It's amazing how different mindsets come to different conclusions. I guess we all have mental blocks to varying degrees. It's a sobering realization.
My point, and I believe this is clear from the context of what I wrote, was that judgmental anger itself was the sin to be confessed and not the day-in-and-day-out traffic details. Saying "I was angry with what appeared to be careless drivers" confesses the sin of anger based on a judgment.
I really don't know where your objections are coming from.
But let's face it, whenever someone harms us we do not make that distinction. In the moment we are angry with THAT person
That doesn't make it right. Have you ever made a mistake and gave someone inadvertently wrong information (i.e. a phone number with one number reversed)? The other person may have been cursing for days for something you didn't do with ill intention. Who committed a sin here?
When I said "A single person" I meant to indicate one who was unmarried. I don't see how my comparison would make much sense otherwise.
That's what I thought. I just can't see why a single person sleeping around is necessarily committing "adultery" and comparing him to another man who is cheating on his wife.
Well, it depends on what sense of "any less of a sin" you mean. If you mean will three murders send you "more" to hell than one lie, then "no".
Then we agree that any (unrepentant) sin leads to "death" in a sense that it will result in eternal separation from God? And that means, in the eyes of God, one sin is no different than another. I believe the New Testament reminds us that if you break one law, you have broken all of them.
The OT is clear that there was proportionate punishment for sin. For example, in God's system then the punishment for kidnapping was death (Ex. 21:16), but the punishment for stealing livestock was its restoration (Ex. 22:1), etc
Sin leads to eternal punishment of separation from God, FK. I think that is the point of the whole thing, not your temporal wordily offenses.
Who cares if you had to give back stolen cattle or if you were stoned for stealing it! You are concerned with this life and not your eternal life (I guess this is because the Reformed theology teaches that you are "saved" no matter what).
I would be more concerned with what happens to my soul in eternity because of unrepentant sin, than here on earth, or so it is what Christianity teaches us.
Proportionate punishment related to proportionate sin.
Why am I not surprised you would stick to the OT and ignore Jesus? Matthew 5:38 reinterprets the OT on this ("eye for an eye"). Jesus teaches us that it is evil to return evil for evil, FK. Christian God never returns evil for evil.
In this specific context, two teenagers mutually fooling around is not the same as a married man of 15 years cheating on his wife and three children with some bimbo with STDs
That is a cultural issue. In the eyes of God, the teenagers are also committing sin, knowingly. The OT also tells us that disrespect for the parents is punishable by death. How selectively we apply biblical laws and social standards when it suits us! Why, using the Bible one can "justify" just about anything! Slavery, murder, you name it, if it suits our agenda. But when it doesn't, then we dismiss it without saying it's wrong. What hypocrisy!
In fact, the OT (just like the Koran) prescribes unfathomable cruelty, something we would never apply to our own or even to our enemies, and something that our societies have long rejected. Yet, when it suits us, we quote the horrors of the OT as something pleasing to God and, get this, "morally" right! O tempra, o moris!
Are you telling me that it is not clear that David had Uriah killed so that he could have his wife and conceal the child she had conceived with David???
Yes, that's precisely what he did. In 6320 you wrote
The murder was an after thought, and a separate sin. If she did not conceive, he would probably not have murdered her husband, and still get away with adultery.
I infer from this:
Matt 5:27-28 : 27 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Presumably, going ahead with intercourse would qualify as committing adultery with the body. :) It seems reasonable to me that Jesus is talking about any sex between any man and any woman who are not married to each other.
Then we agree that any (unrepentant) sin leads to "death" in a sense that it will result in eternal separation from God?
Yes, assuming that there remains no atonement for that sin.
And that means, in the eyes of God, one sin is no different than another.
For that purpose, YES. Since Christ atoned for all sins of the elect, we can also discuss that committing one sin three times is worse than committing the same sin once because the Bible teaches that we should NEVER sin, and that every commission of every sin is an offense against God. While salvation may not be at issue, punishment and discipline certainly are. The regenerated mind should not want to habitually sin because the regenerated mind wants to please God.
The murder [of Uriah] was an after thought, and a separate sin. If she did not conceive, he would probably not have murdered her husband, and still get away with adultery.
OK, I agree with that. I thought you were trying to say that the murder didn't really matter if David just wrapped everything up into the sin of adultery and confessed only adultery.