The thought crime equivalence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-08-2015, 07:22 PM
RE: The thought crime equivalence
I'm not going to wait. As a Southerner, it pisses me off when Christians try to claim the Bible doesn't actually support slavery in the traditional sense, since the Southern congressmen quoted the Bible in their outrage at northern abolitionists, and in their defense of secession. The Bible is quite clear that you may not own people of your own race (Jews, written in Leviticus as "countrymen" or "fellow Israelites", depending on translation), but that others are fine to own and to will to your children as forever-property.

44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

(Bold emphasis my own.)

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=NIV

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
13-08-2015, 07:30 PM
RE: The thought crime equivalence
This must be where the whole concept of not thinking and just following what is preached to you came from.

Heaven forbid you think a thought - a bad thought - cause you might just do it. Let's not bother to consider that you may think a bad thought and realize it's a bad idea and not do it.

So blank that mind...we don't want any bad thoughts, now do we?

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Anjele's post
14-08-2015, 11:05 AM
RE: The thought crime equivalence
(13-08-2015 03:36 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 03:19 PM)Alla Wrote:  Yes, in his/her heart. It is not a sin yet. But when you fanaticize about something evil and do not stop doing it you might make it a reality. Then you commit a sin.
It's like if I can't drink coffee(sin) but if I think about it, I fantasize about it( drink in my heart) it is harder for me to resist temptation. Most likely I will drink it.

The verse condemns one for "committing adultery with her already" by just thinking those thoughts, not because it may lead to adulterous actions. You do really make this crap up as you see fit you warped and trapped shell of a supposed thinking human.
condemns? were are the words of condemnation?
what does it mean "to do something in heart"?
It means "to have sinful thoughts". In my sinful thoughts I imagine myself doing evil/bad/wrong things.
To have sinful thoughts is not a sin. It is more temptation. Temptation is not sin.
So if I do not sin I am not condemned.
Jesus was teaching that if we make adultery in hearts (in other words if we have sinful thoughts) we are very close to commit sin.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 11:44 AM
RE: The thought crime equivalence
(13-08-2015 07:30 PM)Anjele Wrote:  So blank that mind...we don't want any bad thoughts, now do we?

Small mind is easily filled with faith. I gues blank mind too.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 12:12 PM
RE: The thought crime equivalence
(13-08-2015 03:16 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  The whole "Thou shalt not covet" shit is just plain dumb....

People wanting shit, is what keeps the economy going.

Clearly Yahweh was a Commie.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
14-08-2015, 12:19 PM
RE: The thought crime equivalence
(14-08-2015 12:12 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 03:16 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  The whole "Thou shalt not covet" shit is just plain dumb....

People wanting shit, is what keeps the economy going.

Clearly Yahweh was a Commie.

Looking on his killcount I can agree.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 01:10 PM (This post was last modified: 14-08-2015 01:16 PM by docskeptic.)
RE: The thought crime equivalence
(13-08-2015 03:01 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  If merely thinking something is equivalent to doing it, then (1) why not just do it since you're screwed anyway and (2) does this logic pertain to the other commandments? For instance, someone gets very angry at another person and fantasizes about killing that person. Did he just commit murder?

Yes. The analogue for murder is the following verse: "Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him" (1 John 3:15)

Also, “Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” (Mt. 5:22).

Raca means "empty headed" or "imbecile". So, most of us on the forum are guilty of murdering the theists here.

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like docskeptic's post
14-08-2015, 04:47 PM
RE: The thought crime equivalence
(14-08-2015 11:05 AM)Alla Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 03:36 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  The verse condemns one for "committing adultery with her already" by just thinking those thoughts, not because it may lead to adulterous actions. You do really make this crap up as you see fit you warped and trapped shell of a supposed thinking human.
condemns? were are the words of condemnation?
what does it mean "to do something in heart"?
It means "to have sinful thoughts". In my sinful thoughts I imagine myself doing evil/bad/wrong things.
To have sinful thoughts is not a sin. It is more temptation. Temptation is not sin.
So if I do not sin I am not condemned.
Jesus was teaching that if we make adultery in hearts (in other words if we have sinful thoughts) we are very close to commit sin.

You can find condemnation in the very next verse (Matthew 5:29) where one is better off losing a member, in this case an eye, than losing the entire body to the eternal bbq pit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 05:20 PM
RE: The thought crime equivalence
(14-08-2015 04:47 PM)7R0MM3L Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 11:05 AM)Alla Wrote:  condemns? were are the words of condemnation?
what does it mean "to do something in heart"?
It means "to have sinful thoughts". In my sinful thoughts I imagine myself doing evil/bad/wrong things.
To have sinful thoughts is not a sin. It is more temptation. Temptation is not sin.
So if I do not sin I am not condemned.
Jesus was teaching that if we make adultery in hearts (in other words if we have sinful thoughts) we are very close to commit sin.

You can find condemnation in the very next verse (Matthew 5:29) where one is better off losing a member, in this case an eye, than losing the entire body to the eternal bbq pit.
I am sorry, I don't see any condemnation.

Removing of parts of the body is symbolism,
it symbolizes this - sometimes we are to take heroic measures of self-control to avoid sin and this has nothing to do with condemnation.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 07:03 PM
RE: The thought crime equivalence
(14-08-2015 05:20 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 04:47 PM)7R0MM3L Wrote:  You can find condemnation in the very next verse (Matthew 5:29) where one is better off losing a member, in this case an eye, than losing the entire body to the eternal bbq pit.
I am sorry, I don't see any condemnation.

Removing of parts of the body is symbolism,
it symbolizes this - sometimes we are to take heroic measures of self-control to avoid sin and this has nothing to do with condemnation.

If you don't see it, then you missed it. The passage says, "And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." The 'plucking' may be symbolism, but 'the whole body should be cast into hell' is very plain.

Also: claiming the eye plucking is symbolism is problematic. How do you know that's symbolism? How do you choose what's actual scripture, versus what's merely a story?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like 7R0MM3L's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: