Hello, Mr. Bickles:
Your post is an interesting one, and deserves a considered response, so I shall take each of your points one by one. Although we do have our differences, I am coming to respect that you are quite knowledgeable in Christian theology. So, allow me to "dig in" to your very interesting article, if you will.
even "the Laws of Noah" which, in and of them-selves, seem fairly straight-forward and easy would be totally impossible for man to keep;
Jesus said that even if a man looks at a woman with lust, then, he has committed adultery in his heart;
Indeed Jesus did say that. I have read the New Testament twice myself, and I can of course confirm that you are correct on that. However, I think the Law itself is intended to refer to the literal commission of adultery, in this particular case.
the Scriptures say that the heart (i.e: the flesh) is desperately wicked and deceitful above all things!
I actually wouldn't argue with that, what with my long experience of knowing that trying to obey 613 Mitzvot (Commandments) is fundamentally impossible, hence the need for the Jewish Sacrificial System, and Fire Offerings of Israel that I discussed in my last post, that have been replaced, in the absence of the Holy Temple, by special prayers, until such time as the Holy Temple can be rebuilt.
St Paul, the great apostle to the gentiles, bemoaned the fact that "in me dwells no good thing";
And it was fundamentally Pauline theology that understood the death of Jesus to be a Sacrifice to replace the Fire Offerings of Israel. Whilst I disagree with him, I do to an extent understand his logic.
Jesus' admonition reminds me of a sermon my old pastor preached many years ago.....abt a passage in the Epistle of St James;
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
James 1:15. Interesting passage. Having read it in context, as I am sure you also did, the Disciple of Jesus is saying that no man should accuse G-d of tempting him, but rather, should acknowledge that it is his own desire that tempts him. I certainly would not quarrel with that.
he likened the human psyche/flesh to a large work-bench in a garage where a home hobbyist had lots of little projects in different stages of completion......but the ultimate result of them all, upon completion, is death ("the wages of sin is death")....the Devil wants people to commit greater and greater sins so that they are further and further removed from God's grace.....so...."a white lie" can, for instance, lead to "a black (intentional) lie" to intentional false witness to guilt to anger to fear to hatred and, then, if the opportunity presents itself, to murder......the ultimate conclusion of the "project"
Now that is a thought that deserves very careful consideration. In spite of our different solutions to the moral quandry of the human condition (you the Sacrifice of Jesus, me the Fire Offerings of Israel), I think the basic argument that evil starts small and gets bigger, and bigger, and bigger, until we are completely dominated by it, is a logical one.
I further would not dispute that the wages of sin ARE death. And lets face it, Friend Bickles, you and I are but little things in the vastness of G-'s far-flung Creation. He created us PURELY out of love. He did not create us because he needed us, or for any reason other than that he loves us. It would be within the realm of his perfect and most profound justice to wipe us off the face of the Earth like bugs. Just as he was justified in the Flood, so he would be justified in taking both you and me and smashing our wee little heads. Although I am NOT a Calvinist, by any means, I shall quote Jonathan Edwards. We are sinners in the hands of G-d. I don't care to MAKE him angry, thank you!
all this, of course, totally negates most of modern psychiatry although not necessarily the 'approach' of Thomas Szasz;
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz ; )
strange that Szasz is an 'atheist';
maybe he should'v read C S Lewis
Really not strange that he was an atheist at all, although unfortunate. He was a Jewish psychiatrist. Most of them ARE atheists. As for reading CS Lewis, I actually agree with you. I find him to be VERY stimulating reading, on both moral/religious grounds as well as entertainment (in terms of his fiction) grounds.
So, that is my perspective on your interesting post. I am most curious to read your response, which I have no doubt will be equally fascinating. I look forward to it. Until then, I wish you peace, and many blessings.