The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[United Muscovite Nations]

Similarly with lust, anger is an emotion, while the vice of Wrath is about being blinded by it and becoming thoughtless, impulsive, to eventually become paranoid and losing trust in humanity.

Which goes back to your first statement to which Salus replied to, maybe you were meaning well, but the idea you gave of what Jesus was about, felt like an oversimplified caricature.

Are you saying that any mental illness which can cause abnormal levels of anger is a sin?

The anger itself is a sin. This is why we confess both voluntary and involuntary sins, and why we even ask for God to forgive things we didn't know were sins.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Are you saying that any mental illness which can cause abnormal levels of anger is a sin?

The anger itself is a sin. This is why we confess both voluntary and involuntary sins, and why we even ask for God to forgive things we didn't know were sins.

So, God punishes people for not obtaining forgiveness for sins they had no control over?

Plus, an omnipotent God would know that such abnormal levels of anger, if caused by mental illness, are ultimately down to neurochemical imbalances with no basis in free will.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Are you saying that any mental illness which can cause abnormal levels of anger is a sin?

God made SSRIs for a reason

Humans. Invented. Antidepressants.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The anger itself is a sin. This is why we confess both voluntary and involuntary sins, and why we even ask for God to forgive things we didn't know were sins.

So, God punishes people for not obtaining forgiveness for sins they had no control over?

Plus, an omnipotent God would know that such abnormal levels of anger, if caused by mental illness, are ultimately down to neurochemical imbalances with no basis in free will.

Forgiveness is already obtained, it need only be accepted.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

So, God punishes people for not obtaining forgiveness for sins they had no control over?

Plus, an omnipotent God would know that such abnormal levels of anger, if caused by mental illness, are ultimately down to neurochemical imbalances with no basis in free will.

Forgiveness is already obtained, it need only be accepted.

So, God punishes people for not accepting forgiveness for sins they had no control over?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Forgiveness is already obtained, it need only be accepted.

So, God punishes people for not accepting forgiveness for sins they had no control over?

Whether someone has control over something doesn't change the fact that they indulged their anger and allowed it to overcome them. We never have control over our emotions, but that doesn't excuse every action we perform.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

So, God punishes people for not accepting forgiveness for sins they had no control over?

Whether someone has control over something doesn't change the fact that they indulged their anger and allowed it to overcome them. We never have control over our emotions, but that doesn't excuse every action we perform.

And what if such emotions are practically impossible to overcome without medical help, as is the case with mental illness?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Whether someone has control over something doesn't change the fact that they indulged their anger and allowed it to overcome them. We never have control over our emotions, but that doesn't excuse every action we perform.

And what if such emotions are practically impossible to overcome without medical help, as is the case with mental illness?

Emotions cannot be overcome normally. Everything we do is interpreted through our emotions, which have an immense deal of control over our daily lives.

And you don't have to tell me what mental illness is like, I have plenty of personal experience with that.

[Lost Memories]

Similarly with lust, anger is an emotion, while the vice of Wrath is about being blinded by it and becoming thoughtless, impulsive, to eventually become paranoid and losing trust in humanity.

Which goes back to your first statement to which Salus replied to, maybe you were meaning well, but the idea you gave of what Jesus was about, felt like an oversimplified caricature.

Are you saying that any mental illness which can cause abnormal levels of anger is a sin?

"oversimplified caricature"

If anger is an emotion, which is related to the sense of justice when faced with injustice, or with things being outside expectations;
and a normal person is someone who is faced with a normal level of anger, which they need to learn to understand and manage, and not let loose;
a person with an abnormal level of anger is someone with a bigger burden on them, but regardless they need to find a way to manage it, while the burden being bigger puts them in a more vulnerable state which makes it easier for them to sin.

So no, anger related mental illnesses aren't sins, but they make a person more vulnerable to sin.
Sometimes the person afflicted can't even deal with it on their own, cause they lack the tools or the burden is just so big, so the only way for them to get back in charge of themselves, is from external help.

All vices are the self feeding mental states which favor sinning, they initially come from either weakness of will or basic mistakes, then they self feed by giving the illusion of solving misery while they actually just aggravate misery, in most cases the first mistakes a person does are done unwillingly or without realizing, if they were aware they would naturally avoid those mistakes, cause no one sane in their mind likes to suffer and purposely make their own life miserable.

[Tarsonis]

wow...a fight in the CDT I’m not a part of....this is weird.

[Kowani]

Are you saying that any mental illness which can cause abnormal levels of anger is a sin?

The anger itself is a sin. This is why we confess both voluntary and involuntary sins, and why we even ask for God to forgive things we didn't know were sins.

If anger is actually a Sin, I guess we’re all going to hell. I feel like there’s a lesson in there about disproportionate retribution.

[Tarsonis]

The anger itself is a sin. This is why we confess both voluntary and involuntary sins, and why we even ask for God to forgive things we didn't know were sins.

If anger is actually a Sin, I guess we’re all going to hell. I feel like there’s a lesson in there about disproportionate retribution.

There seems to be some confusion as to what lust and and anger actually are in biblical context, Lust is not simply sexual attraction or even unconscious desire. But rather a deep seated sexual desire beyond all reason. David lusted after Bathsheba and killed her husband for it. A man who lusts after a (key word) married woman, has committed adultary in his heart.

Essentially wanting to sin, is just as bad as actually sinning.


Anger isn’t merely being irate, but wrathful. Anger to such levels that you would willingly harm other people.

[Salus Maior]

Okay, I'll tell you. Here's my blanket statement:

Matthew 5:21-28

1.Christ's message about lust and adultery, anger and murder has nothing to do with equating the two things. Lust is not sin. It never was and it never will be. It's a natural biological instinct that keeps the human race from going extinct. Lust doesn't hurt anyone. Adultery, however, is a sin. Adultery emotionally hurts others and is unloving.

2.Anger is not a sin. It's a natural emotion that all people have. (It can't hurt you unless you allow it to turn into bitterness.) Murder, however, is a sin. Murder hurts people. Murder is not loving.

So what was Jesus talking about? What was the point of the message? Simple. It was to get people to think differently about sin and where sin comes from.

Sin starts with our thoughts. Jesus was saying that the sin of adultery starts in the mind with a thought. And a natural thought, at that. There is nothing wrong with looking at a woman lustfully. It's biology. (And a lot of women love that kind of attention, too.) But if you walk up to her and kiss her or grope her and you're in a romantic relationship with someone else, then that's a sin called adultery (if it's not consensual then it's also a second sin called sexual assault).

There is nothing wrong with thoughts. There is nothing wrong with thinking. There is nothing wrong with emotions.

BUT the danger is that if we don't mind ourselves, those thoughts and those emotions could begin to manifest into something we call sin. That is the point that Jesus was making. Mindfulness. Sin starts in the mind. If we are aware of our thoughts, guess what? We can conquer sin, just as Jesus did.

What better way to honor Christ - what better way to worship God - what better way to love ourselves and each other, than to take up our cross and follow him? To do as he did? If we do this, then we end up breaking the biggest rule of all - the biggest rule that runs this world: Sin.

1. Lust is absolutely a sin, Scripture is pretty damn clear about that multiple times over. Lust being a want to veer into sexual immorality and the immorality itself. As for "hurting others" being the only indicator for sin that's not a Christian point of view, it's not just what hurts others in a physical/emotional/etc sense but what damages your own soul. The "it's not immoral if it doesn't hurt anyone physically/emotionally/etc" shtick comes from liberal ideology, not Christianity.

2. There are certain cases where anger is justified, but it's not right to just be angry. Christ is being pretty damn clear about that.

The problem with your interpretation both times is that it blatantly ignores what Christ actually said and was trying to get across for the sake of your preconceived notions brought about by liberal culture. Both times Christ is getting across that both lust and anger are severely sinful, by accentuates this by comparing them with the extremes (adultery and murder). Christ doesn't care if there are girls that want to be ogled at, it's wrong for you to do it. Consent doesn't make a sin a not sin.

[Salus Maior]

And what if such emotions are practically impossible to overcome without medical help, as is the case with mental illness?

If a person isn't in control over their faculties, they're not culpable for the act.

[Pope Joan]

And what if such emotions are practically impossible to overcome without medical help, as is the case with mental illness?

If a person isn't in control over their faculties, they're not culpable for the act.

Let's all drive drunk! Let's all display road rage!

[Salus Maior]

If a person isn't in control over their faculties, they're not culpable for the act.

Let's all drive drunk! Let's all display road rage!

You're culpable for deciding to get drunk, and road rage you can overcome.

[Lost Memories]

If a person isn't in control over their faculties, they're not culpable for the act.

I'm not sure on this one, I may be agreeing more with MuscoviteNations.
For example, a person could cause an offence to an other without realizing, once they realize they would apologize, but why would they apologize if what they did wasn't bad? Because actions can be good and bad regardless of the intention behind them. So in a sense, the action detatched from the intention can be sinful.

Would it make sense to observe separately the sins rooted in the intentions, and sins rooted in the actions?

[United Muscovite Nations]

And what if such emotions are practically impossible to overcome without medical help, as is the case with mental illness?

If a person isn't in control over their faculties, they're not culpable for the act.

They may have a lessened culpability, but they are still culpable. Someone who kills in a deranged haze is still held culpable for what they have done, even if we do not consider it to be as horrible as murder.

[Hakons]

The anger itself is a sin. This is why we confess both voluntary and involuntary sins, and why we even ask for God to forgive things we didn't know were sins.

If anger is actually a Sin, I guess we’re all going to hell. I feel like there’s a lesson in there about disproportionate retribution.

We are all going to Hell unless God intervenes and saves us.

[Northern Davincia]

If a person isn't in control over their faculties, they're not culpable for the act.

Let's all drive drunk! Let's all display road rage!

No, don't.

[Salus Maior]

If a person isn't in control over their faculties, they're not culpable for the act.

I'm not sure on this one, I may be agreeing more with MuscoviteNations.
For example, a person could cause an offence to an other without realizing, once they realize they would apologize, but why would they apologize if what they did wasn't bad? Because actions can be good and bad regardless of the intention behind them. So in a sense, the action detatched from the intention can be sinful.

Would it make sense to observe separately the sins rooted in the intentions, and sins rooted in the actions?

Intentions aren't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about whether or not one is actually in control of their actions.

[Lost Memories]

Intentions aren't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about whether or not one is actually in control of their actions.

Isn't that the same as: actions backed by intention vs actions lacking intention?

In the case of actions lacking intention, as you said and I agree with, there is obviously no ill/sinful intention, cause there is no intention to start with.
But what about the value of the action itself? Can an action be called sinful?
(here maybe there are two slightly different definitions of what is sin, sin as ill motivated action, and sin as evil which can manifest in both intentions and/or actions)

[Stonok]

Does anyone still go to the "nice part of Hell", i.e. Abraham's Bosom/Paradise/Sheol? Or did God retire this when Christ's work was finished? I probably asked this before but my memory isn't the sharpest lately.

[Tarsonis]

Does anyone still go to the "nice part of Hell", i.e. Abraham's Bosom/Paradise/Sheol? Or did God retire this when Christ's work was finished? I probably asked this before but my memory isn't the sharpest lately.

The hall of Kings isn’t too bad

[Northern Davincia]

Does anyone still go to the "nice part of Hell", i.e. Abraham's Bosom/Paradise/Sheol? Or did God retire this when Christ's work was finished? I probably asked this before but my memory isn't the sharpest lately.

Limbo? That's reserved for virtuous pagans.