I asked for a scripture to back up a given statement, tends to question the claim.
    It is a peculiarly Protestant way of looking at Christianity, to take the Bible as the primary source whereby the will of God is made known to man.

    But if you question the words of Bishops, (Orthodox) Patriarchs, and Cardinals, you cannot fall back on the authority of the Bible, because it was a body of such Cardinals who determined which scrolls to canonize and which scrolls to declare apocryphal. The Bible is only as inerrant as the Cardinals.

    Furthermore, the Bible is a snapshot, frozen in time (at about 325 AD, Council of Nicea, when the canon was finalized). God's will for man is being continuously revealed through subsequent Ecumenical Councils. This is not merely the opinion of Cardinals--this is the principle known as Apostolic Succession and forms the primary mode through which God's continuing revelation is made known to man. The Bible is secondary to that, as proven by the fact that it was a council of bishops who defined what should go into the Bible in the first place.
  2. Subscribermoonbus
    Über-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    8144
    05 Mar '16 16:331 edit
    twhitehead: "Imagine this scenario:
    Your spouse sees someone he/she is attracted to. He/she decides to have an affair with that person. He / she books a hotel room. Something happens and they are unable to go through with it.
    Is booking the hotel room the thing that you will consider betrayal by your spouse? If he / she had not booked the hotel room (an action) then would everything be just fine?

    The thing is that I see a number of posters in this thread that assume without reason that particular thoughts would necessarily be criminal. Why would lusting after your neighbors wife be necessarily a sin? Not all actions are sins, why would all thoughts be sins?"


    It is important to distinguish crime, in the sense of civil law, from sin. Thoughts are not crimes in civil law; only consummated actions are crimes in civil law. But in the Christian scheme of things, sins include thoughts and intentions which are not consummated in action.

    According to Paul, having sex with anyone other than one's spouse is sin. According to Paul, having sex with one's spouse is still not entirely sinless, but preferable to sex out of wedlock. (I leave it to the Christians on this list to cite chapters and verses.) Only the Immaculate Conception was entirely sinless, and there was only one of those.

    If sex with a non-spouse is a sin, then intending to have sex with a non-spouse is also a sin--even if no hotel room is actually booked. That is one of the moral consequences of the shift Jesus worked, namely, shifting the moral locus from act to intention/motive. There is only a partial overlap between sins on the one hand, and crimes in the sense of civil law on the other. In terms of civil law, adultery has not been committed until specific acts have been consummated (as defined by law, "penetration" or whatever), but lust need not have expressed itself in any overt action. Lusting after a non-spouse is already to have committed adultery in one's heart.

    Lust itself is sinful, not because it leads to immoral actions (in the Christian scheme of things). This is (partly) what distinguishes sin from crime.

    Examples could be multiplied. Refusal to believe in God is also a sin, even if it leads to no overt action; even if the person did all the same things he would have done had he believed in God. Atheism is itself a thought-crime, in the Christian, though not in the civil, sense.


    Being a sinner is a bit like being an alcoholic: just because you haven't had a drink today (for lack of opportunity or whatever) doesn't mean you're not an alcoholic [I don't mean you personally -- I mean anyone]. Similarly, just because 'something happens' and an adulterous couple fail to consummate the sex act, doesn't mean they're not sinners.
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    05 Mar '16 17:09
    Originally posted by moonbus
    It is important to distinguish crime, in the sense of civil law, from sin. Thoughts are not crimes in civil law; only consummated actions are crimes in civil law.
    I am not convinced. I believe a charge of attempted murder relies on the intent more than the actions as
    do many other crimes.
    I have also argued that the main reason for this limitation is simply our poor mind reading abilities.

    According to Paul, having sex with anyone other than one's spouse is sin. According to Paul, having sex with one's spouse is still not entirely sinless, but preferable to sex out of wedlock.
    Nevertheless, not all thoughts are sins. Yes many posters seem to presume to know what thoughts are sins and then act like that is a problem, even when they made up the list themselves. ie they know its wrong but have a problem with it being punished.

    If sex with a non-spouse is a sin, then intending to have sex with a non-spouse is also a sin--even if no hotel room is actually booked. That is one of the moral consequences of the shift Jesus worked, namely, shifting the moral locus from act to intention/motive.
    I don't think Jesus has anything to do with it. I say that intending to have an affair is wrong regardless of what Jesus or the law have to say about it. And I say that you would feel just as betrayed by your spouse intending to have an affair as actually having an affair.

    Lust itself is sinful, not because it leads to immoral actions (in the Christian scheme of things). This is (partly) what distinguishes sin from crime.
    No. What distinguishes sin from crime is who make the law. I theocracies, sins are crimes.
    In secular societies actions that are self harming usually are not criminal and actions that harm others are.

    Atheism is itself a thought-crime, in the Christian, though not in the civil, sense.
    I don't think all Christians believe that.

    Similarly, just because 'something happens' and an adulterous couple fail to consummate the sex act, doesn't mean they're not sinners.
    We largely agree which leaves me wondering what point you were trying to make.
  4. PenTesting
    Joined
    04 Apr '04
    Moves
    247879
    05 Mar '16 17:29
    Originally posted by moonbus
    .. . According to Paul, having sex with one's spouse is still not entirely sinless, but preferable to sex out of wedlock....
    You dont get the whole picture about the teachings of Paul.

    Paul is saying that it is better to give your life to the service of the church than to marry. He also said this:

    Heb 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

    So your statement attributed to Paul is false.
  5. PenTesting
    Joined
    04 Apr '04
    Moves
    247879
    05 Mar '16 17:33
    Originally posted by moonbus
    It is a peculiarly Protestant way of looking at Christianity, to take the Bible as the primary source whereby the will of God is made known to man.

    But if you question the words of Bishops, (Orthodox) Patriarchs, and Cardinals, you cannot fall back on the authority of the Bible, because it was a body of such Cardinals who determined which scrolls to canon ...[text shortened]... t that it was a council of bishops who defined what should go into the Bible in the first place.
    Psa 146:3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
  6. Subscribermoonbus
    Über-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    8144
    05 Mar '16 19:331 edit
    Originally posted by Rajk999
    You dont get the whole picture about the teachings of Paul.

    Paul is saying that it is better to give your life to the service of the church than to marry. He also said this:

    Heb 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

    So your statement attributed to Paul is false.
    But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. [celibate] 1 Cor 7:8


    "But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn." 1 Cor 7:9 New American Standard 1977
  7. Subscribermoonbus
    Über-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    8144
    05 Mar '16 19:341 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I am not convinced. I believe a charge of attempted murder relies on the intent more than the actions as
    do many other crimes.
    I have also argued that the main reason for this limitation is simply our poor mind reading abilities.

    [b]According to Paul, having sex with anyone other than one's spouse is sin. According to Paul, having sex with one's spo ...[text shortened]... not sinners.

    We largely agree which leaves me wondering what point you were trying to make.[/b]
    Of course not all thoughts are crimes or sins. Only those proscribed are.
  8. PenTesting
    Joined
    04 Apr '04
    Moves
    247879
    05 Mar '16 20:23
    Originally posted by moonbus
    But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. [celibate] 1 Cor 7:8


    "But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn." 1 Cor 7:9 New American Standard 1977
    And you cant see that there is a world of difference between when Paul said, and what you claimed Paul said :

    According to Paul, having sex with one's spouse is still not entirely sinless
  9. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    116436
    05 Mar '16 20:342 edits
    Originally posted by moonbus
    It is a peculiarly Protestant way of looking at Christianity, to take the Bible as the primary source whereby the will of God is made known to man.

    But if you question the words of Bishops, (Orthodox) Patriarchs, and Cardinals, you cannot fall back on the authority of the Bible, because it was a body of such Cardinals who determined which scrolls to canon ...[text shortened]... t that it was a council of bishops who defined what should go into the Bible in the first place.
    I asked you for a scripture. Remember?

    Your opinion of the Catholic organisation is as worthless and irrelevant to this conversation as the Cardinal's opinion you quoted.
  10. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    05 Mar '16 21:31
    Originally posted by moonbus
    Of course not all thoughts are crimes or sins. Only those proscribed are.
    I agree. There has been an assumption in this thread that certain thoughts would automatically be sins - without specifying why those particular thoughts should automatically be sins. The typical response has been 'if thought crimes can exist then this particular thought I had yesterday would definitely be a sin but that's terrible, so anyone who thinks thoughts can be crimes is a monster!. Its as bad as North Korea!'
  11. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    05 Mar '16 21:33
    Originally posted by divegeester
    I asked you for a scripture. Remember?

    Your opinion of the Catholic organisation is as worthless and irrelevant to this conversation as the Cardinal's opinion you quoted.
    What you asked for does not dictate what he chooses to offer.

    Can he equally state that what the Bible has to say is worthless and irrelevant to this conversation?
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree