No, what he's saying is that since all actions start with a thought (for example, one does not just commit adultery; there's a period of "I wouldn't mind a bit of that"), it can be helpful to consider the thought as bad as the action for the purpose of weeding that behaviour out of our lives. Not that the thought is as bad as the action, because clearly it isn't. Continuing with the example: when we find ourselves thinking like that, it is at that point we should catch ourselves and think about something else instead. Attempting to stop yourself just before you rip her knickers off is unlikely to be quite as successful.

Similarly 29 and 30 are not suggestions of actual self-mutilation. Your eye cannot cause you to sin; it is exaggeration for the sake of making the point. You see something, you think about it, then you act on that thought. But if the act is sinful then we should attempt to stop the act at the earliest possible point.

[–] hsr@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

it can be helpful to consider the thought as bad as the action for the purpose of weeding that behaviour out of our lives. Not that the thought is as bad as the action, because clearly it isn't.

Considering how many (ex)Christian folks struggle with guilt for having "impure thoughts", that appears to be a flawed approach. You can't control what kinds of thoughts spontaneously appear in your mind. Imo you should simply be aware that these thoughts are separate from your intentions and actions towards that person, and don't guide those actions.

Keep in mind that the Bible treats adultery as property crime against the father or husband of that particular woman. If you try to apply Jesus' teachings to infidelity specifically, you must wrestle with a bunch of historical and cultural baggage. Nothing wrong with treating a story as inspirational, but again, be aware that you're making Jesus more cool and progressive than he probably deserves.

Yeah, Jesus is prone to hyperbole, agree on that.

[–] mossy_@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Discussions on christianity that comprehend that there is nuance to a 2k year old religion and respect it as a set of outdated moral guidelines? Damn, I didn't know 196 was chill like that

[–] hsr@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 months ago

Isn't it fascinating how you can talk honestly about religious texts when you're not bound by dogma? Fundamentalists hate this one simple trick.