I keep forgetting to ask… What do such expressions mean, like Forrest Gump might have said “Stupid is as stupid does”. At least, I think there was such a line. (It’s been awhile.) Anyway, I don’t get the point. A little help from the studio audience here? Thanks!
I think the original expression was “Handsome is as handsome does” or “Pretty is as pretty does”; and the Wiktionary entry for “stupid is as stupid does” seems to back me up.
It means that you can’t discern evil by outward appearance, only by behavior. An evil person isn’t someone with a checklist of physical traits, but someone who acts evil. This was actually very relevant as people used to think that you could tell people’s qualities by their appearance (cf. The Picture of Dorian Gray), because they thought that things like physical handicaps were punishments for evil deeds, or even thoughts, or occasionally the deeds of one’s parents. There was even a book published (with illustrations) on “criminal types,” in the Victorian era, which the police took seriously, and from which Bram Stoker lifted a description almost verbatim for Count Dracula.
But the formula goes back centuries-- albeit, so does the idea that evil shows up on a person’s countenance and body.
Anyway, people got shunned sometimes for their looks, because they “looked evil.” The saying protested that this was wrong thinking, and that only behavior was a fair basis for judgment.
There are whole bunch of people walking around with fancy alphabets after their names. But they manage to act like they don’t got a lick of sense. These people are stupid. Stupid isn’t about what you don’t know. Stupid is as stupid does.
Also, if this saying is true, a person isn’t evil for having evil thoughts, but only for doing evil deeds. So, for example, I may wish to murder you and may take great delight in the fact that someone else murdered you, but if my actions did not contribute in any way to that end, I would not be evil. According to the saying, that is. Certainly contrary to Christian teachings*, where evil thoughts are as bad as evil deeds.
*Unless you believe that having a thought is itself an action, which seems nonsense to me.
Some Christian teachings maybe. I for one have never heard it mentioned in the Catholic church, quite the opposite, in fact. It’s called resisting temptation and it’s seen as a virtue.
In Buddhist teachings, there is a hierarchy of you could say, weight. Thoughts do have weight, but not as much as speech, and speech not as much as action. Mind, Speech, Body, in that order.
“Do not covet” is rather central.
Maybe I go to a different Catholic Church, but in mine I’ve heard often that there are sins of thought, word, action and omission. Often as in “in every Mass”. Sins of thought are the mildest, as they don’t cause direct harm (they can still cause harm, both to yourself as they are part of a negative state of mind and to others as they lead to bad actions), but a sin of omission can be as bad as one of action.
I suspect that Roderick Femm had in mind the (in)famous teaching of Jesus:
[QUOTE=Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28]
You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not murder’; and ‘whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire.
…
You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
[/QUOTE]
It has been greatly debated, here on the SDMB and elsewhere, just what Jesus meant by this, and I’m not sure I know myself. But it seems to me that, if you want to murder someone, but don’t act on your desires due to lack of opportunity or lack of courage (as opposed to deliberately resisting temptation), you’re no better a person at heart than someone who carries out his murderous desires.
If you “wish to murder someone and take great delight in the fact that someone else murdered them, but your actions did not contribute in any way to that end,” you may not be evil, but I would have a hard time calling you a good person. And I know I’d rather not be around people who’d like to see me murdered—partly because there’s a good choice that those murderous desires are gonna show somehow in their actions towards me.
[QUOTE=Luke 6:43-45]
No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.
[/QUOTE]
Simply put, all the permutations of the phrase “____ is as ____ does” mean the same thing - actions speak louder than words. It’s not looks or the things someone says that defines who they really are, it’s the things they do.
The original is “Handsome is as handsome does” and carries the implication that actions are more important than appearance. That meaning doesn’t port when you switch to different qualities.
It might be true that a thought can occasionally be a sin, but rabbinical commentary on the sin of coveting has focused of the fact that one is prohibited from coveting a neighbor’s goods. One is not specifically prohibited from coveting the goods or position, of, say, the high priest, someone the typical Jew never actually has much contact with.
So here’s what the rabbis say: if you covet your near neighbors’ (or other near people, like a colleague’s) goods, you may end up harassing him with offers to trade or buy the goods, and pressure him into giving up something he doesn’t really want to give up. This is what is forbidden.
And, FWIW, more than one word is used in the Torah, but translated “covet.” It’s a fair translation in each case. It’s just an interesting point.
And on the flip side, you can’t be good if you’re doing evil deeds, even if you believe you’re doing them for a good cause. You can’t, for example, say it’s morally good to torture heretics to death because you’re doing it out of your love for God.
If you want to conclude whether someone is evil, let their actions be your guide.
Echoing the comments above, surely you have heard of “impure thoughts”?
I think the issue is whether you resist the impulse to have “impure thoughts” or if you indulge them. A shock of arousal at the sight of a beautiful person is really different than deliberately constructing an elaborate fantasy about them.
“Take the Box…! * Take the Box…!*”
Yes, and this is something Catholic priests talk about when they take confession.
“Father, I had impure thoughts about this girl in my English class.”
“Did you entertain them?”
That is, it’s one thing to have an impure thought about Stephanie. That’s a very small sin. But you’re supposed to put those thoughts out of your mind. If instead you entertain those thoughts and really think hard about what you’d like to do with Stephanie, that’s a bigger sin, but till smaller than actually doing it with Stephanie.
Also: “Being an idiot is no box of chocolates.”
“Are thoughts themselves sinful? And if thoughts are just as bad as deeds, shouldn’t we go ahead and have the fun of committing the bad deeds, since we’re go to Hell anyway just for thinking about them?”
Wrong way of looking at it. Try it this way.
-
SUPPOSE I’m a thug who’s packing a gun. I go around to a convenience store, planning to rob it. I see a police car there, and I drive away.
-
SUPPOSE I’m a thug who’s packing a gun. I go around to a convenience store, go in, and demand money. The frightened cashier gives it to me and I leave.
-
SUPPOSE I’m a thug who’s packing a gun. I go around to a convenience store, go in, and demand money. The frightened cashier freezes in panic. I pull my gun and demand money again. She gives it to me and I leave.
-
SUPPOSE I’m a thug who’s packing a gun. I go around to a convenience store, go in, and demand money. The frightened cashier freezes in panic. I pull my gun and demand money again. She tries to run, and I shoot at her, but miss. I grab money from the register and leave.
-
SUPPOSE I’m a thug who’s packing a gun. I go around to a convenience store, go in, and demand money. The frightened cashier freezes in panic. I pull my gun and demand money again. She tries to run, and I shoot at her, just grazing her arm. I grab money from the register and leave.
-
SUPPOSE I’m a thug who’s packing a gun. I go around to a convenience store, go in, and demand money. The frightened cashier freezes in panic. I pull my gun and demand money again. She tries to run, and I shoot at her, killing her. I grab money from the register and leave.
Now, from a purely legal standpoint, these are 6 very different scenarios. In case #1, I have done nothing illegal, and couldn’t be arrested or punished. In every other case, I’d be arrested and given a steeper punishment.
But really, if I go to a store with a gun and the willingness to use it, does it really matter what I do? Am I not already a bad person for intending to do something evil? if I pull a gun, and am ready to use it, I’m a horrible person. I’m not any better if the robbery victim obeys me and doesn’t force me to shoot.
Now, what if I’m GENERALLY a good person, but am having some ugly, sinful thoughts? What if I think often about hitting my wife? Can I justly say “What’s the problem? As long as I don’t do it, it’s FINE that I often get angry and think about punching her?”
Or SHOULDN’T my ugly thoughts be a Distant Early Warning? When I catch myself having ugly thoughts, shouldn’t I think, “My soul is in danger now. I need to start praying and seeking guidance or counseling to make sure the evil STOPS with these idle fantasies, and doesn’t escalate any further.”