Priest today said lusting for someone (thoughts) is just as bad as actually cheating (sex)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP my reaction is the latest is trying to minimize actual cheating. No one can control their thoughts. So this is like saying everyone cheats so why are we making a big deal about actual adulteres. Feels very gross like protecting powerful people who do bad things.

That is complete bullshit. Of course you can minimize your lusting after other people.

My reaction is you’re trying to minimize your ability, control your mind and your thoughts.

Believe me if you never think about it you’re never gonna do it. When people say it “just happens”… no it didn’t you thought about it for a long time

You must not be a man.

Not even all men can NOT control their lusting natures. No excuses for not being able to control yourself.

If you really think about it, maybe the priest's point is that people who lust do not always have the ability to act on it, but that shouldn't diminish their selfish, vow-breaking thoughts? It takes two to tango, right. Just because your husband obsessively lusts after the neighbor's wife, some mother at his kid's school, or a female colleague doesn't mean it is reciprocated. Now he would act on his lust if he could, but it's not reciprocated, so he is stuck in his thoughts. Doesn't that still make him pretty scummy? I think it does. In that context, the priest makes a valid point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP my reaction is the latest is trying to minimize actual cheating. No one can control their thoughts. So this is like saying everyone cheats so why are we making a big deal about actual adulteres. Feels very gross like protecting powerful people who do bad things.

That is complete bullshit. Of course you can minimize your lusting after other people.

My reaction is you’re trying to minimize your ability, control your mind and your thoughts.

Believe me if you never think about it you’re never gonna do it. When people say it “just happens”… no it didn’t you thought about it for a long time

You must not be a man.

Not even all men can NOT control their lusting natures. No excuses for not being able to control yourself.

If you really think about it, maybe the priest's point is that people who lust do not always have the ability to act on it, but that shouldn't diminish their selfish, vow-breaking thoughts? It takes two to tango, right. Just because your husband obsessively lusts after the neighbor's wife, some mother at his kid's school, or a female colleague doesn't mean it is reciprocated. Now he would act on his lust if he could, but it's not reciprocated, so he is stuck in his thoughts. Doesn't that still make him pretty scummy? I think it does. In that context, the priest makes a valid point.

You assume that he would act on his lust. Maybe he wouldn't

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Back it up a minute. This is basically arguing that God acts as a thought police.

If that is the case, no one is ever making it to heaven.

Our thoughts are not our actions.

Even the 10 commandments include thoughts, like not coveting they neighbor's wife or goods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am talking not from a religious point of view. Emotional affairs can be pretty damaging. At some point my spouse got emotionally very close to a coworker, there were times I was wishing they just had s&x and get over with it instead of fantasizing how much of a better partner the coworker could have been

Religion aside, from a practical standpoint, emotional affairs eat up a lot of time and mental effort that could have been spent on improving oneself, one's family, and society. A lot of physical affairs and betrayals actually take up far less time and mental effort that could realistically be spent elsewhere.

This.My first husband had an emotional affair with a woman across two marriages. She promised to leave her husband, but she never did. The EA affected three other people and three children.

[Anonymous]

I think the point is that this religion doesn't differentiate sins. Theyre all bad, theyre all equal. So yeah, if you believe this religion, that's kind of a basic part. Sinning at all (incl lusting for someone) is an equivalent sin to murder or cheating.

Our laws don't say the same, but that religion does.

[Anonymous]

Jesus does not say that "lust is as bad as adultery." He also does not say "anger is as bad as murder." He says that if we harbor lust or unjust anger then we have committed adultery or murder in our hearts.

Elsewhere, scripture says that man looks at the outward appearance, but that God looks at the heart (1 Samuel). This is descriptive and prescriptive. It is the province of God only to judge thoughts and the "heart".

The Catholic church makes distinction between venial and mortal sins. Protestant confessions and catechisms also distinguish between sins of lesser and greater heinousness.

Your priest is out of line, but this is a very common false equivalency these days. What it does in reality is diminish the seriousness of actual murder, adultery, perjury, etc., by making them equivalent to thoughts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the point is that this religion doesn't differentiate sins. Theyre all bad, theyre all equal. So yeah, if you believe this religion, that's kind of a basic part. Sinning at all (incl lusting for someone) is an equivalent sin to murder or cheating.

Our laws don't say the same, but that religion does.

No. This is a postmodern concept. Christianity teaches the opposite. The Westminster Catechism thus:


Q. 150. Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in themselves, and in the sight of God?

A. All transgressions of the law of God are not equally heinous; but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jesus does not say that "lust is as bad as adultery." He also does not say "anger is as bad as murder." He says that if we harbor lust or unjust anger then we have committed adultery or murder in our hearts.

Elsewhere, scripture says that man looks at the outward appearance, but that God looks at the heart (1 Samuel). This is descriptive and prescriptive. It is the province of God only to judge thoughts and the "heart".

The Catholic church makes distinction between venial and mortal sins. Protestant confessions and catechisms also distinguish between sins of lesser and greater heinousness.

Your priest is out of line, but this is a very common false equivalency these days. What it does in reality is diminish the seriousness of actual murder, adultery, perjury, etc., by making them equivalent to thoughts.

Lust is actually a mortal sin unless it was a momentary reaction.

[Anonymous]

Maybe for the priest it is, for everyone else not so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the point is that this religion doesn't differentiate sins. Theyre all bad, theyre all equal. So yeah, if you believe this religion, that's kind of a basic part. Sinning at all (incl lusting for someone) is an equivalent sin to murder or cheating.

Our laws don't say the same, but that religion does.

No. This is a postmodern concept. Christianity teaches the opposite. The Westminster Catechism thus:


Q. 150. Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in themselves, and in the sight of God?

A. All transgressions of the law of God are not equally heinous; but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.

Isn't that Catholicism specifically?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the point is that this religion doesn't differentiate sins. Theyre all bad, theyre all equal. So yeah, if you believe this religion, that's kind of a basic part. Sinning at all (incl lusting for someone) is an equivalent sin to murder or cheating.

Our laws don't say the same, but that religion does.

No. This is a postmodern concept. Christianity teaches the opposite. The Westminster Catechism thus:


Q. 150. Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in themselves, and in the sight of God?

A. All transgressions of the law of God are not equally heinous; but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.

Isn't that Catholicism specifically?

Uh, no. The opposite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Larger_Catechism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the point is that this religion doesn't differentiate sins. Theyre all bad, theyre all equal. So yeah, if you believe this religion, that's kind of a basic part. Sinning at all (incl lusting for someone) is an equivalent sin to murder or cheating.

Our laws don't say the same, but that religion does.

No. This is a postmodern concept. Christianity teaches the opposite. The Westminster Catechism thus:


Q. 150. Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in themselves, and in the sight of God?

A. All transgressions of the law of God are not equally heinous; but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.

Isn't that Catholicism specifically?

Traditional Protestant denominations have confessions and catechisms. That you think this sounds "Catholic" is just a reflection of the sad state of strip mall "evangelicalism" in the 21st century.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok this is MY interpretation. Throughout the Gospel Jesus has conversations with people who are very very deep into the legalism of the Jewish law. So these men felt that as long as they didn't literally have sex with a woman they were absolutely sinless and Godly.

And in this verse Jesus is trying to communicate that being sinless isn't about just following the rule to the letter. If you're daydreaming about having sex with every woman you see, you're not some holy celibate guy. Having some control over your thoughts and having a good heart is just AS important as controlling your actions. And this is very basic and common sense because your thoughts WILL eventually guide your actions.

I don't think that Jesus was being literal here. We all know that adultery is much more serious than wayward thoughts. But it's rare that Jesus was absolutely literal, or the verse about plucking your eye out if it causes you to sin would be a problem.

Also, sin as understood in the ancient Greek means "missing the mark." So when you sin you are falling short of God's best. Lusting after someone who isn't your spouse is falling short.

Thank you. I love seeing well-stated arguments in this forum. It's rare.

Thank you! My reading of the Bible is that Jesus did not pathologize regular human behavior the way the Church has over the centuries. This is obviously not a literal verse. Jesus knows that men and women check each other out. He just advocates self awareness. I also believe we take commentary from “celibate” priests and bishops way too seriously.

Agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok this is MY interpretation. Throughout the Gospel Jesus has conversations with people who are very very deep into the legalism of the Jewish law. So these men felt that as long as they didn't literally have sex with a woman they were absolutely sinless and Godly.

And in this verse Jesus is trying to communicate that being sinless isn't about just following the rule to the letter. If you're daydreaming about having sex with every woman you see, you're not some holy celibate guy. Having some control over your thoughts and having a good heart is just AS important as controlling your actions. And this is very basic and common sense because your thoughts WILL eventually guide your actions.

I don't think that Jesus was being literal here. We all know that adultery is much more serious than wayward thoughts. But it's rare that Jesus was absolutely literal, or the verse about plucking your eye out if it causes you to sin would be a problem.

Also, sin as understood in the ancient Greek means "missing the mark." So when you sin you are falling short of God's best. Lusting after someone who isn't your spouse is falling short.

Thank you. I love seeing well-stated arguments in this forum. It's rare.

Thank you! My reading of the Bible is that Jesus did not pathologize regular human behavior the way the Church has over the centuries. This is obviously not a literal verse. Jesus knows that men and women check each other out. He just advocates self awareness. I also believe we take commentary from “celibate” priests and bishops way too seriously.

Agree.

This is what happens whwn you have greco-roman gentilles trying to create a story in an entirely different area and language than the jewish community from which it originated.

[Anonymous]

sin is sin. there are no levels of sin. all sin is bad.