realization
"The problem seems to be not the mere thought of 'lust' - but the cultivation of that idea until we 'act' in ways that compromise 'do not commit adultery' (societyVS)
hmmm. i'm not sure about this. i guess it's the whole cultivation thing that has me doing a double take. where is the line in the sand that separates the doing from the done?
i mean, Jesus' words point out that, in the eyes of God, there is no real difference between what we do mentally and what we do physically. in other words, although we think of ourselves as these fragmented, compartmentalized beings, God does not. as hineini has shared from his ongoing study of the teachings of philosopher emmanuel levinas, to put someone into a box of our own design is to murder the person's identity and therefore rob that person of freedom and life... regardless of whether we treat that person the way we think of them or not. similarly, our hindu friends assert that all of life is in the mind, and go on to suggest that if we were actually able to think certain things, those things would be realized.
the word realize in and of itself is used more often with reference to an idea than to a physical situation. we speak of 'suddenly realizing' something, meaning that an idea which has been elusive up until now becames an accepted truth for us. for us it has been made real: it has been realized.
a friend of mine was recently sorting out some life stuff and it was getting messy. the challenge was that he was trying to apply the wise teachings of another to his life, but was having trouble doing so because he was basically stubborn. he wanted to but he didn't want to, you know? classic divided heart stuff that we all encounter from time to time.
in a different context, i was recently speaking on the biblical character of samson. to summarize the biblical narrative, his story is the story of the slow demise of a super hero…
this is a guy who seems to be best known for his arrogance and impulsiveness, his belligerence and unteachability, and his tendency to push hard against the limits to see if they will hold. yet while still in the womb, it is established that he is to be set apart to live a life of radical holiness and dedication to God in order to bear radical fruit. he is to be a nazirite.
it is your basic three-part vow (as detailed in the sixth chapter of the fourth book of the bible):
*no contact with fruit of the vine- inner purity, self control and self discipline
*no contact with any already dead thing- inner purity, alignment with life not death
*no haircuts- common among holy men around the world, outwardly signifying this ‘vow of separation’
but samson’s fall is a gradual descent from radical consecration to regular compromise… samson systematically dismantles his own 'super powers'…
first he goes wandering off from the rest of his group, getting into a scrap with a lion down by a certain vineyard and then keeping it secret. later, he wanders off again, returning to the scene of his secret crime, and enjoying strange and exotic delicacies from the insides of this carcass, hinting coyly at it with riddles. now whether we look at this narrative figuratively, or literally, it appears that, with two down and one to go, this revocation of vows just needs an outward signature to authenticate the inner abandonment. it is no surprise when the hair finally comes off- what is a surprise is that it takes twenty years and a personal midlife crisis for the divided heart of this guy to finally be outwardly realized.
in my view, it is of even greater import that we give attention to the inner struggle of submission and yieldedness, as the growth in this underlying area will serve our journey in the decisions and actions of many overlying ones. i almost said 'superficial' here but then realized that our outer life is in no way superficial... if it were, i think that Jesus would have focused entirely upon mystical teachings, rather than calling people again and again to an awareness of how their hearts and their bones need to be in sync.
after all, the actions of the outer man betray or celebrate the state of the inner person. they are the realization in our outer, physical realm of the angel or devil inside.
***
gordon macdonald has a rather successful book called rebuilding your private world and i imagine much of this thinking is better-articulated there. the book asserts, event within its title, that we live in (at least) two worlds, an inner one and an outer one, and that their prudent management, order and reorder are both possible and necessary.
21 Comments:
"i mean, Jesus' words point out that, in the eyes of God, there is no real difference between what we do mentally and what we do physically." (J Beggar)
Having thoughts is not a bad thing - we all do and they come from a variety of angles. But having thoughts of themselves does not make anything so (just makes it a possibility and sometimes a far fetched one). For example, someone might want to build a nuclear bomb (for personal uses) but not know how and neither have the pieces to do so. But he thought it. He neither did anything with that thought nor could he.
I have heard Christians rail about these scriptures and just thinking any of these things (lust, murder, greed, etc) is a sin. But that makes very little sense to me since it is in 'doing' something we make problems (ie: adultery) and have actual represcussions. It is in the elaboration of the idea of lust we get into trouble - when we develop an action plan. However, if someone's mind is consumed with 'lustful' ideas then one has to wonder how not acting upon it is a possibility. But these things take time and serious thought and then we decide to do something.
I think Jesus is warning us about our thinking patterns and what we ruminate on in our minds will likely find it's way into society (hurting another). Not that the thought is a 'sin' but that making a home for it is.
"we were actually able to think certain things, those things would be realized." (J Beggar)
I agree with their assertion here about thought. Someone doesn't become president by thinking they aren't worth it. I think this is a strong biblical ideal also within Matthew.
"it is of even greater import that we give attention to the inner struggle of submission and yieldedness, as the growth in this underlying area will serve our journey in the decisions and actions of many overlying ones." (J Beggar)
I agree...we all know everything starts in the mind with an idea. Maybe we need to find ways to creatively build our minds - things that involve love, kindness, and purity.
"the actions of the outer man betray or celebrate the state of the inner person. they are the realization in our outer, physical realm of the angel or devil inside." (J Beggar)
That sounds like a division (outer man, inner man) also.
My personal view is the inner and outer are one - called human. The inner effects the outer (ex: thoughts) and the outer the inner (ex: pain). It's when we seperate the two that we get into something that breaks the human into pieces that we mis-represent the human experience. That's why I find the churches belief that thinking something is a 'sin' is quite ludicrous. It just isn't true all the time.
"But that makes very little sense to me since it is in 'doing' something we make problems (ie: adultery) and have actual represcussions. It is in the elaboration of the idea of lust we get into trouble - when we develop an action plan..." (societyVS)
"My personal view is the inner and outer are one - called human. The inner effects the outer (ex: thoughts) and the outer the inner (ex: pain). It's when we seperate the two that we get into something that breaks the human into pieces that we mis-represent the human experience." (societyVS)
i may be misunderstanding something here, but these words appear to contradict themselves. on one hand, a line is drawn between what we think and what we do (relegating the 'thinking' into some kind of factor in an imaginary and inconsequencial realm while elevating the 'doing' to the real world) while on the other, societyVS speaks about this whole human experiencial oneness thing.
opening up a huge tangent and being both politically incorrect and probably offensive for a moment, i have to say that i find this logic as difficult to agree with as the assertion that there can be a distinction made as to exactly when a zygote becomes human...
i think if we are one then the thoughts that are the inception of the actions are as real as the actions themselves, since we are incapable (apart from those weird limbic system moments where instinct kicks in and we either drop our gloves or skate the other way as fast as we can) of acting without some degree of mental engagement...
i've heard people speak of situations in which they just 'couldn't help themselves' but it always comes back to this:
'we do what we do
because we want to do this
more than we want to NOT do it.'
let's not forget that thinking is an action on its own, whether it leads to further actions or not. it might look like this: thinking pure evil allows me to commit incredible crimes against others without ever being caught.
at its core, is this any less wrong?
I think we sometimes tend to make things more difficult that they are. Personally I feel that having a thought does not constitute sin. What do we do with that thought if it can lead us to sin? If we immediately go to the Father and ask for Him to take that thought away and actively pursue other thoughts then I feel that is what we are called to do.
I believe that you don't have to act on a thought in a physical manner in order for it to be sin. You can fantasize abt another man/woman and make it into a dream world and that is just as wrong as committing the act of adultery. I think when we allow it to become more than a fleeting thought - it can become sin. Maybe I am too simplistic in my way of thinking.
"I think we sometimes tend to make things more difficult that they are." (2muchthought)
The way to make this conversation the most difficult is to start speaking of whats a sin when...Thats when it gets complicated. There is a verse...I think its in Mark although I'm not sure thats says something to the effect of "from the overflow of the heart(mind), the mouth speaks" so I have to go more with jollybeggar on this one. Any seperation between "thinking" and "doing (or acting)" (although its been rightly pointed out thinking is a doing or acting) is artificial to me. I can say that my thoughts of murdering my neighbour aren't bad but why would I want to say this? They certainly aren't helpful in me loving them are they?
But maybe seeing I'm not interested in determining sin my approach might be unhelpful.
"The way to make this conversation the most difficult is to start speaking of whats a sin..." (hineini)
nicely put. the cup is half full or half empty... which is the more useful approach in loving and expressing this love- to identify what we are to do and then do it or to identify what we are to NOT do and then not do it?
probably the active 'doing' expression of love supercedes the passive 'not doing' expression of the same love.
***
"if you spend your time doing the dos you won't have time to do the donts" (mike warnke)
"i think if we are one then the thoughts that are the inception of the actions are as real as the actions themselves" (J Beggar)
How so? That makes as much sense as saying the imaginery (which is a thought) is a real thing. So if thinking is reality of it's own - then each time I think 'that chick is hot' - am I committing actual adultery? When I have feelings of extreme anger for someone hitting my sister - am I murderer? If so, then what of having a well rounded emotional experience in which we actually need to go through those things?
That's where I have to draw the obvious line...you only discuss the thoughts we have without the acting on it part. I see the two as one - the second part only an extension of the first (as in 'I made a decision'), but not seperate. If that needs to be a seperate line then so be it, but I can think about something and not do or I can think about something and do (and this isn't inconsistent with the whole human experience we have).
I have been angry at things a lot in my life and did not act upon it - yet the other person suffered nothing. I have had thoughts about another women and yet she did nothing to show we committed such an act. So how can a thought be an action? If anything, sitting and thinking about ending poverty (as an example)is not an action in and of itself - or is it? If so, then I must be reading something in the gospels all wrong.
I mean am I makin sense with this?
"But maybe seeing I'm not interested in determining sin my approach might be unhelpful." (Heinini)
My use of the word 'sin' basically means the division of right and wrong - and on that - I think we can all weigh in on.
"at its core, is this any less wrong?" (J Beggar)
I don't think your idea 'thoughts are actions' is any less wrong - it might be more helpful to hold that perspective (since it is really not much different than what any of us is saying).
I guess where I am coming off is Jesus is asking us to question our rationale and our thoughts before they lead us into actions that make us sorry. But it seems I get the point - change my thinking and this will change what actions I pursue.
RE:"i think if we are one then the thoughts that are the inception of the actions are as real as the actions themselves" (J Beggar)
societyVS, my friend, it seems that you are arguing a point that is different than the one being made in the soundbyte cited.
thoughts are real. it is inescapable. they are not real in the same way that physical actions are real, but because we have engaged in something willfully, whether it is an imagining or a happening, the fact is that we have engaged... and yes, i do believe that our imaginings become our reality, depending on how deeply we mind-over-matter ourselves.
okay, crass example: if you are laying with your wife and thinking about that 'chick' that you innocently (?) felt was so 'hot' then how many people are really in bed with you? please don't say that it is different if you mentally tear the woman's clothes off of her body in the shopping mall, than if you are imagining her while making love to your wife. what does it matter?
if you shared with your wife that you were thinking about that other woman, would she be fine with that because you hadn't actually acted upon the animal attraction that existed? would she be all understanding and say 'that's okay, i was thinking about someone else too' or would it be a quiet evening for you alone in the doghouse?
our thoughts matter. it's not just the ones that lead to physical action that need to be managed carefully. don't write yourself a license which justifies being a divided man under the guise of well-rounded emotional experience... you are responsible for the things you choose to put your mind or your hands to.
***
RE: "at its core, is this any less wrong?" (J Beggar)
to clarify, this bit was referring to the moral wrongness of putting into practice the notion that "thinking pure evil allows me to commit incredible crimes against others without ever being caught."
"and yes, i do believe that our imaginings become our reality, depending on how deeply we mind-over-matter ourselves." (J Beggar)
Always? In every situation? I am sorry to dileneate from what you percieve as correct in this matter - but I am not totally sure that is correct? I think the idea needs further elaboration.
"thoughts are real" (J Beggar)
How real are they? Are they real because they exist in our minds? Is there a point they are simply a day-dream? What about dreams (of which we have no control)?
"crass example: if you are laying with your wife and thinking about that 'chick' that you innocently (?) felt was so 'hot' then how many people are really in bed with you? please don't say that it is different if you mentally tear the woman's clothes off of her body in the shopping mall, than if you are imagining her while making love to your wife. what does it matter?" (J Beggar)
Okay so if I think a woman is 'hot' then I am committing adultery? What if my wife says the exact same thing about the same woman? Oh no, she's a lesbian? Explain the logic there?
As for the comment about this being innocent (?) - well I guess that's a call for me to truly know and for everyone else to keep their wives away from me for the time being - God forbid I should call them 'pretty or something worse'.
"don't write yourself a license which justifies being a divided man under the guise of well-rounded emotional experience... you are responsible for the things you choose to put your mind or your hands to." (J Beggar)
Is that what you think I am trying to do here - find some justification for my problems so I can keep on doing the things I do? Hmmmm. Interesting jump. I noticed you divided 'mind' from 'hands to' into 2 categories - so there is a difference? Why not just say mind?
I have said nothing about denying responsibility on any level. I believe I am responsible for what i think, decide, and do. One must wonder with a mind like mine I haven't actually committed the act of adultery (which is sexual acts with another woman that is not my wife). Must be that I don't pay that much time to ideas like that. Do I have the thoughts - on occasion. Do I act upon them - hell no...I do love my wife.
As for the emotional experience the point I was making is certain emotions have to happen in order to fully deal with them. Example being my dad. I hated that dude. But in order for me to deal with the idea of hate I have to deal with those ideas I held about my dad - and guess what - anger still comes up - 20 years after his death. But I deal with it and heal from it - in the teachings of forgiveness I have learned. But is anger wrong in that scenario? If so, then I shall never fully deal with my short-comings.
"Interesting jump" (societyVS)
ha ha- there are one or two interesting jumps in your last overall comment, dude. which would you like to be today, the pot or the kettle?
no listen, this isn't a fight. my original post is about being mindful of where things can go if we permit them to move beyond innocence. all the reactionary rhetoric that you are employing doesn't actually change that.
i have not been speaking about your problems any more than i have been speaking of mine, but there is a danger than comes when we wink at things within our hearts that jeopardize the relationships entrusted to us and to the image of God that we bear. nothing wrong with setting the bar high and inviting people to consider it. i am not posing as some renegade monk seeking to proactively pluck out the eyes of the faithful- just inviting you and anybody else reading to consider the idea that there might be things about us that are real even though they never manifest themselves physically.
however, your responses seem to be very personal, overblown, reactive and, at times, illogical, so as for the bit about justification, yes, that appears to me to be what you are doing.
in the original post, i said...
"a friend of mine was recently sorting out some life stuff and it was getting messy. the challenge was that he was trying to apply the wise teachings of another to his life, but was having trouble doing so because he was basically stubborn. he wanted to but he didn't want to, you know? classic divided heart stuff that we all encounter from time to time... in my view, it is of even greater import that we give attention to the inner struggle of submission and yieldedness, as the growth in this underlying area will serve our journey in the decisions and actions of many overlying ones."
the 'wise teachings of another' were not mine- gotta clarify that or i become a bit of a troublesome common denominator here. the situation to which i refer there is a third person observation, but it appears as though this is the way things go when someone else says something which implies change at a time or place when we either don't want to hear it or adhere to it.
c'est la vie.
"however, your responses seem to be very personal, overblown, reactive and, at times, illogical" (J Beggar)
Huh? This is an interesting snippet for me to cut out of there. I could ask a few questions about the meanings here but that seems quite un-needed. I read that and what can I say, hate to meet that person in a dark alley - he sounds rather...stupid.
"so as for the bit about justification, yes, that appears to me to be what you are doing." (J Beggar)
Interesting...is that a judgement call? And how certain are you I am ducking and dodging my own problems or trying to cover for them?
As for the point of any of what I said is thoughts are not actions. Thoughts can lead to an action but a thought in and of itself is not an actual action (it's thinking about an action if anything).
I cannot agree with your assertion as good as a point as you make - since I do not believe it to be true (not in every and all situations).
But I don't understand why I am getting labelled here with some names and what not - is it for being a tad too brutally honest?
JB, I don't see why I neccesarily need to agree with your assertions about me - in which I think you crossed the line of what's true and what's a judgment call...how can I agree when I don't see myself that way whatsoever nor agree with the original point 100%. So I have to disagree.
"Well I grew up fast, I grew up hard something was wrong from the very start I was fighting everybody, I was fighting everything But the only one that I hurt was me I got "society's" blood running down my face" (Social Distortion)
I was wrong? My way of making peace.
labelled? no man.
'a tad too brutally honest?' perhaps that's what i'm being.
no, you don't have to agree with me on anything... but if you think that i'm just going to ignore the things that you are ignoring in the words you freely post in this open forum just because you choose to ignore them then you are mistaken. just as you feel free to pose rather heavy rhetorical questions with implied answers built right into them, i should be free to respond thoughtfully to what i am hearing you say.
are we responsible for the things that we hear and read? of course we are. do we have to agree? of course not. in my view, this means trying to find the personal and applicable truth in the other person's ideas, and then setting out to live that truth, having filed or discarded the rest. we grow from knowing each other- in another blog comment i referred to this just yesterday with regard to a comment you had posted which i found to be rather insightful.
but i'm not labelling you either way. you are neither my mentor nor my pupil. you are neither my advocate nor my antagonist. you are not defined by me or my perspectives any more than i am defined by you or yours. you are you and i am me and there are times we disagree. i'm good with that.
so i hope you will forgive me for saying things that you have interpreted as crossing a line. this was not my intention.
I'm just curious what the benefit is if we're not responsible for what we think? I'm not sure how this helps us or our neighbour.
"but if you think that i'm just going to ignore the things that you are ignoring in the words you freely post in this open forum just because you choose to ignore them then you are mistaken." (J Beggar)
I was hoping you would this one time (Lol). Sounds good.
"I'm just curious what the benefit is if we're not responsible for what we think?" (Heinini)
I am not too sure, I believe in total responsibility of what we think and do also.
I think what is happening in this blog is I might be a little misunderstood on my views. I am not saying what we think is not our responsibility - I think it is. But I draw a line at the idea every thought is something we digest all the time (which I don't think is so). I think actions come from paying homage to a thought/idea/intent.
I made reference to Jesus' words about adultery in Matthew 5 - which is where I found this teaching and elaborated upon it. All the text really says 'that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.' The idea of lust is the thing that needs elaborating on.
Not every thought about a woman is 'lust' and inviting the idea deeper into one's life is where I think I go with this...so deeply one must think that they will willingly act upon their thoughts (or try to find ways to fulfill that 'lust').
It seems Jesus states the law then says we need to usurp the action and deal with our thoughts and intents first so as to not break the law. It is deeper than just rote following of the letters but digesting them into our minds. Halting the problem at it's core - which would be us. So I agree the problem starts with us and our thinking.
I just wanted to make sure we weren't believing the idea every thought is something that is the problem, it can become a problem (with intent thinking and internalization), but also can become something we decide not to think upon - or amount to a 'passing thought'.
I have seen some of this idea in action and noticed people that have to guard against every single thought lead somewhat fractured lives, and frankly judge themselves unto condemnation sometimes over it. I have also noticed those people are not really guilty of the intent of this passage and actually lead very clean lives (causing no real problem in society) - yet they judge themselves as if they are. I guess I raise this since in it's extreme can also lead to people to a view of God that is very narrow and they see 'God as judge' and not 'God as love'.
I agree with your intent JB and Heinini but at the same time I have some reservations about it being every single thought.
"it can become a problem (with intent thinking and internalization), but also can become something we decide not to think upon - or amount to a 'passing thought'." (societyVS)
the trick is to let the thought pass, rather than become part of oneself, right?
i really like what you say below this statement when you speak of having "... seen some of this idea in action and noticed people that have to guard against every single thought lead somewhat fractured lives, and frankly judge themselves unto condemnation sometimes over it." (societyVS)
there is so much self-loathing and personal condemnation springing from really bad preaching and teaching upon this passage- for some reason we like to make things really black and white rather than embrace the full spectrum of light as reflected back in everything we see.
perhaps that's where the permissiveness and lack of conscience in some areas comes from. in the absense of an attainable ideal...
(philosophical tangent: can an ideal ever be attainable?)
...people surrender to hopelessness and consign themselves to a basic 'anything goes' morality.
in any event, good job clarifying what you were trying to say, man.
Jesus' elaboration on the prohibition on adultery is a common interpretative move by rabbis throughout history. It's usually referred to as "building a fence around the Torah". We can see it many times throughout the Hebrew Bible starting at the very beginning where God commands not to eat the fruit of the tree and Eve tells the serpent they are not even to touch the fruit of the tree. This "expansion" of the prohibition is a built in safeguard so the prohibition isn't transgressed. Note here that responsibility is expanded! We are called to be more responsible, our ethical relation is made more difficult, more demanding, more strict.
To say that there is a special group of conscious thoughts for which we are only responsible for carries some, in my mind, dangerous consequences. The clearest of these is the bigotry that more often than note lies in us unconciously. Few people embrace their racism or sexism consciously. These insideous thoughts are manifest in latent attitudes and can often find their justification in rational, logical ideaological structures.
I would then encourage not a lessening of our responsibily but an increased vigilance, an increased accountability not only for the thoughts we act on and the thoughts that pass through our mind fleetingly but also for the thoughts that may never surface, thoughts that are never conscious because it are these thoughts that allow us to believe a woman can be an object for our use even before any discussion of lust or lustful action.
"I would then encourage not a lessening of our responsibily but an increased vigilance, an increased accountability..." (hineini)
nicely put. vigilance is a very good word. ever watchful, ever mindful.
I agree Hineini - but this works both ways and not just in one manner with thoughts. If one gets too vigilant that might be the very trait they are soon known by (ie: judgemental).
well, two things;
Firstly is we are always judgemental, far too much, at the expense of the life of the other. I can never be "non-judgemental"
Secondly this vigilance or embrace of my responsibility is only mine. Usually we use judgemental to refer to our attitudes towards others (see first point) but this is not what I mean by vigilance. My responsibility is mine and is radically unique and non-transferable or translateable.
I am curious though why we work so hard to avoid guilt. I am aware its an unpleasent feeling but, like i mentioned in my last post, the risks are too great, the costs to high to start to justify our actions to ourselves, excusing ourselves from our infinite debt to the other.
Hineini, I am blowing you up for that last comment. Boo-yah!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home