 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
Another Letter from "Mr J" People who read this - I'm not an expert in all of the topics I go on about so if I make errors please feel free to contact me so that they can be amended. you'd need to back up your assertions, though - better than I do here :)
Subject: 'A Spent Life' comic Hi Stuart and Lauren. ;^_= Just wanted to give feedback on the comic before the latest. I agree with the comic in general, that we're supposed to enjoy life and I do believe the God encourages it through his word, however Jesus and all the Prophets were all quite clear on sexual fidelity and purity (Jesus even pointed out that looking at another woman (or man, I don't know the original Greek or Hebraic, besides the cultural meaning might be dual to mean both) in lust (however that is interpreted) is seen as committing adultery with her/him. As for using the Bible as a bludgeoning weapon I see the comedic effect in it, but while the Bible is seen as the word of God written in the Holy Spirit by men of God (unlike the Koran which is seen as directly from heaven) and is not considered holy by itself but by its words, I doubt God would easily use it for such and even more let others do so) ... Regardless you have an excellent point. Many Christian lives have been pointlessly dull, throwing the innocent things of the world out with the sinful. Warm Regards
PS. I just checked up on Jenny McCarth (Lol, no vaccines?).
Hi Mr J , Good to hear from you again. Firstly: The book God uses for slapstick effect is actually not meant to be the Bible, but the Book of Life, in which he has written the names of all the righteous who may pass through the gates of Heaven (Exodus 32:33 ). I know it may seem like I don't care much for being canonical when I have God meeting the dead instead of St. Peter, but that was my intention when I wrote it. (You'll see at the beginning of the comic that he's looking at his name in the book.)
As for the part where you say that: Jesus [was] quite clear on sexual fidelity and purity. Jesus even pointed out that looking at another woman (...) in lust (...) is seen as committing adultery. Yes you are right that Jesus said this; we can find his 'exact words': Matthew 5: 27-29
You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. This is one of the passages I always had problems with, way back in RE class in school before I even knew true lust myself. I think, when you are younger, you tend to gloss over the little bumps and inconsistencies in the bible in the way that you might blur out the plotholes and gaffs in a movie. But the bible pertains to be The Truth and so deserves true inspection. What Jesus is essentially saying is that even your thoughts can be accountable criminal act. This brings forth the terrifying notion of thought-crimes and thought-police and to that I say never, ever can this be a morally acceptable form of governance. Not now, not then, not ever. The thoughts that come into your brain are chemical reactions and are beyond conscious control because conscious control is in the hands of the thoughts themselves. You cannot control most of what comes into your mind (try not thinking of a cow) and therefore we should be judged on our actions not our thoughts. Every morning you may pass a lovely young wife who lives down your street and you may find her very attractive indeed. You may sneak her a little glance and appreciate her beauty. In this case there is probably a natural part of you that kicks in for a moment and wishes you could shower her with kisses and maybe more. But you don't do it (I hope). You stop yourself from doing it because you should know that it is wrong to seduce a married lady, wrong to force yourself upon her and somewhat wrong to leer at her any longer than a cursory glance. The decisions you make between so-called 'impure' / 'immoral' thoughts and the following actions define your morality. You could extend this argument into somewhat hazier and more controversial territory if you consider someone like a paedophile who has lustful thoughts many times more unacceptable in society. While acting on the thoughts of seducing a married woman only traverses into a social wrongdoing in which the parties are only guilty of breaking the established agreements of how to behave within arranged partnerships (boy, did I just kill the beauty of marriage), if a paedophile acts on his urges he breaks the law. An active paedophile would commit a serious miscarriage of justice by (whether forcefully or otherwise) enganing in sexual acts with someone who cannot legally consent to such acts. However, there are plenty of arguments to suggest that such a person cannot suppress these thoughts (at least not easily) and therefore if he/she is able to manage such lust and never act on his/her urges then I say he/she is not a criminal and should not be judged as one. I know some might disagree as they find the very fact that the paedophile thinks about such things to be utterly repellent but if they have not committed a crime, they do not deserve punishment. And so it is with all thoughts, impure or otherwise. So, those are my thoughts. As always, feels free to get back to me if you have any feedback! Best Wishes Chain Bear |
|