Immoral thoughts?

Originally posted by FMF
[b]You cannot separate any "act" from its precedent "thought", and thoughts that involve a corresponding act regarded as immoral are in and of themselves immoral, regardless of what any so-called theologian or religious person may say about what is or isn't a sinful act.

Well, the OP is explicitly not talking about "sin". If a thought about an immoral act ...[text shortened]... nyone else, the kind of impacts morality serves to prevent ~ how can it be deemed to be immoral?[/b]

Because it has an adverse impact on the one doing the thinking.

You seem bent on making a distinction between "immoral thoughts" and sin, which I have tried to keep separated in my posts. Perhaps I should have said "immoral acts" instead of "sinful act".

Either way, thinking and acting are not that different. If one entertains damaging thoughts he/she will eventually succumb to their impact on the thought processes in some form.

I wouldn't risk it. It is better to train one's mind to think on what is good and moral, than to waste precious synaptic resources on damaging thoughts.

Originally posted by FMF
When it comes to "thought life", surely one separation that can be made is between thoughts that result in actions, and thoughts that do not?

How do you know there is a separation? How do you know that thoughts aren't an "action" in and of themselves?

In reality, I see no difference between thoughts, words and deeds. They are what we are, and we are what we think, do and say.

Originally posted by josephw
Either way, thinking and acting are not that different. If one entertains damaging thoughts he/she will eventually succumb to their impact on the thought processes in some form.[/b]

Do you mean 'if one entertains immoral thoughts one will eventually succumb to their impact on behaviour'?

Originally posted by josephw
How do you know there is a separation? How do you know that thoughts aren't an "action" in and of themselves?

Can you give me an example of a thought having an adverse impact on someone else without an action caused by that thought? I don't think it is controversial in the slightest to differentiate between thoughts and deeds. Are you being serious?

Originally posted by josephw
In reality, I see no difference between thoughts, words and deeds. They are what we are, and we are what we think, do and say.

The idea that thoughts, words and deeds are what makes us what we are is not in dispute, but the idea that there is no difference between thoughts and deeds does not seem to me to withstand scrutiny. For example, if there is no difference, why are thoughts and deeds treated differently before the law?

Originally posted by josephw
A thought that has as it's object an act that is defined as immoral, whether bidden or not, remains an "immoral thought".

No mortal is immune to them. All are guilty. Except Jesus.

Being guilty of having an unbidden thought is as daft as being guilty of being born with a handicap.

You are redefining guilt for your own ends ... or at least the ends of Christianity!

Originally posted by josephw
I agree that when one acts upon an immoral thought is when one is guilty of an immoral act, but then the question arises, are we moral when our thoughts are not?

How can we separate out our thought life from our whole being?

Within reason, yes I think we are moral despite dark thoughts. Someone in a marriage, we'll suppose happy, who has occasional fantasies about other people who are imaginary is not doing anything wrong (I'm assuming this is just day dreaming, not during marital rites). If they fantasize about someone specific as a one off then I still don't think there's any great problem. If they are regularly fantasizing about someone specific then it's a bit creepy and there's a risk they will act on their fantasy, but it's the risk of acting that makes the fantasy problematic, not the fantasy in itself.

Thoughts are transient, they have no substance. Acts on the other hand do. So thoughts that do not lead to action are not things that need accounting for.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Within reason, yes I think we are moral despite dark thoughts. Someone in a marriage, we'll suppose happy, who has occasional fantasies about other people who are imaginary is not doing anything wrong (I'm assuming this is just day dreaming, not during marital rites). If they fantasize about someone specific as a one off then I still don't think there' ...[text shortened]... other hand do. So thoughts that do not lead to action are not things that need accounting for.

Well, according to the author of life, thoughts that are deliberate have the same moral affect as the act.

But I think you're right. I don't think we will be held accountable for wayward thoughts per se.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Within reason, yes I think we are moral despite dark thoughts. Someone in a marriage, we'll suppose happy, who has occasional fantasies about other people who are imaginary is not doing anything wrong (I'm assuming this is just day dreaming, not during marital rites). If they fantasize about someone specific as a one off then I still don't think there' ...[text shortened]... other hand do. So thoughts that do not lead to action are not things that need accounting for.

They may need to be accounted for so that we know why they occurred and prevention measures for the future. Just saying.

Originally posted by josephw
I don't think we will be held accountable for wayward thoughts per se.

So now you think there is a difference between thoughts and deeds and that you are held accountable for one and not the other? That's a "difference" isn't it? Earlier, you said "I see no difference between thoughts, words and deeds".

Originally posted by josephw
In reality, I see no difference between thoughts, words and deeds.

Do you see any difference between words we consider saying but don't and words we actually decide to say?

Originally posted by FMF
So now you think there is a difference between thoughts and deeds and that you are held accountable for one and not the other? That's a "difference" isn't it? Earlier, you said "I see no difference between thoughts, words and deeds".

Earlier the discussion was completely abstract, I provided an example that distinguished between some cases. I think josephw's shift reflects the varying cases, especially my emphasis about habituality (if that's a word) that I'd included in my point. I don't think he's being inconsistent, at least not wildly so.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Earlier the discussion was completely abstract, I provided an example that distinguished between some cases. I think josephw's shift reflects the varying cases, especially my emphasis about habituality (if that's a word) that I'd included in my point. I don't think he's being inconsistent, at least not wildly so.

As it is a discussion, I am more interested in josephw acknowledging that he is shifting away from some of the declarations he's made, rather than you seeking to admit it on his behalf. 🙂

Originally posted by DeepThought
Thoughts are transient, they have no substance. Acts on the other hand do. So thoughts that do not lead to action are not things that need accounting for.

Could we perhaps go a little further and assert that 'not acting on thoughts related to possible immoral acts' is morally sound in so far as the absence of immoral actions in one's conduct is, in the face of what is perceivable or theoretically possible, demonstrates that one behaves in a morally sound way?

Originally posted by josephw
Because [the thought] has an adverse impact on the one doing the thinking.

As we are talking about morality ~ as opposed to "sin" ~ can you give me an example of a thought having an adverse impact on someone else without an action caused by that thought?