I really wish Hnaef would stop bringing to me little gobbets of the Bible from the Anglican lectionary. Especially this morning. He's sat there over breakfast reading Matthew 5. Apparently if you even look in a lustful kind of way at someone you're not married to you are guilty of adultery. The Beaker Fertility Person we sat next to was full of it, of course. He said we may accuse them of lecherous and loose behaviour - especially of a full moon - but turns out they're no worse than the rest of us.
Personally, given the numpties I'm surrounded with round here there's no danger of any lustful thoughts. Which brings me on to the other part of Hnaef's reading-matter. Apparently, if I regard the gullible wallies around me as fools, or insult them in any way, I'm in danger of Hell Fire. Which, to be fair, has given me a new determination. A new determination to keep on not believing in Hell.
I always wondered about the lust rule and the truth rule operating at the same time, a case of being between a rock and a hard place?
ReplyDeleteSteve, I think you have a very good point. For honesty would compel most men to admit that they found other women attractive - however faithful they were in practice. But a desire to preserve their shins in working order might lead their "Yes" to be "Mmmm" and their "No" to be "What makes you think that?"
ReplyDeleteSome people do tend to pick out the strictest books in the Bible, and interpret them as strictly as possible! It's human to be attracted by the opposite sex, and God's hardly going to make us that way, and then throw us into hell for it. As long as you don't spend the sermon fantasising about the vicar's mammaries, I imagine you're all right. The point is surely that it's what goes on in your head that matters, and not just physically keeping your trousers on.
ReplyDeleteAE, you'd think males would have evolved extra thick shins in response to this biological imperative instead of judgemental mother in laws ;)
ReplyDelete