Comments on: The Spiral of Sin and Salvation http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-spiral-of-sin-and-salvation.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:54:18 +0000 By: Ebonmuse http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-spiral-of-sin-and-salvation.html#comment-24295 Ebonmuse Wed, 30 May 2007 03:13:45 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-spiral-of-sin-and-salvation.html#comment-24295 No need to apologize, Matt. There are plenty of good Christians out there, and it never hurts to be reminded of that. You keep us honest. :) However, I'd like to bring up a point I've made before. Yes, there are many churches and believers who don't support the one-lustful-glance-equals-instant-damnation interpretation we've been discussing. But as we've seen, there are others who do. The text itself doesn't decide for us; it can support either interpretation. Who is right, and how do you know? There's no test you can run, no evidence you can gather to adjudicate among the competing interpretations, and if God has a preference, he sure isn't saying. It comes down to the opinion of individual believers, and since these are based on faith, it's all but impossible to convince someone of the other group that they're wrong. My point is that this is itself the problem with taking your morality from scripture. Beyond the issue of specific evil acts which the Bible condones, there's a more general problem of the text not being able to decide among competing opinions. As long as we cling to the idea that morality can only be gotten by interpreting the Bible, we're never going to get past this, and the intolerant people who believe that God endorses their particular prejudices will continue to do so. What we really need to do is to stop trying to wring blood from a stone, and instead base our morality not on faith and opinion but on empirical facts and reasoning that anyone can examine. That's the only way to end these otherwise endless debates, and it's the only workable method of convincing the prejudiced that their prejudices are wrong. No need to apologize, Matt. There are plenty of good Christians out there, and it never hurts to be reminded of that. You keep us honest. :)

However, I'd like to bring up a point I've made before. Yes, there are many churches and believers who don't support the one-lustful-glance-equals-instant-damnation interpretation we've been discussing. But as we've seen, there are others who do. The text itself doesn't decide for us; it can support either interpretation. Who is right, and how do you know? There's no test you can run, no evidence you can gather to adjudicate among the competing interpretations, and if God has a preference, he sure isn't saying. It comes down to the opinion of individual believers, and since these are based on faith, it's all but impossible to convince someone of the other group that they're wrong.

My point is that this is itself the problem with taking your morality from scripture. Beyond the issue of specific evil acts which the Bible condones, there's a more general problem of the text not being able to decide among competing opinions. As long as we cling to the idea that morality can only be gotten by interpreting the Bible, we're never going to get past this, and the intolerant people who believe that God endorses their particular prejudices will continue to do so. What we really need to do is to stop trying to wring blood from a stone, and instead base our morality not on faith and opinion but on empirical facts and reasoning that anyone can examine. That's the only way to end these otherwise endless debates, and it's the only workable method of convincing the prejudiced that their prejudices are wrong.

]]> By: Polly http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-spiral-of-sin-and-salvation.html#comment-24286 Polly Wed, 30 May 2007 00:17:38 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-spiral-of-sin-and-salvation.html#comment-24286 Matt, Thank you for your concern and the offer. I doubt it would change her mind, though, even if it came from Dr. James Dobson himself...or someone of similar outstanding reputation within Christian circles. Anyway, most of the heavy emotion is in the past. We've crossed our rubicon, I think. :) Peace, Polly Matt,

Thank you for your concern and the offer. I doubt it would change her mind, though, even if it came from Dr. James Dobson himself...or someone of similar outstanding reputation within Christian circles.
Anyway, most of the heavy emotion is in the past. We've crossed our rubicon, I think. :)

Peace,
Polly

]]> By: Matt R http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-spiral-of-sin-and-salvation.html#comment-24285 Matt R Wed, 30 May 2007 00:09:08 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-spiral-of-sin-and-salvation.html#comment-24285 Ebonmuse. <blockquote>Of course there will be those who disagree with me, but to paint all of Christianity or even the vast majority with the broad strokes in the post is not accurate.</blockquote> I apologize for using such forceful words here. I do not intend to inflame, but when I read what you wrote I could not help thinking of so many people who really do not believe those irrational unreasonable things. I felt like it would be good to let you and the others here know that there really are real people who are Christians who do not think that way. I guess the truth is that it is hard to see things written about those whom you know which you do not think are true. This explains why the tensions ran so high in the Falwell discussion. There, I was the one saying things about people who others knew which they did not think were true. So now I understand OMGF's perspective a little better. That's what I like about coming here. It always expands my mind. Thanks. Great Site, Matt Ebonmuse.

Of course there will be those who disagree with me, but to paint all of Christianity or even the vast majority with the broad strokes in the post is not accurate.

I apologize for using such forceful words here. I do not intend to inflame, but when I read what you wrote I could not help thinking of so many people who really do not believe those irrational unreasonable things. I felt like it would be good to let you and the others here know that there really are real people who are Christians who do not think that way. I guess the truth is that it is hard to see things written about those whom you know which you do not think are true.

This explains why the tensions ran so high in the Falwell discussion. There, I was the one saying things about people who others knew which they did not think were true. So now I understand OMGF's perspective a little better. That's what I like about coming here. It always expands my mind. Thanks.

Great Site,

Matt

]]> By: Matt R http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-spiral-of-sin-and-salvation.html#comment-24283 Matt R Tue, 29 May 2007 23:59:39 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-spiral-of-sin-and-salvation.html#comment-24283 Polly, I am sorry to hear the stress that this has put on your marriage. I wish there was something I could say or do to help, but I know there is not, so the best I can do is say that I care and that I recognize the trouble that has come to you because of this. If I provided some resources that explained a more reasonable understanding of the passage, do you think your wife would be inclined to read them? I would be happy to help if you think it would do some good. Best wishes, Matt Polly,

I am sorry to hear the stress that this has put on your marriage. I wish there was something I could say or do to help, but I know there is not, so the best I can do is say that I care and that I recognize the trouble that has come to you because of this. If I provided some resources that explained a more reasonable understanding of the passage, do you think your wife would be inclined to read them? I would be happy to help if you think it would do some good.

Best wishes,

Matt

]]> By: Matt R http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-spiral-of-sin-and-salvation.html#comment-24282 Matt R Tue, 29 May 2007 23:35:50 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-spiral-of-sin-and-salvation.html#comment-24282 Ebonmuse, Of course there will be those who disagree with me, but to paint all of Christianity or even the vast majority with the broad strokes in the post is not accurate. <blockquote>In any case, I don't think your argument is supported by the text. Right after saying this, Jesus advises his listeners that Hell is so terrible that they should gladly pluck their eye out if it would save them from going there. If your argument was correct and the mere lustful glance is not a sin, then why would Jesus - even if only metaphorically - advise people to tear their eyes out to stop themselves from doing it?</blockquote> I see no reason to understand from "avoid sin at all costs and remove it from you life" that Jesus is expounding on the nature of what lusting in one's hear is. I think a more reasonable understanding is that lust is very bad and one should remove it from his or her life. It is noteworthy that removing one's eye actually does not prevent one from lusting. Cheers, Matt Ebonmuse,

Of course there will be those who disagree with me, but to paint all of Christianity or even the vast majority with the broad strokes in the post is not accurate.

In any case, I don't think your argument is supported by the text. Right after saying this, Jesus advises his listeners that Hell is so terrible that they should gladly pluck their eye out if it would save them from going there. If your argument was correct and the mere lustful glance is not a sin, then why would Jesus - even if only metaphorically - advise people to tear their eyes out to stop themselves from doing it?

I see no reason to understand from "avoid sin at all costs and remove it from you life" that Jesus is expounding on the nature of what lusting in one's hear is. I think a more reasonable understanding is that lust is very bad and one should remove it from his or her life.

It is noteworthy that removing one's eye actually does not prevent one from lusting.

Cheers,

Matt

]]> By: Matt R http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-spiral-of-sin-and-salvation.html#comment-24280 Matt R Tue, 29 May 2007 23:14:38 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-spiral-of-sin-and-salvation.html#comment-24280 Regarding drug use: Clearly drug use in general has benefits, medical and otherwise. I think the term "drug use" carries a connotation of the more serious addictive drugs and it was in that sense that I was using it. I oppose legalized use of the more addictive drugs because I am informed of their devastating consequences. I have friends who have been impacted and in the Army I was involved in drug prevention. I think the dangers of drugs outweigh their benefits. Certainly there are many sports and other recreational activities which are dangerous, but I think the negative effects on the individual and society of illegal drugs is far greater than that of extreme sports. I wager that far more lives are ruined and lives lost due to drugs than dangerous sports. Cheers, Matt Regarding drug use:

Clearly drug use in general has benefits, medical and otherwise. I think the term "drug use" carries a connotation of the more serious addictive drugs and it was in that sense that I was using it. I oppose legalized use of the more addictive drugs because I am informed of their devastating consequences. I have friends who have been impacted and in the Army I was involved in drug prevention. I think the dangers of drugs outweigh their benefits.

Certainly there are many sports and other recreational activities which are dangerous, but I think the negative effects on the individual and society of illegal drugs is far greater than that of extreme sports. I wager that far more lives are ruined and lives lost due to drugs than dangerous sports.

Cheers,

Matt

]]> By: Polly http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-spiral-of-sin-and-salvation.html#comment-24261 Polly Tue, 29 May 2007 15:12:09 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-spiral-of-sin-and-salvation.html#comment-24261 (...continued) 18 or 21, I'm flexible) be allowed to take drugs, drink, smoke, etc. But, at some point society has to decide to cut the chord. I'm pretty certain that drug prohibition enforcement, including imprisonment for mere possession, and the rise of powerful gangs due to the lucrative black market for drugs has resulted in far more wasted lives and resources than individual users could've ever caused. (...continued) 18 or 21, I'm flexible) be allowed to take drugs, drink, smoke, etc. But, at some point society has to decide to cut the chord.
I'm pretty certain that drug prohibition enforcement, including imprisonment for mere possession, and the rise of powerful gangs due to the lucrative black market for drugs has resulted in far more wasted lives and resources than individual users could've ever caused.

]]> By: Polly http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-spiral-of-sin-and-salvation.html#comment-24260 Polly Tue, 29 May 2007 15:07:01 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-spiral-of-sin-and-salvation.html#comment-24260 <blockquote>Hello Matt, It is uncommon to interpret these scriptures in this way. In 20 years in many different churches, I have never heard it taught that these passages mean that the sudden impulse or desire is being addressed. <blockquote>I suggest that may be a function of which churches you attended. There are many Christians who believe that this passage does refer to the sudden impulse, such that even a moment of sexual desire is considered a damnable trespass</blockquote></blockquote> <b>Hi Matt R.</b> - I am married to one of the people Ebon is talking about and I've heard of one woman who left her husband because he committed the sin of lust according to the referenced verse from Matthew. Though my wife wouldn't go that far, she does consider lust, <i>including a momentary fleeting feeling</i>, to be almost equivalent to adultery. Her fears that I would inadvertantly commit adultery have, in the past, weakened our marriage to nearly the breaking point. This, and other <b>extremist</b> teachings of Jesus, are one of the reasons I am usually reluctant to endorse him as a great, Human, moral leader. I realize the passage is ambiguous, but instead of trying to make his point by being melodramatic, he could have saved us all a lot of heartache by just being CLEAR; that, would have been the moral thing to do. <u>With respect to Drugs:</u> Not to pile on here, but I also feel that drug use ought to be a personal choice. My reasoning is along these lines: If drugs really are as disastrous as they are made out to be, then most people will learn to avoid them, while those who are willing to take the risk, will find them no matter what. Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating that children (

Hello Matt,

It is uncommon to interpret these scriptures in this way. In 20 years in many different churches, I have never heard it taught that these passages mean that the sudden impulse or desire is being addressed.

I suggest that may be a function of which churches you attended. There are many Christians who believe that this passage does refer to the sudden impulse, such that even a moment of sexual desire is considered a damnable trespass

Hi Matt R. - I am married to one of the people Ebon is talking about and I've heard of one woman who left her husband because he committed the sin of lust according to the referenced verse from Matthew. Though my wife wouldn't go that far, she does consider lust, including a momentary fleeting feeling, to be almost equivalent to adultery. Her fears that I would inadvertantly commit adultery have, in the past, weakened our marriage to nearly the breaking point. This, and other extremist teachings of Jesus, are one of the reasons I am usually reluctant to endorse him as a great, Human, moral leader. I realize the passage is ambiguous, but instead of trying to make his point by being melodramatic, he could have saved us all a lot of heartache by just being CLEAR; that, would have been the moral thing to do.

With respect to Drugs: Not to pile on here, but I also feel that drug use ought to be a personal choice. My reasoning is along these lines: If drugs really are as disastrous as they are made out to be, then most people will learn to avoid them, while those who are willing to take the risk, will find them no matter what. Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating that children (

]]> By: Jerry http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-spiral-of-sin-and-salvation.html#comment-24254 Jerry Tue, 29 May 2007 11:57:20 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-spiral-of-sin-and-salvation.html#comment-24254 Yes. Pastor Ted is a hypocrite. And people that were "disciples" of Pastor Ted were idiots. And I'll agree that suppression of natural instincts will lead to failure. But Pastor Ted and his type do not teach the true historical Christianity. They teach a modern feel-good version that allows us the ability to work our way to heaven. True Christianity requires repentance, not suppression by force of will. As the prophet Ezekiel was commanded by God, "<a href="http://www.common-man.net/?p=308" rel="nofollow">Son of Man, dig!</a>" If you need to go and prove something is worthless and empty, go do it or learn from the experiences of other, don't suppress it. That is where modern Christianity falls on its face! Yes. Pastor Ted is a hypocrite. And people that were "disciples" of Pastor Ted were idiots. And I'll agree that suppression of natural instincts will lead to failure. But Pastor Ted and his type do not teach the true historical Christianity. They teach a modern feel-good version that allows us the ability to work our way to heaven. True Christianity requires repentance, not suppression by force of will. As the prophet Ezekiel was commanded by God, "Son of Man, dig!" If you need to go and prove something is worthless and empty, go do it or learn from the experiences of other, don't suppress it. That is where modern Christianity falls on its face!

]]> By: Greta Christina http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-spiral-of-sin-and-salvation.html#comment-24250 Greta Christina Tue, 29 May 2007 05:10:33 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-spiral-of-sin-and-salvation.html#comment-24250 "I am very amazed that anyone could consider it 'okay' for people to take drugs..." Really, Matt. Does that include the occasional glass of wine with dinner? A cup of coffee or tea in the morning? The problem is not drugs, but drug abuse. And it seems clear to me that problems with drug abuse are made worse by hysterical misinformation that exaggerates the danger of some drugs while ignoring or minimizing the dangers of others -- or even refusing to acknowledge certain drugs <u>as</u> drugs. Drug use seems to be a basic human activity. It exists in almost every human society on the planet, and has for thousands of years. Any sane and rational drug and drug education policy needs to start by acknowledging that. P.S. Jonathan, I'm not completely without sympathy for Haggard. But my sympathy for the tormented and confused goes down drastically in proportion to the amount of damage they've done. And I think he's done huge amounts of damage. "I am very amazed that anyone could consider it 'okay' for people to take drugs..."

Really, Matt. Does that include the occasional glass of wine with dinner? A cup of coffee or tea in the morning?

The problem is not drugs, but drug abuse. And it seems clear to me that problems with drug abuse are made worse by hysterical misinformation that exaggerates the danger of some drugs while ignoring or minimizing the dangers of others -- or even refusing to acknowledge certain drugs as drugs.

Drug use seems to be a basic human activity. It exists in almost every human society on the planet, and has for thousands of years. Any sane and rational drug and drug education policy needs to start by acknowledging that.

P.S. Jonathan, I'm not completely without sympathy for Haggard. But my sympathy for the tormented and confused goes down drastically in proportion to the amount of damage they've done. And I think he's done huge amounts of damage.

]]>