Comments on AT WHAT LEVEL IS IT WRONG TO SIN?

Go to The Reverend Kooka Speaks About Religious Bulls#!t - Add a comment - Go to AT WHAT LEVEL IS IT WRONG TO SIN?

Gomedome,
I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were being lighthearted.

posted by Dyl_Pickle on June 11, 2006 at 8:02 PM | link to this | reply

a link to search for catechism
http://search.netscape.com/ns/search?fromPage=NSCPToolbarNS&query=catechism

posted by Xeno-x on June 6, 2006 at 3:17 PM | link to this | reply

one more time -- that doesn't seem to work
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

posted by Xeno-x on June 6, 2006 at 3:13 PM | link to this | reply

here -- the catechism site
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html

left off the "l"

posted by Xeno-x on June 6, 2006 at 3:12 PM | link to this | reply

gomey and dylan
it was inthe last year or so that The Church took up the subject of catechism and decided against changing it.
yes, it's the same as it ever was.

I do have a copy of Catechism for Adults, sort of a training manual for those interested in joining.

it does raise some interesting ponts.

also, in order to mediate arguments, here is a website:

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.htm

just looked it up -- took about 5 seconds.

by the way -- as a way of thanking me for this, would you mind visiting my humor blog:  right now -- something for laughs?

posted by Xeno-x on June 6, 2006 at 3:11 PM | link to this | reply

Dylan_Valente - remind me never to make a lighthearted comment in your

direction again.

You are also not going to get very far with me arguing about the basic constructs of the Catholic religion. The concept of Purgatory is still the same as it always was.

posted by gomedome on June 6, 2006 at 3:02 PM | link to this | reply

NOPEACE ABOUT LUST
Mat 5:28 But 1161 I 1473 say 3004 unto you 5213, That 3754 whosoever 3956 looketh 991 on a woman 1135 to 4314 lust after 1937 her 846 hath committed adultery 3431 with her 846 already 2235 in 1722 his 846 heart 2588.

THIS IS THE VERSE --NOTICE THE NUMBERS -- each number has a correlating number behind which is a definitive in the Greek-English lexicon of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, one of the definitive reference works for those who would study the Bible.

lets us look at lust, shall we?

1) to turn upon a thing

2) to have a desire for, long for, to desire

3) to lust after, covet

a) of those who seek things forbidden

Thayer's Lexicon (Help)

now, I want you to notice this verse:

Mat 13:17 For 1063 verily 281 I say 3004 unto you 5213, That 3754 many 4183 prophets 4396 and 2532 righteous 1342 [men] have desired 1937 to see 1492 [those things] which 3739 ye see 991 , and 2532 have 1492 0 not 3756 seen 1492 [them]; and 2532 to hear 191 [those things] which 3739 ye hear 191 , and 2532 have 191 0 not 3756 heard 191 [them].

the word rendered "desired" here in "righteous men have DESIRED" is the same word as the word rendered "lust" in Mat 5:28.. 

WE NEED TO SET UP A POINT OF REFERENCE HERE.  THE WORD TRANSLATED "LUST" DOES NOT NECESSARILY REFER TO SEXUAL DESIRE

it refers to desiring sojmething -- sometimes righteously.

but it has to do with possession -- when we talk of it in an unproductive sense --it has to do with covetousness -- that is, wanting something that is not yours, and prettywell willing to do something harmful to another in order to have it.

here's a passage from the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man, using the same word:

Luk 16:21 And 2532 desiring 1937 to be fed 5526 with 575 the crumbs 5589 which 3588 fell 4098 from 575 the rich man's 4145 table 5132: moreover 235 2532 the dogs 2965 came 2064 and licked 621 his 846 sores 1668.

here's a passage with a meaning more attuned to the Mat 5:28 passage

Rom 7:7 What 5101 shall we say 2046 then 3767? [Is] the law 3551 sin 266? God forbid 3361 1096 . Nay 235, I had 1097 0 not 3756 known 1097 sin 266, but 1508 by 1223 the law 3551: for 1063 5037 I had 1492 0 not 3756 known 1492 lust 1939, except 1508 the law 3551 had said 3004 , Thou shalt 1937 0 not 3756 covet 1937 .

you really should take thought to what you are saying:  you have made so many mistakes in this short section of comments.

Might it be that someone should look into rescending your MENSA membership?

posted by Xeno-x on June 6, 2006 at 6:04 AM | link to this | reply

NOPEACE -- ABOUT MURDER
the word used in the New Testament -- it can mean  both killing and murder.

maybe Matthew is the most detailed -- however -- we are not talking about the word "murder" being used inthe original language, as opposed to "kill".  The same Greek word is used in all of these instances -- and I have included every instance where the Greek word is used.

TAKE NOTE NOPEACE:::

IT WAS THE KING JAMES TRANSLATORS THAT USED THE WORD, "MURDER" IN THIS INSTANCE RATHER THAN THE WORD, "KILL", WHICH THEY USED IN EVERY OTHER INSTANCE.  JESUS DID NOT HAVE A THING TO DO WITH WHAT WORD WAS USED -- IN FACT, THE WRITERS OF THE BOOKS DID.  IT WAS 16TH CENTURY ANGLICANS (MAYBE JUST ONE OR TWO THAT PREFERRED THE WORD, "MURDER", TOTHE WORD, "KILL", THAT DECIDED TO USE IT THERE./  IT IS THE SAME GREEK WORD THROUGHOUT THE PASSAGES QUOTED.  IF JESUS HAS WANTED TO USE A DIFFERENT WORD, THEN THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A DIFFERENT GREEK WORD THERE.

posted by Xeno-x on June 6, 2006 at 5:46 AM | link to this | reply

NOPEACE -- i don't think you have read a whit of the Bible
putting pork and milk together!!!!!

Lev 11:7And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he [is] unclean to you.
Lev 11:8Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they [are] unclean to you.

FIRST  there was a proscription against even eating pork


and the actual instruction:

Exd 23:19 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring into the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

Deu 14:21 Ye shall not eat [of] any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that [is] in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou [art] an holy people unto the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

talks about a KID -- a kid has nothing to do with pork, in case you haven't heard.

posted by Xeno-x on June 6, 2006 at 5:40 AM | link to this | reply

Gomedome,

what catechism are you basing your comments on? The one from year 1500?

I have been educated in Catholicism for ten years and never have I been taught that sins add up to purgatory time. Purgatory is for those who die with mortal sin, not yet forgiven, but who otherwise are faithful and good people.

And I do not agree with your notion of Confession. One is supposed to confess serious as well as venial sins, and not just to pray but to do penance in order to show contrition. (Perhaps by doing something kind for someone whom the confessing-person wronged.)

posted by Dyl_Pickle on June 5, 2006 at 7:25 PM | link to this | reply

Xeno

Also, the one key element that you are missing when refering to the scripture is that when you bring about the meaning of God's law in the Old Testament, you HAVE to look to the New Testament and read what Jesus stated about those same laws.  It's called Old for a reason.  The New Testament was the establishment of a New Covenant between God and Man through Jesus. 

Which is why during the Old Testament you had those laws such as not putting pork and milk on the table together or going to a priest to confess your sins.  Through Jesus a New Covenant was established in the New Testament and many of the Old laws were done away with. 

The Old Laws were there because certain things made man impure to God but now through Jesus all humans are purified.

posted by NOPEACE on June 5, 2006 at 4:40 PM | link to this | reply

Xeno

In the passage where Jesus talks about committing adultery by looking upon a woman with lust.  True, adultery is consenual sex however, the sin God is refering to is LUST.  You would commit an adulterous act with another mans wife if given the chance and this is being driven by LUST.

I am however glad that you finally admit Jesus said murder in Matthew. If you read the Gospels of the Apostles, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, you will notice that Matthew's account is the most detailed which is why it is the most heavily quoted and the most popular. 

posted by NOPEACE on June 5, 2006 at 4:35 PM | link to this | reply

and then there is
Exd 20:13 Thou shalt not kill 07523 .
Deu 5:17 Thou shalt not kill 07523 .

1) to murder, slay, kill

a) (Qal) to murder, slay

1) premeditated

2) accidental

3) as avenger

4) slayer (intentional) (participle)

b) (Niphal) to be slain

c) (Piel)

1) to murder, assassinate

2) murderer, assassin (participle)(subst)

d) (Pual) to be killed

if people only would quit putting their interpretations on things.

posted by Xeno-x on June 5, 2006 at 1:57 PM | link to this | reply

okay here is some more.
phoneuo (Strong's 5407) occurs 18 times in 10 verses:
Mat 5:21 Ye have heard 191 that 3754 it was said 4483 by them of old time 744, Thou shalt 5407 0 not 3756 kill 5407 ; and 1161 whosoever 3739 302 shall kill 5407 shall be 2071 in danger 1777 of the judgment 2920:
Mat 19:18 He saith 3004 unto him 846, Which 4169? 1161 Jesus 2424 said 2036 , Thou shalt do 5407 0 no 3756 murder 5407 , Thou shalt 3431 0 not 3756 commit adultery 3431 , Thou shalt 2813 0 not 3756 steal 2813 , Thou shalt 5576 0 not 3756 bear false witness 5576 ,
Mat 23:31 Wherefore 5620 ye be witnesses 3140 unto yourselves 1438, that 3754 ye are 2075 the children 5207 of them which killed 5407 the prophets 4396.
Mat 23:35 That 3704 upon 1909 you 5209 may come 2064 all 3956 the righteous 1342 blood 129 shed 1632 upon 1909 the earth 1093, from 575 the blood 129 of righteous 1342 Abel 6 unto 2193 the blood 129 of Zacharias 2197 son 5207 of Barachias 914, whom 3739 ye slew 5407 between 3342 the temple 3485 and 2532 the altar 2379.
Mar 10:19 Thou knowest 1492 the commandments 1785, Do 3431 0 not 3361 commit adultery 3431 , Do 5407 0 not 3361 kill 5407 , Do 2813 0 not 3361 steal 2813 , Do 5576 0 not 3361 bear false witness 5576 , Defraud 650 not 3361, Honour 5091 thy 4675 father 3962 and 2532 mother 3384.
Luk 18:20 Thou knowest 1492 the commandments 1785, Do 3431 0 not 3361 commit adultery 3431 , Do 5407 0 not 3361 kill 5407 , Do 2813 0 not 3361 steal 2813 , Do 5576 0 not 3361 bear false witness 5576 , Honour 5091 thy 4675 father 3962 and 2532 thy 4675 mother 3384.
Rom 13:9 For 1063 this, Thou shalt 3431 0 not 3756 commit adultery 3431 , Thou shalt 5407 0 not 3756 kill 5407 , Thou shalt 2813 0 not 3756 steal 2813 , Thou shalt 5576 0 not 3756 bear false witness 5576 , Thou shalt 1937 0 not 3756 covet 1937 ; and 2532 if [there be] any 1536 other 2087 commandment 1785, it is briefly comprehended 346 in 1722 this 5129 saying 3056, namely 1722, Thou shalt love 25 thy 4675 neighbour 4139 as 5613 thyself 1438.
Jam 2:11 For 1063 he that said 2036 , Do 3431 0 not 3361 commit adultery 3431 , said 2036 also 2532, Do 5407 0 not 3361 kill 5407 . Now 1161 if 1487 thou commit 3431 0 no 3756 adultery 3431 , yet if 1161 thou kill 5407 , thou art become 1096 a transgressor 3848 of the law 3551.
Jam 4:2 Ye lust 1937 , and 2532 have 2192 not 3756: ye kill 5407 , and 2532 desire to have 2206 , and 2532 cannot 3756 1410 obtain 2013 : ye fight 3164 and 2532 war 4170 , yet 1161 ye have 2192 not 3756, because 1223 ye 5209 ask 154 not 3361.
Jam 5:6 Ye have condemned 2613 [and] killed 5407 the just 1342; [and] he doth 498 0 not 3756 resist 498 you 5213.


you will find that the only place where the Greek word is rendered "Murder" is in the Matthew passage.  The correlating passages in Mark and Luke render it, "Kill".

posted by Xeno-x on June 5, 2006 at 1:56 PM | link to this | reply

NOPEACE -- this and the previous are for you.
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

what is adultery?

From wilkopedia:  "Adultery is generally defined as consensual sexual intercourse by a married person with someone other than his or her lawful spouse. In many jurisdictions, an unmarried person who is sexually involved with a married person is also considered an adulterer."

so if a man has intercourse with another man, that is not adultery (unless of course either of them is married).



posted by Xeno-x on June 5, 2006 at 1:42 PM | link to this | reply

NOPEADFE, the point
I was trying to make

you said murder is a sin only when it is committed -- not if someone thinks of it.

Jesus said, basically, if you think of sinning, it is virtually the same as sinning.

action follows thought, that is.

you drew your own conclusion when you made your statement; and I then let Jesus own words demonstrate what the Bible really says about the subject.


posted by Xeno-x on June 5, 2006 at 1:36 PM | link to this | reply

Dylan_Valente - the catholics also have another good deal for sin
Just walk into a little closet, kneel down, confess your venial sins to a priest in an adjacent closet and you get off the hook immediately simply by saying a few prayers. However, with all good deals there is a catch. Each and every sin, regardless of being venial or mortal, racks up purgatory time. I figure that I have about 80 billion years racked up by now. . . .but at least that isn't eternity.

posted by gomedome on June 5, 2006 at 7:52 AM | link to this | reply

The Catholic Church has a fairly sound resolution to this problem.

The Church distinguishes between serious sin and venial sin, the difference being the degree of harm done and whether or not the sin was deliberate.

If an act is serious and deliberate, it is classified as mortal sin. If the act is minor and or unintentional, it is still considered wrong, but only venial sin.

In your example, the person who steals to feed a hungry loved one would be guilty, at worst, of venial sin because of the extenuating circumstances. Stealing from the poor, on the other hand, would be a mortal sin (something our leaders in business and government should think about next time they pontificate about the need to cut taxes on the affluent while cutting the safety net for the disadvantaged).

posted by Dyl_Pickle on June 5, 2006 at 5:40 AM | link to this | reply

NOPEACE
So you are admitting that Jesus changed the laws of God, there by showing that God's laws are NOT absolute.  You are saying that every so often we need to change those laws due to changes in our society.  You are saying that God's laws are not eternal.
 
You really need to listen to your own words. It is kind of like you said in one of your posts that homosexuals were not equal (it was something like 'they are not equal') to the rest of us and then kept trying to claim you never said such a thing.

posted by kooka_lives on June 4, 2006 at 6:42 PM | link to this | reply

Xeno

In the old testament, God established a covenant with man and gave Moses the law (the 10 commandements).  The New Testament was the establishment of a new covenant.  In the old testament when people sinned they went to the high priest to confess their sins and the high priest would make a sacrifice on the alter by usually killing some sort of animal.  In the new testament, that was no longer necessary because all you had to do now is pray to God in the name of Jesus because Jesus (the High Priest) submitted himself as the sacrifice on the alter (the cross) for the sins of man.

In the new testament, Jesus says the law of Moses says thou shall not  kill.  In the New testament, Jesus began using the word "murder." 

You also mentioned: "Now, what did Jesus say?  "If you look upon a woman, etc., you have committed adultery in your heart."

I noticed you put etc. leaving a key part of that statement out.  Jesus said, "If you look upon a woman with LUSTin your eyes, you have already committed adultery with her in your heart."

Lust is a sin which is why Jesus makes that statement about looking upon a woman with lustful desires.  To be attracted to another man if you are a man is not lustful.  However, if you begin looking upon that man saying to yourself I want to f... him, that's lust and you are committing an adulterous act.

You can't cut out pieces of the scripture to try to make your argument Xeno.

 

posted by NOPEACE on June 4, 2006 at 5:35 PM | link to this | reply

DAMN NOPEACE!!!
you got to go back and read you rbible.
your statements are assumptions.

and I quote:
 
"Intent and motivation are very meaningful.  If you have the urge to kill someone but you do not kill them, what crime have you committed? None.  If you are a man and you have an attraction for another man but you never act on those desires, what sin have you committed? None. "

Now, what did Jesus say?  "If you look upon a woman, etc., you have committed adultery in your heart."

so having the thought in the mind is the same as committing the act.
 
"Try checking out this passage in the bible: "Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness..." (Matthew 19:18)."

Jesus is quoting the Ten Commandments, (as you must surely know), and the commandment in Exodus 20 says "Kill".  so we aren't speaking about murder.  Besides, the hebrew word means "put to death", a little diffeerent.
 
"Murder is defined as: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
 
Malice is defined as: The intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another."

okay so that's the definniation -- but -- that's a modern definnition, applying to the secular laws of a country such as the U.S. and its various political subdivisions, such as states.
 
"Murder is the shedding of innocent blood.  The people God has lead his people in the bible to kill were not innocent people and there was no malice towards them."

Now -- what do we make of this?  And how do we determine what is innocent blood and what is not?  Actually, we could go on and on about David and all the bloody events happenig around him among his own people -- Saul; and his sons -- Absalom and David's other sons.

I couild go into Solomon and his son Jeroboam, how  people rejected Rehoboam as king after he said, "My father whipped you with whips; I shall do the same with scorpions"  -- doesn't sound like too much of a holy and righteous reign to me.


posted by Xeno-x on June 4, 2006 at 5:03 PM | link to this | reply

NOPEACE
First off, you are right here and now saying a starving child who steals bread to feed himself and his baby brother is equal in evil in God's eyes to a murderer or rapist.  That is a truly sad and hateful god who does not deserve anyone's worship.  If sin is sin, then motivation and intention do NOT matter in the least.  Right is right and wrong is wrong.  You are confusing thoughts and actions in you commenT.  those are not the same thing.  I am talking fully of actions here.  Does the motivation behind the actions (Or sins) matter?  According to you no, therefore just being born is enough of a sin and so why should any sin after that matter?

Second, 'thou shalt not murder' is a rewording of the original.  If that rewrite over rides the original and it is now 'murder' instead of 'kill', then once more God's laws are not concrete and can be changed as needed.  His laws should therefore be updated as one sees fit?  If you pick the updated version of that, then you are just picking and choosing which version to follow.  Suddenly you are trying justify sinning just because you dislike the way one of God's laws was written and prefer a different wording of it.

Besides, you said
'Murder is defined as: The unlawful killing of one human by another'.  Do you understand what that means?  That still does not really justify a lot of what happens.  Many people are put to death over man's laws, not God's.  Man stood in judgement and put them to death, yet they may be innocent and so therefore their deaths are murder, pure and simple.  Unless you wish to say that God's laws can be ignored at times in favor of man's laws.  Truthfully we do not have the right to ever judge a person or put them to death. Yes you also added the part of 'especially with premeditated malice', but the way it is worded it clearly say not all cases of murder have malice.  Also, I have seen cases where a victim put to death by the courts was very much killed with 'premeditated malice'.

If sin is sin, then there is little point to worrying about your actions.  Lying about breaking a window is no different than killing all your neighbors and having you way with their bodies.  In God's eyes those are equal acts and both deserve equal punishment.  Suddenly you loose all logic and reasoning about the Bible teaching positive values, since if you sin once, you might as well go all the way since your punishment will be no different.

The image you keep representing me of God makes me less and less understanding as to why anyone in their right mind would wish to worship such a cold and horrible being.  I have yet to be given any true proven worthy attribute for your idea God.

posted by kooka_lives on June 4, 2006 at 4:14 PM | link to this | reply

I would agree with you, Kooka, that most "homosexual" sex
occuring in prisons is actually rape -- not homosexuality.   It's the act of man preying on man.  This makes me think of the judge who recently sentenced a sexual offender to probation because of his height.  Being only 5'1" she was afraid for his safety while in prison.  I would venture to guess that his punishment, meted out by other inmates, would be of a sexual nature and possibly rape.  That said, I have a problem with anyone going free after repeatedly molesting or fondling a child.  It would seem the judge was more interested in the safety of the offender than the safety of the victim.

posted by JanesOpinion on June 4, 2006 at 2:27 PM | link to this | reply

kooka_lives - the biggest problems that heterosexuals have in understanding

same sex attraction generally are thus:

Almost all heterosexuals confuse sexual behaviour (which can be modified) with sexual preference (which cannot be modified).

Sexual behaviour can be influenced by a variety of factors, including the environment and the domination culture as found in the prison example that you use.  Sexual preference on the other hand is much more deeply ingrained within the individual to a point that it defines the person, it is who they are. It has been my experience in life, that of the few dozen homosexuals that I have met, they have no more chance of changing their sexual preferences than they have of changing their skin colour. . . but they can and quite often do, modify their behaviour to avoid the inevitable societal ostracism that they are going to face.  This is the saddest part about the entire debate concerning homosexuals. Family members are quite often the worst offenders in not accepting them for who they are and we all know what fools some religious folks can make of themselves concerning this issue. Acceptance by society is the only answer for these people.   

posted by gomedome on June 4, 2006 at 1:30 PM | link to this | reply

Kooka

First of all, you are looking at God's law through the eyes of man and not through the eyes of God.  In the eyes of man and within our society we set laws with varying degrees of punishment.  However, God said the wages of sin is death.  Notice that he did not say the wages of some sin is death.  So, according to God, regardless of which sin you commit the severity of your punishment will be the same which would make the severity of the sin in Gods eyes equal. 

If that sin is between someone committing homosexual acts and murder, without repentence their punishment will be the same which will be death or casting into the lake of fire.  Also, you mentioned :

"But in the minds of so many believers intent and motivation are meaningless, because they like the big labels of 'right' and 'wrong' or 'good' and 'evil'.  They disregard the motivation aspect of it."
 
Intent and motivation are very meaningful.  If you have the urge to kill someone but you do not kill them, what crime have you committed? None.  If you are a man and you have an attraction for another man but you never act on those desires, what sin have you committed? None. 
 
Every person has temptations presented to them by Satan, whether it be to commit murder, engage in homosexual sex, steal or what have you.  You are not punished for being tempted, it is only when you give in to those temptations that you have committed a sin.
 
Also, you continously mention that the bible says thou shall not kill:
 
"Kind of how believers have no problem putting people to death, even though the Bible says 'Thou shalt not kill' (It is 'kill' not 'Murder' for all you who enjoy rewriting it to help you defend yourselves)."
 
Try checking out this passage in the bible: "Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness..." (Matthew 19:18).
 
Murder is defined as: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
 
Malice is defined as: The intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another.
 
Murder is the shedding of innocent blood.  The people God has lead his people in the bible to kill were not innocent people and there was no malice towards them.
 
 
 

posted by NOPEACE on June 4, 2006 at 1:26 PM | link to this | reply