Murder and Hatred

              “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell…You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (Matthew 5:21-22; 28-30)

 

            If there is any Scripture that needs to be driven home in our minds in this time, it’s this passage. I chopped out a few verses because the two passages are parallels. In both cases, it sets forth the principle that what we think and say is just as important as our deeds. Most people will agree that it’s wrong to murder or commit adultery – though they are likely to justify it in the “special cases” that involve them or people they like. But Jesus tells us that hatred, name-calling, and lust are also wrong.

            Years ago, one of those odd thoughts popped up. Which was worse: murder or eating a spoonful of peanut butter (that was not needed)? It sounds like a silly question, but as I considered it, I have never killed anyone. I have eaten far too many spoons of peanut butter that my body didn’t need. You may not consider eating peanut butter to be a sin, but feel free to replace it with something you do. The point is that the sin you commit is worse than a sin you don't. In the passages above, Jesus replaces it with hating and verbally abusing someone and with lusting after someone. Dare I stretch that idea far enough to include lusting after fictional characters? Or to saying nasty things about politicians or people you hate or with whom you disagree? Dare I stretch it to the point of attacking yourself and hating yourself?

            One of the ancient rules of good argumentation is that you don’t attack the person.  You attack the argument or idea. It’s reasonable to include attacking a philosophical position, but not people. This is hard, because it’s too easy to equate people who associate with a group with the principles of the group. It’s easy to deny their individuality or humanity because they are “one of those.”  After all, if one is a member of the group, then it’s reasonable to assume that he/she agrees with the principles the group stands for. But as we let our guard down, and let our words slice into the person instead of taking the time to make sure it only cuts the principles, we’re verbally vivisecting them.

            In a similar way, we may try to justify our lust as victimless. It’s not like we’re in bed with them anywhere but in our imagination. In fact, our lust may have nothing to do with sex. We may want their home, car, lifestyle, talents, skills, position, or social rank. It’s still involves envy and hatred, and it’s still wrong, even if we don’t try to take what isn’t ours or harm the one who does have it.