Is sin a real thing?

-Removed-

It's just my speculation, that's all, but I'd say there have been a lot of Monday Specials over the years.

Of course, KellyJay's interpersonally hsmstrung now: if he goes into a huff with moonbus, he will have run out of people to talk yo.

@kellyjay said
How about simply perverting that which is good for selfish means? Why is it also limited to the things done, would evil also be in the intent to do as well, not just when the act is carried out does the line get crossed?

Perverting the good for any reason, selfish or otherwise, is by definition the opposite of good and therefore bad. There's nothing to argue there. Whether a given instance qualifies as evil, in kind and scope, is another matter.

It does not matter what sexual fantasies or intentions a pedophile has, so long as he doesn't act them out on the unwilling and unconsenting.

As shown in the parable about the angry mob which was ready to stone an adulteress to death, not even Jesus (who was sinless) presumed to judge her or to cast a stone against her for her action. How little then should we judge a person's intentions not acted upon?

-Removed-

No doubt there are many factors in play, and different ones get more or less traction with different people. Certainly the threat of being tortured and burnt at the stake for thought-crime has somewhat receded, at least in Western Europe, No. American and Australia-New Zealand. But punishment for thought-crime is still very much practised, systematically and with state power & authority behind it, in other parts of the world today, sad to say.

@moonbus said
As in the parable about the angry mob which was ready to stone an adulteress to death shows, not even Jesus (who was sinless) presumed to judge her or to cast a stone against her for her action.

The broader point you make with this parable for KellyJay's benefit is well made.

However, seen through my prism - according to which thoughts without resulting action are not governed my morality - I'd suggest that the crowd gathering to do harm to the woman ~ armed with stones and so actually traumatising her and causing her to fear for her life ~ constitutes immoral behaviour.

@moonbus said
Perverting the good for any reason, selfish or otherwise, is by definition the opposite of good and therefore bad. There's nothing to argue there. Whether a given instance qualifies as evil, in kind and scope, is another matter.

It does not matter what sexual fantasies or intentions a pedophile has, so long as he doesn't act them out on the unwilling and unconsenting.

A ...[text shortened]... ne against her for her action. How little then should we judge a person's intentions not acted upon?

How is the qualification of evil done if it isn't doing good for selfish reasons? Why wouldn't the motivation of the heart not qualify to be evil if actions are not also put forward merely for lack of opportunity or fear of consequences, if things presented themselves you think merely thinking alone would be all that happens. If the evil we do starts in the heart before the action why would that also not be counted as evil?

What Jesus did with the woman wasn't saying what she did wasn't wrong or evil He pointed out to those that wanted to kill her they too had sinned. Jesus came to save sinners when He was here last time not condemn them, that will not be true next time.

@kellyjay said
If the evil we do starts in the heart before the action why would that also not be counted as evil?

"Why"? Because of the definition of "evil" that moonbus and I have proposed and which you are - intellectually speaking - cowering away from.

@kellyjay said
Why wouldn't the motivation of the heart not qualify to be evil if actions are not also put forward merely for lack of opportunity or fear of consequences, if things presented themselves you think merely thinking alone would be all that happens.

If having thoughts is not "all that happens" and those thoughts translate into interactions with others, then it falls in the realm of morality.

Are you not reading what is being put to you?? Ignoring it means you are dodging it.

There's no credible reason to think anyone is reading our minds and our thoughts are no one else's business.

Thoughts without action do not damage anyone.

-Removed-

KellyJay has already.. 'admitted' .. 'claimed' .. 'pretended' to believe he is equally as "evil" as a rapist.

Translation: FMF is as evil as a rapist but KellyJay has been forgiven for being as evil as a rapist.

@fmf said
The broader point you make with this parable for KellyJay's benefit is well made.

However, seen through my prism - according to which thoughts without resulting action are not governed my morality - I'd suggest that the crowd gathering to do harm to the woman ~ armed with stones and so actually traumatising her and causing her to fear for her life ~ constitutes immoral behaviour.

Oh yes, I agree completely, the threat of an agonizing and public execution is already cruel, even if the threat is not carried out. The CIA staged mock-executions at some of its holding facilities for suspected terrorists and Iraqis held at Abu Graib, and this constitutes evil, in my opinion.

@moonbus said
Oh yes, I agree completely, the threat of an agonizing and public execution is already cruel, even if the threat is not carried out.

If you believe this is true, why wouldn't contemplating an evil act being done on an innocent any less evil if the act is not carried out due to self-interest? Wouldn't the thought of acting in an evil manner alone also harm the one thinking of actually doing it?

@kellyjay said
If you believe this is true, why wouldn't contemplating an evil act being done on an innocent any less evil if the act is not carried out due to self-interest? Wouldn't the thought of acting in an evil manner alone also harm the one thinking of actually doing it?

why wouldn't contemplating an evil act being done on an innocent any less evil if the act is not carried out due to self-interest?

Because it is not a sociopathic action that is gravely detrimental to others, and which stems from an abject lack of empathy and compassion.

Wouldn't the thought of acting in an evil manner alone also harm the one thinking of actually doing it?

I see morality as governing our actions in so far as they impact others. Our thoughts, unacted upon, cannot damage others.