Difference between revisions of "Talk:Matthew 5:27, CWC Confessions"
m (Robot: Unlinking "Fail") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Figured I should explain why I removed this from the article: | Figured I should explain why I removed this from the article: | ||
<blockquote>One notable fail is that Chris, as [[Captain's Log, Stardate March 10th, 2009|before]], fails at understanding the Bible. Chris interprets Matthew 5:27-30 as Jesus indicting literal adultery (a man being unfaithful to his wife) when Chris was clearly saying that ''any'' sort of impure thought (like, oh let's say, [[mass debating|masturbation]], consuming pornography, owning [[sex toys]], and a number of other things Chris does) is just as bad as committing actual adultery, to the point where it's better than gouge out eyes you use to look lustfully at a woman than to be cast into hell for those lustful thoughts. As Chris subscribes to the "The Bible says whatever I want it to say" school of thought, Chris does not consider this.</blockquote> | <blockquote>One notable fail is that Chris, as [[Captain's Log, Stardate March 10th, 2009|before]], [[fail|fails]] at understanding the Bible. Chris interprets Matthew 5:27-30 as Jesus indicting literal adultery (a man being unfaithful to his wife) when Chris was clearly saying that ''any'' sort of impure thought (like, oh let's say, [[mass debating|masturbation]], consuming pornography, owning [[sex toys]], and a number of other things Chris does) is just as bad as committing actual adultery, to the point where it's better than gouge out eyes you use to look lustfully at a woman than to be cast into hell for those lustful thoughts. As Chris subscribes to the "The Bible says whatever I want it to say" school of thought, Chris does not consider this.</blockquote> | ||
In the video Chris, astonishingly, understands that just because he didn't physically cheat on his (fake) girlfriend with another (fake) girl doesn't make it okay, and he still has to atone for it. That seems like an accurate interpretation to me. Yes, Chris has other sins he has to deal with, but the point of the video was to deal with his transgressions against Ivy. --[[User:MachPunch|MachPunch]] 06:26, 30 August 2009 (CEST) | In the video Chris, astonishingly, understands that just because he didn't physically cheat on his (fake) girlfriend with another (fake) girl doesn't make it okay, and he still has to atone for it. That seems like an accurate interpretation to me. Yes, Chris has other sins he has to deal with, but the point of the video was to deal with his transgressions against Ivy. --[[User:MachPunch|MachPunch]] 06:26, 30 August 2009 (CEST) | ||
Latest revision as of 15:35, 24 April 2012
Figured I should explain why I removed this from the article:
One notable fail is that Chris, as before, fails at understanding the Bible. Chris interprets Matthew 5:27-30 as Jesus indicting literal adultery (a man being unfaithful to his wife) when Chris was clearly saying that any sort of impure thought (like, oh let's say, masturbation, consuming pornography, owning sex toys, and a number of other things Chris does) is just as bad as committing actual adultery, to the point where it's better than gouge out eyes you use to look lustfully at a woman than to be cast into hell for those lustful thoughts. As Chris subscribes to the "The Bible says whatever I want it to say" school of thought, Chris does not consider this.
In the video Chris, astonishingly, understands that just because he didn't physically cheat on his (fake) girlfriend with another (fake) girl doesn't make it okay, and he still has to atone for it. That seems like an accurate interpretation to me. Yes, Chris has other sins he has to deal with, but the point of the video was to deal with his transgressions against Ivy. --MachPunch 06:26, 30 August 2009 (CEST)