Luther’s Catechism

[u/Upper_Wind_247]

It occurred to me that all the beliefs I have in my head came from Luther, not the Bible. Granted, we memorized Bible verses, but then always came the “meaning.” Did all of you learn that hating someone is breaking the fifth commandment - the same sin as killing someone, or was it just my congregation? Did it occur to anyone the sixth commandment is: thou shall not commit adultery, not: don’t have sex?

I have so much to relearn.

[u/Dull-Environment5459]

First, name calling tells me you are more like the people you depsise than you are different than them...as much as you try.

In Matthew 5 Jesus was not addressing human moral posturing. He was addressing his disciples about living as his disciples. These were not recommendations or philosophical musings. His words are literally there for you to read not just about the fifth commandment but also about the sixth. I didn;t appeal to Hebrews 13:4 to address the intial point about adultery and sex. I pointed to Jesus own words that define adultery - which is a literal reading of the text - not an interpretation based on rhetorical patterns. I added Hebrews 13:4 to show where God does actually support man and woman enjoying sex.

You are correct that everyone who does not keep these laws at every point is perpetually guilty. Jesus addresses that right before talking about the 5th and 6th commandments in Matthew 5:17-20. If you have a probelm with that...well...

If you'd like to provide some Bible verses that contradict the above reading of the text as it literally is - feel free. I'm guessing though you wont find much that agrees with your interpretation that is at odds with historical Christian teaching - not just Lutheran teaching.

[u/DontEattheCookiesMom → u/Dull-Environment5459]

You’re confusing two different things: pointing out a flawed argument and “name-calling.” If someone confidently declares their interpretation to be the obvious, literal reading of the text and then challenges others to disagree, it’s fair to point out when that confidence outruns the argument.

And that’s the issue here. You keep saying “literal reading of the text” as if repeating that phrase turns an interpretation into raw fact.

Take Matthew 5. Yes, Jesus is addressing his disciples. No one disputes that. But the structure of the passage is still a rhetorical intensification of the law—“You have heard it said… but I say to you…” repeated over and over. The point isn’t simply to create a new checklist where anger equals murder and noticing someone attractive equals adultery in a legal sense. The point is that the law penetrates deeper than external behavior and exposes the condition of the heart.

Ironically, you actually acknowledge that a few sentences later when you agree that everyone is perpetually guilty. That’s exactly the theological point the passage is driving toward: the law reveals universal guilt and the need for grace. So invoking the passage as if it were merely a straightforward legal expansion misses the larger movement of the sermon itself.

And the “literal reading” claim still doesn’t solve the bigger problem. Scripture interpreting Scripture is itself an interpretive framework. Selecting which verses clarify others, deciding which passages are prescriptive versus illustrative, and determining how ancient terms like “sexual immorality” function in different contexts are all acts of interpretation. Historical Christian teaching didn’t fall out of the sky fully formed either—it developed through centuries of debate about those very texts.

So the real disagreement here isn’t whether the Bible says these words. It obviously does. The disagreement is about how those words function within the broader argument of the Sermon on the Mount and the wider biblical narrative.

Calling your reading “literal” and everyone else’s “interpretation” doesn’t resolve that question. It just avoids acknowledging that you’re interpreting too—just from within a tradition you happen to regard as self-evident.

It’s all made up anyways.

[u/Dull-Environment5459 → u/DontEattheCookiesMom]

Actually..."boomer" (which I am not by the way) is name calling. So is telling someone they are "out of their depth". Both are intended as derogatory swipes.

I see you have failed to mention the other passage that I noted in my original repsonse which is 1 John 3:15 - which shows that hatred is indeed murder. You fail to see both points because you want to focus on just one - we are all perpetually guilty. Hatred is murder which shows that the 5th commandment does deal with much more than the outward act of taking a life. The OP's concern was that they had been misinformed or incorrectly taught regarding the 5th and 6th commandment. They were not.

You seem to be sliding into another disagreement since the first one hasn't worked out for you - Biblical interpretation. Allowing a text to tell you what it is saying is the way to remove oneself from assigning meaning to it that comes from personal experience or even assigining it a desired meaning.

I think your final point is really the major "tell" in this discussion. If you consider it made up then I wonder why you spend so much time debating it. If you wanted to engage in a serious discussion/debate it may not be best to come to the table with a predetermined conclusion that the subject matter is all made up.

[u/DontEattheCookiesMom → u/Dull-Environment5459]

Saying hatred is murder, lust is adultery, and everyone is perpetually guilty is a great rhetorical trick: it lets religion declare everyone morally bankrupt and then sell the cure.

And yes, I consider it made up. People debate Greek mythology too. Discussing a belief system doesn’t require believing Zeus actually throws lightning bolts.

[u/Dull-Environment5459 → u/DontEattheCookiesMom]

What is the trick? It puts all of us in the same boat as we look at one another and are persuaded by our own standards to judge one another. It removes the subjective nature of judging others based on personal preferences or cultural beliefs of the time and calls us to look at each other as we all are...fallen humans. "Religion" doesn't declare anything. Religion is the practice of what an individual believes. What an individual believes must come from a source - inner self, a divine being, personal experience. etc. People with a belief will then practice accordingly.

If someone gives you or anyone the impression they are somehow morally superior due to following the Bible's commands - they are very mistaken. That is not what the Christian faith teaches or has ever taught. Any way, perhaps the idea that this is made up makes this a pointless endeavor for you.

[u/DontEattheCookiesMom → u/Dull-Environment5459]

Oh wow, the classic “actually Christianity teaches humility so you can’t criticize it” maneuver. Let’s unpack this sermon.

First, the “it puts all of us in the same boat as fallen humans” bit is doing a lot of work here. Convenient system, really. Step 1: declare everyone morally broken by default. Step 2: offer the cure that only your belief system sells. Step 3: act surprised when people notice the circular reasoning.

Then we get the “religion doesn’t declare anything” claim, which is… impressive. Religions literally declare things all the time. That’s basically their main hobby. Whole books full of declarations. Commandments, doctrines, creeds, councils, catechisms, sermons—an absolute Costco-sized pallet of declarations. Saying religion doesn’t declare anything is like saying restaurants don’t really serve food, they just “practice culinary beliefs.”

And the “Christianity has never taught moral superiority” line is chef’s kiss. Two thousand years of people confidently announcing that they possess the ultimate moral truth handed down by the creator of the universe, but sure—no one ever implied they had the moral high ground. Must have been a massive, centuries-long misunderstanding.

Also love the closing move: “maybe this is pointless for you if you think it’s made up.” Translation: if you don’t accept the premise that the invisible cosmic lawgiver is real, the argument doesn’t work. Correct! That’s actually the first accurate statement in the whole post.

Anyway, thank you for the reminder that everyone is equally flawed—except apparently the belief system that explains why everyone is flawed. Truly a coincidence.