Something that became apparent to me as I puzzled over some of the Bibles’ many commandments is that seldom do religious interpreters ever try to explain why they are given as instructions. For decades one of the strangest to me was the idea that “lusting” in one’s heart was a sin to be avoided. Very closely related is the commandment about coveting things that belong to another. There’s an old song with a line “You can’t go to jail for what you’re thinking,” and yet scripture said that certain thoughts could result in much worse than that.

But why? Why does it matter what we’re thinking if nothing comes of it? I’m not actually committing adultery or theft, so does it really matter?

The answer that finally became obvious to me after thinking of such questions for literally decades is that thinking is the first step in the process of doing, and therefore, “Don’t even think about it!” is useful advice to help ensure we don’t do something that’s harmful to not only the individual, but especially to the tribe.

Does it have any harmful effect on the group or anyone else if I fantasize about going to bed with a woman I see in a movie? No; I will probably never so much as lay eyes on her in person, much less develop any sort of relationship that could lead to actual intercourse. And what if I did? If neither of us were married, what would it matter? In short, it wouldn’t, or at least very little.

But what about life in a small tribe scratching out livings in a difficult environment? Now tribal cohesion is very important for the good of everyone. Not only is the environment difficult, but there will always be other threats and it’s not just more pleasant for everyone in the group to get along, it’s literally a matter of survival. That means it’s in the group’s interest to tamp down anything that causes strife within the tribe, and what could be worse for group cohesion than if this happens:

Old man Jacob has a new wife, Sarah, who has just reached very obvious and pretty womanhood. After a short time, though, it becomes obvious that she’s not happy in the marriage and she makes it clear that she has eyes for Isaac, a studly young man. Isaac in turn is unhappy with his wife or perhaps has no wife yet, and what happens? Yes, and it all starts with thinking, i.e., lusting in their hearts before it’s possible to do anything more.

The wise men (with possible help from wise women) who set down the rules for the group to get along will have probably many times seen what happens when the Isaacs and Sarahs in the tribe start casting eyes on each other. Casting leads to the whole process that ends up with their being caught—or worse: Sarah becoming pregnant while Jacob knows he’s not the father. At the least it will be, “Get out of my house and take that bastard with you,” but it can also easily lead to violation of the commandment to not kill members of one’s own tribe (killing members of other tribes is okay, and may even be commanded). Then killing one adulterer leads to killing the killer and feuds and on and on and on to the disastrous detriment of the tribe.

Based on all that knowledge and past experience, it therefore behooves the tribe’s leaders to try to head off the whole process, and what better way than to decree, “Don’t even think about it! Lusting, coveting, and thinking about bad things are sins just as much as doing them, so don’t.”

With all that in mind, the commandment about coveting and “lusting is as bad as doing” suddenly make sense. Further, such laws/rules can be very effective in countless ways. If we’re not in the habit of getting the hots for a teevee star, we’ll probably avoid thinking about how much we’d like to go to bed with our brother’s wife. Plus, trying to make—and especially explain—exceptions complicates and weakens the message: “Okay, no sex with my sister in law, but how about with the intern? Oral sex isn’t really sex, is it? What if it’s just the tip?” In this day and age adultery seldom results in serial killing and feuds, but it’s still bad for a marriage and even other interactions. So yes, don’t even think about it if you want to avoid bad complications in your life.

What does all that have to do with alcohol? Although my understanding of Judeo-Christian history and traditions makes me confident that real (alcoholic) wine was commonly drunk among both groups when the first holy scriptures were written, why would certain Christian denominations prohibit it today? Because drinking alcohol can lead to various problems, and not just the personally physical.

For example, during my five years as an Army criminal investigator in Germany my office probably handled an average of one rape complaint a month. How many of those involved the victim, the perpetrator, or both having been drinking heavily before the incident? Virtually every one; in fact as I thought about it even back then, I couldn’t think of any exceptions. Drinking was also involved in most assaults. If it hadn’t been for the availability and consumption of large amounts of alcohol, my criminal case load would have been significantly lighter.

Once we recognize the problems alcohol consumption causes, it becomes much less complicated if it’s not necessary to think about exceptions, “moderation,” etc. Whether the religious leaders who preach against any alcohol use today are smart enough to parse all that out is an open question, but it’s certainly much easier for them to just say, “Don’t do that!” and if they have divine sanction for the rule, so much the better.

Added rather than contributing to any derailing with another post:

Although I believe that commandments against things like thinking bad thoughts can be explained for purely practical secular reasons, making that argument was not the purpose of my comments. If one is a theist it’s just as valid to believe that although the commandment has practical value for the group to survive and prosper, its origin could just have been divinely inspired. It was not my intention to suggest otherwise.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sigfreund,

Thank you for the very thoughtful and thorough comment, sigfreund. Well said.

The tribe mentality is relevant, in my opinion, even though our literal survival isn't on the line the way it was in that more primitive context. Certain actions, though they may not lead to the catastrophic breakdown of a primitive tribe, can still erode the integrity of important relationships and trust. They can do damage to people we care about (and we ought to care about everyone).

When it comes to thoughts (and actions), I think this policy is a good one: If you'd prefer that no one else know about that thought or action, then it ain't a good one, and you should consider taking action to avoid it in the future.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
They can do damage to people we care about (and we ought to care about everyone).

Absolutely.

Although my discussion focuses on what I believe are the historical origins of response to one harmful behavior, there are many others and that are as relevant today as they were millenniums ago for both society and individuals. Demonstrations of what I’m referring to have been particularly obvious over the past four years or so: when enough people do and are allowed to get away with doing bad things, it’s not just a few individuals here and there who are affected. It changes the entire culture of a society.

Thank you to all the folks who are participating. The tangent discussions have been worthwhile. Thank you especially to those who continue to address the OP, even in the midst of the tangent discussions. Thanks to folks like pawprintsdoc and Black92LX (among others), the thread has not been derailed.

Yeah, sorry. I tend to derail religion threads. Please don't think less of me though, I'm adamant and I want everyone to understand the beauty in scripture and have a real relationship with our Creator. I want all of you to be "saved". (I'm not saying that any of you are not, I'm just saying I want it for all.)

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Something that became apparent to me as I puzzled over some of the Bibles’ many commandments is that seldom do religious interpreters ever try to explain why they are given as instructions. For decades one of the strangest to me was the idea that “lusting” in one’s heart was a sin to be avoided. Very closely related is the commandment about coveting things that belong to another. There’s an old song with a line “You can’t go to jail for what you’re thinking,” and yet scripture said that certain thoughts could result in much worse than that.

But why? Why does it matter what we’re thinking if nothing comes of it? I’m not actually committing adultery or theft, so does it really matter?

I'm not disagreeing with you on the practical impact of what you said. I agree. On the spiritual side, however, I find that Paul in Romans 3:20 explains: "For no one can ever be made right with God by doing what the law commands. The law simply shows us how sinful we are."

In Romans, Paul says our conscience where God's law is written and the Law given through Moses only serve to show we are sinners in need of a savior.

In Matthew 15, Jesus had an argument with the Pharisees because Jesus' disciples weren't following the tradition of ceremonial hand washing before they eat. Jesus then explains in verse 19 that actions or words are only a symptom. The real problem is with the heart.

That's why in Matthew 5:28, Jesus said that if anyone who even looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Even if he doesn't act on that lust, he still has the sin problem. And if he didn't lust in his heart, his sin problem will be evident in another way.

like a having a high temperature, the symptom of having a high temperature can be confirmed by just putting a hand to someone's forehead or with a thermometer (conscience or the commandment). But the problem is not the high temperature, the problem is the fever that is made evident by the symptom. And the fever is what needs to be addressed.

Dr. Frank Turek is my current favorite Christian resource and has a timely commentary:

Sigfreund expressed my perspective more thoroughly than I would have. The trouble with vices is addiction. Addiction is a form of captivity. God is the author of liberty and preserves it with moral codes. Lucifer is determined to lure us into captivity and eventual damnation. Addiction is the desired consequence. The trouble with alcohol, recreational drugs, pornography, gambling and other vices is one doesn’t know before he engages whether he’ll become an addict until it’s too late.

I have an addict personality. I know it. I can feel it. I’ve been addicted before and freed myself. I have an addiction now that I’ve not been able to free myself of. It’s not illegal nor immoral, but I’m in a small way, captive.

The way I see it, the gospel of Christ isn’t there to confine, but to liberate from bad consequences and to refine the character to be more like Him. In that, life is a better experience and we do little damage to others.

Well said, darth.

On the topic of sinful thoughts: Even if there is no follow-through, a desirous thought can be representative of our spirit's intent. Even if we are wise and strong-willed enough to stop short of taking action that could result in worldly consequences for us and others, our spirit is affected by that darkness.

Someone's thoughts may very-well represent the sort of person they would be, if they knew their actions wouldn't result in negative worldly consequences.

A person who combats these addictive pulls every day is a commendable one, so long as he is pushing back for the sake of his spirit and mere goodness. Someone who resists the follow-through solely on the basis of avoiding worldly consequences is little credit to himself (though we are still thankful or his resistance).

C.S. Lewis said something to the effect of (paraphrasing) "some folks have it easier than others". If we look at two parishioners: one a near model Christian; the other a recidivist "backslider", that model Christian may very well be currently less afflicted, less demon-tormented, than that backslider. The seemingly "worse" Christian of the two may be every day flexing his Christian muscles more than the "good" one ever has, in resistance to his addictions and temptations.

Maybe that "better" Christian has been on that journey already, and been saved as a result. Perhaps that man embroiled in spiritual battle every day is on the verge of his salvation.

Also, by resisting “wrong” thoughts, it gets easier to stop having them/it reduces their frequency. (AKA something I have half forgotten about “rebuking the devil.” )

It’s only by fighting the immediate symptom, we can advance against the root problem.

Spiritual warfare is a part of being Christian - and an incredibly important reason to raise children in faith.

“Letting your children find Jesus on their own,” is downright demonic. (Admittedly, so are some leaders of some churches.)

"You gotta wanna".

quote:

Also, by resisting “wrong” thoughts, it gets easier to stop having them/it reduces their frequency. (AKA something I have half forgotten about “rebuking the devil.” )

It’s only by fighting the immediate symptom, we can advance against the root problem.

Indeed. The contemporary left refuses this possibility, in regards to things like transsexuality.

I keep coming back to this thread, and find it interesting.

More and more, I don't understand the question. If you are a Christian, you have accepted the gift of Christ given by the grace of God. That is what it takes to be saved.

As I said in my first post in the thread, the question seems to contain in it an assumption that if you haven't been "saved" by following some set of steps it doesn't count. Or, if you haven't accepted the grace of God in the way some particular way, then you haven't been saved and are not a Christian, despite what you think.

This is why you can find some evangelicals who think Catholics or Methodists aren't genuine Christians. And some Catholics (although I don't think this is mainstream Catholic thinking) who think Baptists aren't saved.

Don't worry about how they did it, when they did it, or whether they were fully immersed, or whatever. If they believe Jesus was given to remit their sins, that is all it takes. It might have him them as a bolt from the blue, like Saul, or it might have come through a lifetime of slow religious observance. Neither way is better or more genuine. No one is more saved than anyone else.

quote:

If you are a Christian, you have accepted the gift of Christ given by the grace of God. That is what it takes to be saved.
...
Don't worry about how they did it, when they did it, or whether they were fully immersed, or whatever. If they believe Jesus was given to remit their sins, that is all it takes. It might have him them as a bolt from the blue, like Saul, or it might have come through a lifetime of slow religious observance. Neither way is better or more genuine. No one is more saved than anyone else.

jhe888: Yes, I agree... and I think most here do as well. We don't have to get hung up on minor doctrinal differences.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

jhe888: Yes, I agree... and I think most here do as well. We don't have to get hung up on minor doctrinal differences.

I do hope most agree. However the question itself indicates there is some potential confusion.

My wife attended a Baptist university. She was a Catholic and knew plenty of people who feared for her soul. I hope those attitudes are giving way.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:


This is why you can find some evangelicals who think Catholics or Methodists aren't genuine Christians. And some Catholics (although I don't think this is mainstream Catholic thinking) who think Baptists aren't saved.

True story here and I remember it like it was yesterday because it hurt me so bad:

When I was 6 my Dad divorced. Until that point I'd been raised as a Catholic. My older sister received her First Holy Communion but I was too young when the next step happened.

When I was 7 my Dad met a woman and got remarried. She was a Charismatic Christian (who also had been Catholic) and we all became Protestant Christians and were raised that way. I went from sitting in a pew and singing very old songs to people rolling and falling down in the aisles of a church, speaking in gibberish ("tongues") to me and singing very different songs. We eventually settled into a more mainstream type Nazarene church in time. I think my parents choices were at the tail end of the 1970's Jesus Movement as this was 1979.

When I was around 10-11 years old I remember being at my grandmom's house in Philadelphia and don't recall how this came up, seem to think someone asked my grandmother why she spoiled us grandkids so much and with a complete straight face and matter of fact voice, my still-proudly-Catholic-till-the-day-she-died grandmother replied with something like "What does it matter, they are all going right to Hell anyway."

Why would you say such a thing to a kid like that? For the choices their PARENTS made?

I still visited her often and loved her but man did that sting! And when I was at her funeral Mass in 2002 or so I'm sitting with my 3 cousins who lived in that neighborhood who I knew for a fact MAYBE went to Mass on Easter and Christmas by that point when I was a regular and faithful church attendee!

I fully believe that I will see her again in Heaven and maybe she can apologize there.

quote:

I fully believe that I will see her again in Heaven and maybe she can apologize there.

She won't have to (or feel compelled to), because neither of you will care. Those worldly beefs will evaporate instantly. That's how I believe, anyway. Why wouldn't they? In C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce, he considers things just like this. Some people have trouble entering paradise because they can't reconcile things like this. That's not to say that you'd have any trouble. It's interesting to consider.

If paradise is indeed an unbelievably purely joyous condition all the time, why would your spiritual self be burdened with those matters?

quote:

someone asked my grandmother why she spoiled us grandkids so much and with a complete straight face and matter of fact voice, my still-proudly-Catholic-till-the-day-she-died grandmother replied with something like "What does it matter, they are all going right to Hell anyway."

You can't hold it against her... she was a good woman who loved her grandkids. Were she alive today she probably wouldn't say such a thing.
I think the Church, in those days, used to be mistaken about making a big deal out of all of this splits and schisms.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
This is why you can find some evangelicals who think Catholics or Methodists aren't genuine Christians.

It might seem that we’ve drifted somewhat from the original “Are you saved?” question, but this is, I believe, directly applicable to its answer.

In discussions about theology a concept that comes up at times is what’s known as “Pascal’s wager.” To simplify somewhat, what the Catholic philosopher Blaise Pascal argued was that if we believe in God and we’re wrong, we haven’t lost much at the end of this life. If, however, we don’t believe in God and we’re wrong, we will lose a great deal when we transition to the next life. Therefore just based on a simple risk/benefit analysis it’s better to believe than not believe.

There are several criticisms of the idea, but one that’s often cited by atheists and other nonbelievers is the question of “Believe in which god? Wouldn’t it be better to withhold belief in any gods rather than worship the wrong one?” And it’s not enough to just believe in the God of Abraham whom most Christians, Jews, and even Muslims worship and conceptualize in various ways: We also need to follow the correct sect, i.e., the right form of worship and correct doctrines.

Sectarian divisions even within what are nominally the same religions are not trivial matters. Countless self-described Christians have killed other self-described Christians over religious beliefs throughout history, and members of the two main branches of Islam regularly slaughter each other to this day over questions such as lines of descent from the Prophet Muhammad.

To return to this thread’s question, what if salvation does depend on issues such as the proper form of baptism, what baptism means and accomplishes, can humans (priests) give us true forgiveness of our sins, is drinking alcoholic beverages a sin, etc., etc., et cetera? If all that matters, then we’re back to the Pascal conundrum: It’s not enough to believe, we must believe the right things. And without going any deeper, I’ll point out that because that question exists and is deemed to be so important by so many believers is a significant reason why there are unbelievers of various types.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

jhe888: Yes, I agree... and I think most here do as well. We don't have to get hung up on minor doctrinal differences.

I do hope most agree. However the question itself indicates there is some potential confusion.

My wife attended a Baptist university. She was a Catholic and knew plenty of people who feared for her soul. I hope those attitudes are giving way.

I would assume that is because what the Catholic Church teaches for salvation contradicts scripture by making it works and Christ. You must also consider that just believing is not enough, the devils believe and tremble. There are stories in scripture where demons knew who Christ was but that does not mean they were saved. Paul, John, Peter are all clear on how a Christian should look and act. Making a confession/profession and living as one still in darkness does not equate to what the scripture picture as one truly saved.

And this is not directed at you, but to this thread in general.