Jesus: If a man looks at a woman...

[angellous_evangellous]

Here's a quote from the first century Stoic philosopher Seneca that parallels Jesus' teaching on adultery and murder.

On Firmness 7.4

At this point it is needful for us to understand that it is possible for some one to do me an injury and for me not to receive the injury. For example, if a man should steal something from my country-house and leave it in my town-house, he would have committed a theft, but I should have lost nothing. It is possible for one to become a wrong-doer, although he may not have done a wrong.

If a man lies with his wife as if she were another man's wife, he will be an adulterer, though sbe will not be an adulteress. Some one gave me poison, but the poison lost its efficacy by being mixed with food; the man, by giving the poison, became guilty of a crime, even if he did me no injury. A man is no less a murderer because his blow was foiled, intercepted by the victim's dress.

All crimes, so far as guilt is concerned, are completed even before the accomplishment of the deed. Certain acts are of such a character, and are linked together in such a relation, that while the first can take place without the second, the second cannot take place without the first. I shall endeavour to make clear what I mean. I can move my feet without running, but I cannot run without moving my feet. It is possible for me, though being in the water, not to swim; but if I swim, it is impossible for me not to be in the water.

To the same category belongs the matter under (discussion. If I have received an injury, it must necessarily have been done. If an injury was done, I have not necessarily received it; for many things can happen to avert the injury. Just as, for example, some chance may strike down the hand while it takes aim and turn the speeding missile aside, so it is possible that some circumstance may ward off injuries of any sort and intercept them in mid-course, with the result that they may have been done, yet not received.

 

[+Xausted]

Here's a quote from the first century Stoic philosopher Seneca that parallels Jesus' teaching on adultery and murder.

On Firmness 7.4

Interesting, however I am not quite sure on what you want us to do with this?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Interesting, however I am not quite sure on what you want us to do with this?

Enrich your soul.:yes:

 

[+Xausted]

Enrich your soul.:yes:

My soul died years ago hun, give me something else to do with it

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Here's a quote from the first century Stoic philosopher Seneca that parallels Jesus' teaching on adultery and murder.

On Firmness 7.4

It strikes me that his last paragraph in the section you quoted seems to imply that the fact an action occurred means that it's intentional (or at least culpable), even if it's inadvertent. My impression (or inference, I suppose) from the Bible is that Jesus presents intent as the whole of what matters. Hmm.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It strikes me that his last paragraph in the section you quoted seems to imply that the fact an action occurred means that it's intentional (or at least culpable), even if it's inadvertent. My impression (or inference, I suppose) from the Bible is that Jesus presents intent as the whole of what matters. Hmm.

But lust is an action, and so is hate...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But lust is an action, and so is hate...

I was thinking more of the example of poison in the food: if something in his food poisoned him, by his statement ("If I have received an injury, it must necessarily have been done."), then it seems to me that he's claiming that the person who gave him the food has done him an injury, which it seems to me he takes as an intentional act, even if the poisoning was unintended.

Inadvertently undercooking the food may cause the same injury as deliberately adding botulism, but they're different actions with different culpability.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I was thinking more of the example of poison in the food: if something in his food poisoned him, by his statement ("If I have received an injury, it must necessarily have been done."), then it seems to me that he's claiming that the person who gave him the food has done him an injury, which it seems to me he takes as an intentional act, even if the poisoning was unintended.

Inadvertently undercooking the food may cause the same injury as deliberately adding botulism, but they're different actions with different culpability.

Nah, the point is that the person poisoned him even though he received no injury because the poison happened to be weakened by food. That is, someone poisoned him, but he kept eating and it had no effect. The person who tried to murder him is to be punished as a murderer although he did not murder him.

It's not about intentionality but action.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Inadvertently undercooking the food may cause the same injury as deliberately adding botulism, but they're different actions with different culpability.

I don't think that Seneca had this in mind. There were a variety of poisons known and used by ancients to commit murder...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think that Seneca had this in mind. There were a variety of poisons known and used by ancients to commit murder...

Yeah, that example popped into my head. It just seemed like he was stating that consequence implies intent.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Here's a quote from the first century Stoic philosopher Seneca that parallels Jesus' teaching on adultery and murder.

On Firmness 7.4

Interesting thread. Seneca does parallel Jesus' message concerning adultery and murder. I have gained as a human being by applying the Golden Rule as well.

My understanding is that one's thoughts controls the chooser and sometimes others. The more a person chooses to control their thoughts, the fewer pitfalls they will have to encounter. It's like reading music, the better you get at perceiving the information while anticipating the immediate future (ie. the notes), the better reader and musician you will become. Self control takes daily practice.

 

[Dunemeister]

It seems that there's a crucial difference between Seneca and Jesus. Let's continue with the poisoning case in Seneca. There, someone actually takes poison and puts it in food. This is the blameworthy act. But with Jesus, even forming the hateful desire to kill is what's blameworthy, whether or not you administer the poison and whether or not the poison, once administered, is effective. Note, it doesn't follow that the intention/desire and the act are exactly the same thing or that God treats the intention the same way as the act. The act is still worse than the desire; it's just that, for Jesus, the desire itself is likewise sinful.