Discussion in 'Abrahamic Religions' started by Namaste Jesus, May 3, 2014.
Depends on intent...
If it is a doctor providing administering a vaccine....no.
Let me try to explain:
A man gives a man an injection, and the man dies.
Is that murder?
Homicide by malpractice?
Where is the "sinning in one's heart"?
(Think I have missed your point, Thomas.
"Sin" = "crime" . . . ?)
A woman thinks about giving man an injection.
The injection could save the man's life.
But she chooses not to give the man this injection.
The man dies.
Is this murder?
Is this "sin"?
(In law, "crime" is defined as an "action."
"Failure to act" . . . in some legal situations - regarding a doctor, for instance - can be treated as an "action." But in jurisprudence, this is a slippery slope which most prosecutors avoid like the plague.)
I have never heard of anyone (in recent decades) being prosecuted for what they "thought" - unless what they thought had public consequences (say, speech which incites a riot).
In law, speech can be considered an "act" - but never (ever) the thoughts in one's heart.
If sin = crime, Thomas, you will never be jailed for the "thoughts in your heart" alone. Not in America, anyway.
Supposing it's palliative care. It's morphine to ease the pain. He knows it will kill the patient, but the alternative is a slower and more painful death.
Can we stick to the one, otherwise we'll be jumping back and forth all over the place.
Wil got it straight away. It's the intent.
Well conspiracy to act is an act, and will land you in court, even though you've done nothing yet ...
Well I think that's rather a comment on the US legal system. And to be honest, I'm not over-impressed with it. There seems to be a lot of money made 'working round the law' rather than upholding it!
Open your eyes! Guantanamo Bay is full of just that kind of person. And rendition? Drone attacks ...
Well where do the words come from? The heart in traditional cultures is what we might call the mind today. The person.
I thought the process of law was to determine whether a man was guilty or not, not simply to prosecute him for his actions. If that were true, there could never be a mitigating circumstance, could there?
So if a man gives a man a morphine injection, and that man dies, then the man is guilty. No question. The act is the taking of a life. That's murder.
Oh, you can get away with murder in America!
The point is, sin does not = crime. All crimes are sins, not all sins are crimes.
It's working to a higher set of moral values.
Points that sadden me greatly....
Seems Paul fought greatly with sin in his heart... some speculate a sin quite similar to the discussion recently put forth.
But I say to you
that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her
has already committed adultery with her
in his heart.
If I may be so bold as to give my honest opinion on this issue ...
I have to go with several others posted here who underlined the importance of "intent".
>> that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her . . .
I think this "to" = "in order to", which implies one's intent of electing to lust for her. English Standard Version of the verse states it more clearly; "everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent . . ."
This is how I interpret it. If a thought enters one's mind inadvertently without intending to invite it, then that's different. In other words, if a man looks at a woman and such a thought just happened, the verse doesn't apply. But if a man actively seeks to look at a woman with the purpose of lusting for her, the verse applies. So, in my opinion, watching a porno for the purpose of enjoying being aroused and attending a discussion that seeks to talk about human nature with candid honesty are different things.
>> But the same is true, if you enjoy an evening of Shakespeare at your local theater or on the tele. Tragedies about murder and comedies about lust.
I admit I haven't read all the Shakespearian dramas, but do any of them encourage us to "enjoy" murderous or lustful thoughts as a desirable pursuit for us to indulge in, or do they - perhaps latently - caution us against those thoughts through tragedies and comedies about human nature with his masterly plots?
>> Is it Christian to condemn this man for heroically managing to (day after day) push aside temptation and to not carry out his fantasy, despite getting zero help from society in his struggle?
If you were "tempted" but dismissed the desire, you're still righteous in your heart. If however you've actively relished the desire, you've given in to your lust (sinned). But that's not the point I stress. The problem, the way I see it, is NOT that we sometimes give in and sin in our hearts. We humans, ALL OF US, cannot by our nature "not sin". It's not our sins that separate us from God, if that's the case; no one goes to Heaven since WE ARE ALL SINNERS.
It's inevitable for us to experience illicit thoughts now and then. What matters is if we recognize those thoughts as undesirable and try our best not to feed ourselves with them. It's our intent of what to do with those thoughts that counts. If a pedophile "struggles" to have his tendencies under control, it means that he recognizes his lust as undesirable and he's trying to dismiss the desire, then by that intent alone he's forgiven, in my humble Christian belief.
>> "sinning in one's heart" is actually good for the soul.
When you know a certain thought should not be carried out in reality, because you know it's wrong, how can actively indulging yourself in that very thought be good for your soul? For instance, if I find my friend's young wife very attractive, should I fantasize over her insofar as I don't actually carry out my fantasy? I made an oath in front of God that I'd love my wife and dedicate myself to her to the very best of my ability. Spending my time on a fantasy over another woman is the opposite of what I should be doing. My loyalty toward my wife and my friend urges me to put them before the pleasure of my physical desire. Why should I welcome such fantasies, wouldn't I be dishonoring both my wife and my friend in my heart? How could that possibly be good for my soul?
I know this thread goes back several months. I read every post and I do not see this remark. What I post is scripture and frankly it is the most erotic poem I have ever read. Forget film. Just give me a good poem......
Song of Solomon
"Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for [his] love is better than wine." This is the first line of "the song of songs" which is not really a song but an erotic love poem--or a blend of erotic love poems--that somehow found its way into Bible. How it became cannon is the million-dollar question. Who actually wrote it is the two million dollar question.
There is little self-control in the poem, in which two unnamed lovers long for each other ("His left hand should be under my head, [8:3] and his right hand should embrace me"), and admire each other anatomically ("Thy navel is like a round goblet [7:2], which wanteth not liquor") and meet for lovemaking ("He shall lie down all night betwixt my breasts" [1:13]), in village, vineyard, and field (7:11-12) ("our bed is green" [1:16]). It appears they enjoy the great outdoors for their frisky business.
Metaphorical gardens, spices, and fruit seem important in the Song's lovemaking imagery. The woman compares her "beloved" to an apple tree: "I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste" (2:3). Her lover, not to be outdone, likens her to a palm tree: "I will take hold of the boughs thereof," and "thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine" (7:8). Her lover describes the woman as "a garden enclosed," with "a fountain sealed" (4:12), and her meaning is clear when the woman says that her beloved has "gone down into his garden, to the beds of spices, to feed in the gardens, and to gather lilies" (6:2). ("My beloved is mine," she says earlier, "and I am his: he feedeth among the lilies" [2:16].) She asks the north and south winds to "blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits" (4:16). "I am come into my garden," her lover responds, "I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk" (5:1). And the woman says, "I went down into the garden of nuts . . . to see whether the vine flourished (6:11). If only she could take him home, she says later, she would cause him "to drink of spiced wine of the juice of my pomegranate" (8:2).
The book's title in the KJV is the Song of Solomon, but few support the notion that this is the work of Solomon. (It is also known as the Song of Songs, and in the Catholic Bible as Canticles.) Considering the lovers' dialogue, the poem may well be the work of a woman. The woman is presented in the first person rather than through a narrator and is, I think, the only unmediated female voice in the Bible. The work is also scripturally exceptional for its celebration of physical love without reference to procreation, and it is exceptional because of its uncensored nature. In the relationship between the two lovers there is no male dominance, which is certainly unusual for the Bible.
The passion that is expressed in the Song is timeless: "I am my beloved's, and his desire is toward me" (7:10); "Set me as a seal upon thine heart, as a seal upon thine arm: for love is strong as death; jealousy is cruel as the grave" (8:6). Efforts to interpret this poem as an allegory of Yahweh's love for Israel, or Christ's love for the church fail in light of the Song's straightforward eroticism. It's a bit much to have Christ telling the church that "the joints of thy thighs are like jewels" (7:1), or to accept the view that the man's praise of his lover's breasts--"Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins" (7:3)--means that the Old and New Testaments are glorious.
This is preaching to the choir and I am humming right along
the song of solomon is about two that are spirit and soulmates. Sex keeps the relationship two that are also one. In the beginning humans were pairs that even though two were together what one human being was. This book is very important showing that relationship
Separate names with a comma.