# Thoughts sinful in and of themselves? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 16, 2002, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-sinful-in-and-of-themselves/119289 "2002-07-16T20:35:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2002, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-sinful-in-and-of-themselves/119289/21 "2002-07-17T11:52:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Apos \* > **While I don’t think the question is all that difficult, I think you’re missing the thrust of his point. He’s pointing out that the EXACT same aspect of ones character can block both sin and virtue. Changing the “block” might lead to virtue in one case, but also to sin in another.** I don’t think you are really understanding what I am saying. And I’m having a difficult time explaining it better. Try not to think of sin itself as the problem, but see it as a symptom of a will that is not in line with God’s. > [@](#): > > \*\*Unless you misread robert’s post, this answer is a non-sequitur. What he was asking was not why God cares about him in general, but rather why God would care about non-realities? You might argue that dirty thoughts are signals of ones will not being in line with God’s, but that’s a little strange, because god is omniscient, and doesn’t need signals. So it still doesn’t explain why it would be a sin. \*\* I didn’t misread. 🙂 Again, you are going about this all wrong. God isn’t concerned at the dirty thoughts, per se, but of the will that it reflects. God’s being omniscient has nothing to do with it. It’s true that he doesn’t need signals, but sins aren’t signals for God. They aren’t even designed to be signals for humans, but they can act as one. Dirty thoughts are a sin because they are the result of one’s will not being in line with God’s. I know I’m not explaining this well, and seem to just be repeating the same thing over and over. Give me some time to figure out a better way to illustrate what I’m talking about. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2002, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-sinful-in-and-of-themselves/119289/22 "2002-07-17T13:13:38Z")
I’m not sure i understand your use of “will”, **Neurotik**. ---
**Author:** ![Drastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Drastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drastic)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2002, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-sinful-in-and-of-themselves/119289/23 "2002-07-17T14:26:42Z")
> [@](#): > > the idea is that sin is a problem all by itself… > [@](#): > > Try not to think of sin itself as the problem… I have no real point to make of these quotes (Mangetout’s and Neurotik’s, respectively), other than that it really tickles me that they followed one right after the other. And people accuse eastern religions of saying contradictory things, my goodness. Now, I don’t much believe in “sin,” per se–not part of the religious narratives I’m emotionally vested in. I do believe in causes and conditions of suffering, however, which is a (somewhat, and debateably) parallel thing. The opening ‘twin verses’ of the Dhammapada run something like “Mind is the origin of all states. He that speaks and acts from an evil mind is followed by suffering as the wheel of the cart follows the ox that draws it.” (Varying wildly by translation along the poetic-literal spectrum, like most such things in Pali or Sanskrit, but the general gist is there.) The stress is still on the act–but action has to be understood as having its causes, and those causes lie in the mind and thoughts. Someone isn’t likely to rape if they haven’t spent a fair amount of time in their mind dwelling on it, and so on. So, I don’t know from “sinful”–but the state of mind, and the sort of thoughts that arise from it, is something that it’s a good idea to work on and train. ---
**Author:** ![Eve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Eve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eve)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2002, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-sinful-in-and-of-themselves/119289/24 "2002-07-17T14:36:53Z")
“The teacher said that you always have _some_ sins to confess, even if they’re very small. The kid says, OK, but what if you just sit in church all day long and never do anything else, what about then? The teacher shrugged and said that even in that situation, you would probably eventually get bored and start having sinful thoughts that you would have to confess.” —And _this_ is one of the things I find so sad and terrifying about religion. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2002, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-sinful-in-and-of-themselves/119289/25 "2002-07-17T15:02:22Z")
> [@](#): > > Can you be considered a criminal if you’ve never committed a crime? of course not. On the other hand, can you be considered an alcoholic if you haven’t had a drink in ten years? YES! Most recovering/recovered alcoholics will tell you so. They may learn to control their behavior, but the urge to get drunk is always there. The weakness in the analogy is that Christian theology posits that **everyone** is an alcoholic even if they have never tasted a drop of alcohol, simply by virtue of being human. ---
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2002, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-sinful-in-and-of-themselves/119289/26 "2002-07-17T17:09:22Z")
**Eve** , I’m pretty sure – not 100%, but pretty sure – that the Sunday School teacher in question had no idea what he was talking about and was not in fact correctly representing Church dogma on this topic. The guy was a loon. I mentioned what he said only because it’s what caused me to start thinking about tihs question. Personally, I have a hard time with the concept that simply fantasizing about a sinful act is a sin itself. I suppose it has something to do with having a pure soul; having lots and lots of naughty thoughts about, I don’t know, the receptionist in your office having a Crisco wrestling match with the chick from accounts receiving, is probably indicative that your soul is not really as pure as it could be. But should that really matter to God? I have a hard time with all of this stuff, actually, because it seems to me that most human conjecture about the nature of God is just that: conjecture. It’s not like anybody really knows what they’re talking about, unless there has been a whole lot of divine revelation going on that I am unaware of. It worries me, thinking of a supreme being who cares whether or not I’m having sinful fantasies, you know? Assuming there is a God, why would it care, as long as I’m not hurting any of my fellow human beings? (This, of course, is assuming that God even cares about that.) I guess I’m just terminally confused. ---
**Author:** ![Eve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Eve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eve)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2002, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-sinful-in-and-of-themselves/119289/27 "2002-07-17T18:47:44Z")
_Whew!_ I thought that sounded a little nutty, and my Christian friends don’t seem to think that way . . . I mean, they don’t think that thinking is a sin, not that they don’t think sinfully . . . Oh, dear, the semantics of this are getting too Abbott and Costello for me . . . ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2002, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-sinful-in-and-of-themselves/119289/28 "2002-07-17T19:31:25Z")
I think it’s more about being a total jerk. I mean, if you only refrain from doing things because there’s a law-you’re still a jerk. Because you’d kill, cheat and steal if it wasn’t against the law. Or am I speaking out of my arse again? ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2002, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-sinful-in-and-of-themselves/119289/29 "2002-07-17T19:37:04Z")
I think it’s more about being a total jerk. I mean, if you only refrain from doing things because there’s a law-you’re still a jerk. Because you’d kill, cheat and steal if it wasn’t against the law. Or am I speaking out of my arse again? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2002, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-sinful-in-and-of-themselves/119289/30 "2002-07-17T21:11:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MsWhatsit \* > **Personally, I have a hard time with the concept that simply fantasizing about a sinful act is a sin itself. I suppose it has something to do with having a pure soul; having lots and lots of naughty thoughts about, I don’t know, the receptionist in your office having a Crisco wrestling match with the chick from accounts receiving, is probably indicative that your soul is not really as pure as it could be. But should that really matter to God?** I think part of the problem is the way people approach the concept of ‘sin’. (Nonbelievers, and believers of various sorts, alike.) It’s not about scorekeeping of any sort, where God supposedly counts boinking your neighbor’s wife as X points against you, but counts fantasizing about doing the horizontal mambo with her as X, or X/2, or X/10 points against you. It’s also not about _earthly consequences_ as such, otherwise fantasizing about doing something bad wouldn’t be a sin at all. It’s about _separation from God_, or at least that’s what I was taught from my earliest days as a Christian. And having had three decades to think about that idea, it still makes perfect sense to me. The _state_ of sin is the state of separation from God; sinful thoughts and acts are those thoughts and acts that cause us not to be on the same wavelength with God. _Why does it matter to God?_ Because God, as your spiritual lover (and I’m not being facetious here; this is an old and good analogy, going back to the Old Testament), wants you to be spiritually one with Him. If you desire bad things, then your oneness with Him is a bit less than perfect. That’s not good for the relationship between you and God. And since it puts you in a position of spiritually holding God at arm’s length, it’s bad for you, because being loved by God is good for you, and holding God’s love at a remove really _isn’t_ good for you. God loves you and wants what’s best for you, so He’d rather you not do things that become stumbling blocks in your relationship with Him. And that includes thinking wrong thoughts. It doesn’t mean He’s holding those thoughts against you; it just means that you and He are _not in harmony_ with one another. And thinking of throttling someone with your bare hands will put you out of harmony with a God of love just as surely as actually throttling someone will. Does this mean that there’s no difference between thinking the thought and doing the deed? Only in this one way of looking at it, where all you’re asking is, “is there anything coming between me and God, or isn’t there?” But that’s not the only way to perceive it. It’s like if airport security asks you if you’re carrying explosives. Just because the answer to the question is the same whether you’re carrying a firecracker or a suitcase full of TNT, doesn’t mean they’re equivalent; they’re only equivalent _in the answer they produce to that particular question_. And so it is with committing a sinful act, and fantasizing it. At least IME; YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2002, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-sinful-in-and-of-themselves/119289/31 "2002-07-17T22:23:05Z")
—Again, you are going about this all wrong. God isn’t concerned at the dirty thoughts, per se, but of the will that it reflects.— But then, that will is the same whether or not someone _actually_ entertains sinful thoughts at any given moment. So if it isn’t the thoughts that are sinful, but the will they underscore, then ten lustful thoughts aren’t any worse than none, if the underlying will the same. The thoughts themselves don’t matter. —God’s being omniscient has nothing to do with it. It’s true that he doesn’t need signals, but sins aren’t signals for God. They aren’t even designed to be signals for humans, but they can act as one. Dirty thoughts are a sin because they are the result of one’s will not being in line with God’s.— Now you’re changing the story back again: either it’s the will that’s not in line with God’s, or it’s the thoughts that are _themselves_ sinful, and more is worse. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2002, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-sinful-in-and-of-themselves/119289/32 "2002-07-17T22:26:24Z")
—The state of sin is the state of separation from God; sinful thoughts and acts are those thoughts and acts that cause us not to be on the same wavelength with God.— Still: why are sinful thoughts wrong if they don’t harm anyone? Not being on the same wavlength as god, who is defined as wanting only good, might be a pragmatically poor choice, but if sinful thoughts are wrong on their own right (i.e., god would not have them) then there must be some further explanation as to why they are actually wrong. ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2002, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-sinful-in-and-of-themselves/119289/33 "2002-07-17T23:37:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Apos \* > \*\*Not being on the same wavlength as god, who is defined as wanting only good, might be a pragmatically poor choice, but if sinful thoughts are wrong on their own right (i.e., god would not have them) then there must be some further explanation as to why they are actually wrong. \*\* I think you’re missing the point, from the perspective of a believer. Since God is at the top of the food chain, the fact that he thinks it’s wrong is sufficient to make it wrong. If God needs a reason to condemn something, then he’s not God, since he’s beholden to some higher justification. If you don’t believe in God, then his perspective on the matter is irrelevant anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2002, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-sinful-in-and-of-themselves/119289/34 "2002-07-18T01:47:47Z")
—Since God is at the top of the food chain, the fact that he thinks it’s wrong is sufficient to make it wrong.— That’s incoherent, be one a believer or no. You can’t just “make” something wrong, no matter where on the food chain you are. —If God needs a reason to condemn something, then he’s not God, since he’s beholden to some higher justification.— If there’s no other justification than “I’m in charge” or “I say so” then we aren’t talking about a morality, per se. Just bossing people around. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2002, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-sinful-in-and-of-themselves/119289/35 "2002-07-18T02:10:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Apos \* > \*\*—The state of sin is the state of separation from God; sinful thoughts and acts are those thoughts and acts that cause us not to be on the same wavelength with God.— > > Still: why are sinful thoughts wrong if they don’t harm anyone? While what **hansel** says is true, the point is that by not being one with God, you’re harming _yourself_. That may be your _right_, but sin isn’t about rights. Sin is the state of separation from God, and being separated from God is bad, and bad _for_ you. As I see it, sin isn’t something God’s wagging his finger at you and going “bad boy!” over. It’s much more fundamental, much more holistic, than that. It just _is_. This is how it’s defined, so if the thoughts separate you from God, they’re sinful by definition. The consequence of sin for you isn’t punishment of some sort; the separation that defines a thought or act as sin is also the consequence. > [@](#): > > —Since God is at the top of the food chain, the fact that he thinks it’s wrong is sufficient to make it wrong.— > > That’s incoherent, be one a believer or no. You can’t just “make” something wrong, no matter where on the food chain you are. This is getting beyond the scope of the original discussion, but if the traditional sort of monotheistic, all-powerful creator-type God exists, then the Universe is His toy, and runs according to His rules. If you were the designer of Pac-Man, then you defined eating the monsters, fruits, etc. to be good, and being eaten by the monsters to be bad. That’s how it works. It just _is_. > [@](#): > > —If God needs a reason to condemn something, then he’s not God, since he’s beholden to some higher justification.— > > If there’s no other justification than “I’m in charge” or “I say so” then we aren’t talking about a morality, per se. Just bossing people around. Well, justification to whom? To his thesis professor, who’s grading him on the quality of his Universe? Justification to himself? To us? His justification to **us** would by definition be defined in terms of the rules he instilled within us. So no matter how benevolent, or not, such a God is, what you say is equally true: no matter how ‘good’ a universe he tries to create for us by however he defines good, he’s just as guilty of bossing us around as if he’d created a much nastier universe. There’s a tautology operating here, I think. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2002, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-sinful-in-and-of-themselves/119289/36 "2002-07-18T13:32:32Z")
originally posted by **MsWhatsit** > [@](#): > > Eve, I’m pretty sure – not 100%, but pretty sure – that the Sunday School teacher in question had no idea what he was talking about and was not in fact correctly representing Church dogma on this topic. The guy was a loon. I mentioned what he said only because it’s what caused me to start thinking about tihs question. Got to defend the teacher- not what he was saying, exactly. But the teacher was in what is probably the worst conversation possible - a what if conversation with a kid (I’ve been in ones that could have gone on for hours). It’s certainly not Catholic teaching that someone who does nothing but sit in church all day _must_ eventually sin, but that’s also a situation so far removed from reality as to be irrelevant to the point the teacher was trying to make. But it also is possible for thoughts, or perhaps more accurately, states of mind , to be sinful. Everyone has brought up thinking about a robbery vs committing the robbery, or thinking about adultery vs.committing adultery - thinking about committing an action. Even with those examples there are different levels of thought- a random thought that it would be easy to reach over the counter and steal the money is different from actively thinking of a plan to get the cashier away from the register, but ultimately not stealing for fear of punishment. But pride (the “I’m better than you” sort, that someone who does nothing but sit in church all day might come to think), greed , lust ( in the sense of treating people as objects), racism, being judgmental , hypocrisy, etc don’t necessarily have actions associated with them. It is perfectly possible to be a racist and believe that X people are better than Y people in some way , and yet never cause any harm to a Y, whether it is due to lack of opportunity, fear of the law , or fear of what others will think. Perhaps the person who actually has harmed Y’s has committed a more serious sin than those who merely believe X’s are better, but according to my understanding of Catholic teaching, the racist sins simply by believing he or she is better than members of another race. ---
**Author:** ![Rhapsody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9de0a6/32.png) [@Rhapsody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhapsody)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2002, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-sinful-in-and-of-themselves/119289/37 "2002-07-18T14:10:51Z")
whether a thought is sinful depends entirely on intent in my opinion. If you fantasize something with no intention of acting on that fantasy such as the above story of murdering someone, then there is no sin. If however you actively plan and intend to carry out such an action then that is sinful whether you actually carry your plan through or not. I feel the same way about adultery or other sins. Thinking or fantasizing about someone who is not your spouse is not a sin. acting on that fantasy or INTENDING to act on the fantasy would be. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2002, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-sinful-in-and-of-themselves/119289/38 "2002-07-18T14:19:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Guinastasia \* > \*\*I think it’s more about being a total jerk. > > I mean, if you only refrain from doing things because there’s a law-you’re still a jerk. Because you’d kill, cheat and steal if it wasn’t against the law. \*\* Which BTW could be a shorthand counter to those who argue that there can’t possibly be any morality w/o a “Fear of God”. As to **Apos** ’s comments, what **RTFirefly** said. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2002, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-sinful-in-and-of-themselves/119289/39 "2002-07-18T15:12:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rhapsody \* > \*\*whether a thought is sinful depends entirely on intent in my opinion. If you fantasize something with no intention of acting on that fantasy such as the above story of murdering someone, then there is no sin. If however you actively plan and intend to carry out such an action then that is sinful whether you actually carry your plan through or not. > > I feel the same way about adultery or other sins. Thinking or fantasizing about someone who is not your spouse is not a sin. acting on that fantasy or INTENDING to act on the fantasy would be. \*\* I’m not sure if it’s ever as cut-and-dried as that; often a person only decides on action _after_ fantasising, other times, they have reached the point of no return without realising it; and other times, they might positively decide _against_ action only after thinking it through; I’m not sure if it’s possible to pin down exactly what sort of thoughts would be ‘with intent’ and which would be just idle dreamings without something falling down the gap in between. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2002, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-sinful-in-and-of-themselves/119289/40 "2002-07-18T17:05:19Z")
**Rhapsody** - what is your definition of sin? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-sinful-in-and-of-themselves/119289.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-sinful-in-and-of-themselves/119289.md?page=3)