Did I just find a logical fallacy in the words of Jesus?
Matthew 5:27–28New International Version (NIV)
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[e] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Ok, sounds arguably ethical. The idea being that a thought of sin is somehow equal to physical sin. And surely temptation is not equal to sin.
But what about the other way around? Shouldn’t one also be able to simply “think” good thoughts towards filling the empty hungry bellies of poor uneducated children who have no future… and that be equal to the physical act of helping them out? Shouldn’t there be another set of verses in the Bible that claim something to the effect of…
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall feed the starving children’. But I tell you that anyone who looks at a starving child givingly has saved a starving child in his heart”.
What the fuck would be so great about saving a starving child in my heart? What good would that do for the child? How would that be doing the lords work? And if that’s not doing the lords work, then how the fuck would lusting after a woman be the same as committing adultery thereby doing the debils work? What harm would that do the woman? What if she’s lusting after me? What harm does that do me?
Are “bad” thoughts only equal to reality? Or are good thoughts equal to reality too? Is this a double standard?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
24 Answers
Thought is not reality regardless of intent.
The bible is so full of holes you can use it as a colander.
Jesus talked shit shocker, who knew?
First, feeding a child in one’s heart is not equivalent to physically feeding a child, from the point of view of the child. However, it may be equivalent from the point of view of the person doing the “feeding”. It indicates a generosity of spirit. This passage is not really about what the child gets out of it.
Second, although it is doubtless a good thing to want to feed a child, it makes no difference in terms of the “feeder’s” salvation. Doing good works, whether physically or in one’s heart is of no consequence in the afterlife. Conversely, all men are sinners – and they require salvation through Christ whether or not they have committed either lustful acts or lustful thoughts. In other words, it’s not really a double standard.
There’s a loophole for everything in Christianity.
Your first mistake is looking to the Bible for a logical argument of what’s right and wrong. The Bible doesn’t have to make sense, because religious folks don’t rely on logic – they rely on faith, which requires no reason.
Well I don’t know about that verse/verses, but The Secret was based on the bible and other belief system like this. I think it is sort of you are what you think. You can think people into better places including yourself and also think yourself into bad spaces.
It’s the Bible. The entire book is a logical fallacy.
Either you accept the Bible, or you do not.
There’s precious little middle ground.
Either you are of the Christian “faith”, or you are not.
The argument you would encounter from religious folk, I expect, would run something like this:
If one looks at a woman lustfully, they have already sinned, because you have betrayed the desire that should be solely for one’s spouse. But thoughts regarding good deeds by their nature should progress to good acts through the desire to do good. The only reason a lustful thought may not progress to a lustful act is self-restraint. But restraint would never be practised with regard to a good thought. The reason a good thought would not initiate a good act would be laziness or lack of sincerity (both of which are sins). Therefore a good thought that does not become a good act was no good thought at all (assuming it is in a vacuum – of course external factors may affect one’s ability to carry out the good act, but it should not be for lack of trying).
This is one of the results of the Bible being translated by people. They put the words they want into the mouths of characters in the Bible. One reason I regard the Bible with my tongue in my cheek. It’s why it just can’t be taken so literally!
There are two commandments I wonder about: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods” and “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.” Couldn’t “thy neighbor’s wife” also be considered as “thy neighbor’s goods?” Why not combine the two and allow the 10th commandment to be “Thou shalt not commit torture?” Or “Thou shalt not believe in evolution?”
The whole “Thou shalt not bear false witness” or “Thou shalt not lie” (whatever your preference) seems very vague. So if I say the sky is green I’m going to burn in hell for eternity?
Matthew is not Jesus. Just sayin’
@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Your argument about logic is incorrect.
“If A, then B” is true, it does not necessarily follow that “If not A, then not B” is true. You can substitute many scenarios for A and B, and you’ll see what I mean,
@rojo
And? The words there are those of Jesus.
Fallacies in 66 man-made books that were written, rewritten, edited, translated, and re-translated incalculably numerous times over some 3,500 years—imagine that!
The concept of ‘sin’ is fallacious itself. Who put these lustful thoughts in my mind if it wasn’t my creator? However these lustful thoughts should be balanced by other thoughts in a civilised human being.
non believers have been twisting the words of the Bible for generations. If that is your thing, have fun comparing apples to oranges. You don’t have to convince the world that you think the Bible is a lie. why be so desperate? Just believe what you want.
@BeenThereSaidThat As Daniel Dennett said, “There’s nothing I like less than a bad argument for a view I hold dear”. If a person is going to hold a viewpoint, and especially if they are going to discuss it in a public arena, they could at least have a good reason for their viewpoint.
To think that looking at a beautiful woman with lust means you have committed adultery is a phallusy.
How many males have you found that represent their [single] father accurately?
Lord have mercy! Forgetaboutit! You can drive yourself crazy trying to make sense of the Bible. Just think of it as sort of a metaphor. Don’t dig deep into it. Just get the idea of it and move on. Also you have to be intellectually dishonest or a not case to claim that everything in the Bible is absolutely true.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
