I went back to the questions I had which you quoted. I hope this will show why your answer was anything but clear.
I said:
And you replied:
So, your answer seems to me to be saying that coveting, lust, and pride are NOT sins.
Perhaps I am too much a product of teh hip and groovy West to understand your point?
Julie
I don’t know if it’s obvious what it means, but the way it was explained to me in theology is that…
It’s perfectly natural (and not a sin) for you to see a pretty girl (or boy, or rabbit sandwich for that matter) and have an initial thought of, “gee that’s pretty (nice, sweet, tasty, et cetera)”.
It’s not necessarily but probably natural (but still not a sin) for the thought to pop into your head afterward, “I wonder what she looks like naked.” This action was the ‘point of decision’ where you would either allow yourself to sin, or refrain from doing so. I have heard this being described as the actual point of temptation, and was attributed to the devil, demons, or the baser nature of man, depending on who was talking about it.
It’s not necessarily but possibly natural (and a sin) for you to then allow yourself to picture her naked, and think about what you would like to do with her. At this point it becomes sin.
To use the Jesus in the desert story as an example. He was fasting. Had been for 40 days. It was natural and not sinful for him to be hungry and desire food. It was not necessarily but probably natural and not sinful for the thought to pop into his head (whether it was from his base nature or ‘the devil’), “I could turn those bricks into bread and eat”. It would have been a sin to turn them into bread, OR to not turn them into bread but sit there thinking, “I wonder how they would taste if I turned them into bread? Would they be like malty? or more like mana? I am ‘God’ after all, so they would probably be mana, but still…et cetera”. That would have been ‘entertaining the desire’.
Somebody a year or two ago came up with a beautiful metaphor about “entertaining sinful thoughts/desires” that I really liked.
Personifying them, he said, “You have no control over what sinful thoughts and desires walk up and down the street in front of your house, nor on whether you’ll notice them doing so. But you certainly don’t have to entertain them, that is, bring them in, draw them up an easy chair, and pour them a glass of wine and set out crackers and cheese for them.”
Emphasis mine.
Are the thoughts and desires, according to this philosophy, then, sinful in and of themselves?
I know we’re dealing with lots of theologies, and that just makes things more complicated!
Julie
The Bible does occasionally make references that would suggest Jesus was not onmiscient:
25 A large crowd followed and pressed around him. And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years. 26 She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse. 27 When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, 28 because she thought, “If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.” 29 Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering.
30 At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, “Who touched my clothes?”
31 “You see the people crowding against you,” his disciples answered, "and yet you can ask, ‘Who touched me?’ "
32 But Jesus kept looking around to see who had done it. 33 Then the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell at his feet and, trembling with fear, told him the whole truth. 34 He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering.”
Mark 5: 25-32 (NIV)
Okay, that makes sense.
Well, to be honest, it doesn’t make sense to me that there would be anything sinful in God or Jesus turning a brick into bread, but that’s a different story!
What puzzles me is how much control someone who is starving, say, would be expected to have over their thoughts.
Julie
It wouldn’t normally, except in that particular case, Jesus was directed by ‘God’ to go into the desert and fast, be tempted by the devil, and then wait until the ‘Spirit of God’ came and ministered to him. Since that had not yet happened, he was not allowed to eat. And turning the brick into the bread would have been ‘entertaining the desire’ to eat despite the ‘command’ of ‘God’.
Oops, wrong button…should have been all in one post
You would be surprised about the level of control over that though. I once fasted for 40 days as a thought experiment. The first 3 days or so were hell, I almost couldn’t stop thinking about food. After that though, most of my desire for anything tapered off. Every now and then I would get a hunger pain and would drink some water to help settle my stomach, but outside of those pains, it was pretty easy not to think about food at all. Of course by the time the 5th week ended, it was pretty hard to keep from halucinating more than anything else, but those halucinations (at least for me) never had anything to do with food. By the end of day 40 scurvy is starting to set in, and if you kept going that would further reduce your appitite.
But if your desire for food tapered off, how much “control” were you exercising over your thoughts?
To go back to the whole coveting thing, say I buy a lottery ticket. I don’t win. I read about the guy who did win. He won $1,000,000.
So, if I were to think to myself, “I wish I had won that 1 million dollars,” that would be okay (not sinful coveting). But if I thought, “I wish I had won that 1 million dollars because I’d put a roof on my house and feed the hungry and buy a new pair of socks,” that would be
not-okay?
Am I even in the ballpark?
I’ll admit, the distinction (as I understand it, probably incorrectly) seems fine enough not to matter, though I’ll also be the first to admit that I’m no theologian.
Julie
This is kind of a funny thought. If Jesus worked with Joseph, which I believe is customary, and grew in wisdom, could you have gotten a chair made by Jesus? And would the warrantee be better than one made by someone else? That would really suck if it fell apart after a month, but I’d assume Joseph would watch over it.
Did Jesus ever get lost? Well, there was one story where He was forgotten. Did Him mother ever spank Him? I think so. But I do not believe it’s sin for a child to disobey, I beleive they are growing in the knowledge of what’s right and wrong, IMO.
Just like the the Kids in the Hall Sketch. “While historians have determined that Christ was indeed a carpenter, we’ve unfortunately also discovered that he wasn’t a very GOOD carpenter. Consider this ill-made spice rack…”
I thought sin was anything that separates you from God: doesn’t doubting God’s wisdom qualify if anything does? Christ clearly entertained his doubt, as he dwelled on it for some time. Or is it impossible to sin when you are God? Special rules for special people?
There actually is an “other” Gospel that purports to tell what Jesus was up to in his childhood. It’s pretty clear why it isn’t canon though… 
Actually, I think what He said was ‘If possible, take this cup from me. Nevertheless, not My will, but Yours be done.’ I don’t recall Him clearly entertaining His doubt.
That whole diatribe was meant simply to put into perspective the amount of control a willing participant in a fast would need to not think about food. IE: Not a lot.
I doubt though, that it would be the same for someone who was truly starving.
to answer your example… (and this is just opinion, from a non-christian X-theology student, btw nothing more, I reserve the right to be ok if your pastor disagrees with me)
I don’t think at the point in the train of thought you mention, you are truly coveting, though you are dancing on the line. If you followed that diatribe of thought up with something like, “…new pair of socks. He doesn’t deserve that money. It should be mine.” OR, “…new pair of socks. I would spend that money on so much better stuff than he will.” At that point it would DEFINATELY be covetous.
In the “we’re all sinners” thread, http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=201366, it seemed that the standard for “sin” isn’t very stringent. I could sin without knowing it.
I’ll quote Polycarp in that thread:
Can you love God with all of that and still doubt him, even for an instant?
Well, Jesus seems to have lost his temper with the money changers, and he wasn’t terribly kind to the Pharisees.
But God gets angry quite a bit in the OT–which appears to be something forbidden humans.
Jesus claims the right to judge, as does God.
So we’re back to “if you want it, you are guilty of coveting it,” aren’t we?
Sorry for picking on you, Polycarp, but you did the best job of laying out how even tiny things could be viewed as sins.
Julie
Even if it were true? Even if, say, I was going to spend all of the money on feeding the hungry while he is going to put all of the money in his mattress? Or he’s going to use all of his money to buy a nuclear warhead?
Julie
Yes. Even if you are going to truly spend all the money on feeding the hungry, and even if he was going to purchase nuclear warheads (or prostitutes, or whatever other thing you consider negative) it would still be coveting. At least under the assumption of the Bible that is.
See, it’s the Bible’s assumption that everything is happening according to ‘God’s Plan’ ™. If it’s in ‘God’s Plan’ ™ that the fictional person in this hypothetical wins the lottery, and you don’t, by saying, or thinking, or doing anything to suggest you think otherwise, you are denying the ‘Will of God’ ™ and working against ‘God’s Plan’ ™.
Does that make it clearer? or am I talking in circles (hard not to do with some of this stuff)?
jsgoddess, there is no command to not get angry. Actually, I think it says when you are angry, be careful, as sin could be lurking at your door, and in anger, don’t sin. So no, anger isn’t a sin.
Jesus could have made mistakes. He was mortal, so therfore, he was able to make mistakes and sin.
What would you feel if you had to face what He did?
If C.S. Lewis didn’t write that, he should have.