Do good and evil consist of thoughts, deeds or both?

What makes a physical act good or bad in and of itself is the Word of God and the commands of Scripture.

Not only are the intents of the heart and mind potentially sinful, but the act itself is sinful.

Joining oneself to a prostitute is in and of itself a sinful act because God's Word says that it is, regardless of one's disposition of the mind or whether or not one knows the command.

Therefore, cbts's premise fails.

 

If God's Word says that the amoral act of sexual intercourse is a sin if committed with someone other than one's spouse, then the purely physical sexual act committed by a free moral agent is no longer amoral. It does not matter if I don't know of the command, agree with the command, or disagree with the command.

God's Word can rule certain physical acts sinful, and the disposition of the mind has nothing to do with it.

 

Paul33 wrote,

Nowhere in the Bible do we find it attributing moral qualities to any physical acts of men unless they are behavioral, and therefore, by definition, a function of the state and disposition of the mind. Therefore, Paul33 is necessarily mistaken, and seriously so.

 

Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law.

Breaking any moral law is still breaking the moral law, whether knowingly or not, it is still sin.

 

The rapture must be near, because, once again, I agree with Salamander.

 

I didn't write the above quote.

 

The idea that physical acts are ammoral until directed by the intents of the heart, while appealing, is seriously flawed.

God's Word indicates that certain physical activities are wrong in and of themselves, regardless of what one's thought processes are.

I may believe that physical intercourse is like eating and breathing and therefore normal and right. But it doesn't matter what I think. Sexual physical acts outside of marriage are sinful.

Therefore, the statement that physical acts are never sinful in and of themselves is a false statement.

To answer the question posed in this thread, the answer is yes, yes, and yes.

 

Jesus told us that if a man thinketh in his heart to lust after a woman he has commited adultery with her already, thus the thought implication. To commit adultery, the act, is also adultery.

Theologically speaking, and I rarely do that,it is the objective of Jesus to show all men their depravity/exceeding sinfulness. Whether just thinking on it, or actually acting upon it, both are still sin.

So one might see my jest, I spoke doctrinally, not theologically!

 

I didn't write the above quote.

</font>[/QUOTE]Paul33,

Please accept my apologies for this error. My post should have read,

Nowhere in the Bible do we find it attributing moral qualities to any physical acts of men unless they are behavioral, and therefore, by definition, a function of the state and disposition of the mind. Therefore, Paul33 is necessarily mistaken, and seriously so.

 

What exactly is the difference between a behavioral act and a non-behavioral act?

 

I am still trying to wrap my mind around this... but it won't wrap right now!

I keep coming back to 1 Timothy 2:14 for some reason- 'And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.'

 

1. Did someone say God's actions don't have moral significance? God is sentient, and since we say God is invariably good, his actions must be always good, carried out with impeccable motivation.

2. The deeds of angels are righteous and the deeds of demons are evil because the minds of angels are in line with God and the minds of demons are utterly self-serving and opposed to God.

3. A deed brings glory to God only if it is known that the actor is doing the deed with righteous intent. It is still the mind of the actor that is in question. Giving a donation to charity because of compassion is good, giving a donation to charity simply to get a tax write-off is not good. It is beneficial to the recipients, but the actor was not really thinking about them.

4. Well, supposedly if you were involved in the invasion of Canaan and the extermination of the people there, you would be required to consider that act of infanticide right. . . At any rate, we consider some acts good and some acts bad because there are some things that cannot be done with good motivations, while other deeds it's hard to find a wrong motivation for. Most deeds that we consider wrong (like infanticide) we would be hard-pressed to consider good, but if the action were done accidentally or without evil intent we would not say it was evil. I'm reminded of the character in Of Mice and Men, who is mentally retarded and accidentally kills a girl. Usually we would consider that an evil deed, but because he was unable of understanding what was going on it would be a tragedy but not evil.

 

Well, if you thought my points 1 and 2 were your points, then I guess we're just not communicating very well!

We can generalize about deeds without knowing intent because many deeds we consider good it's hard to do for a wrong reason, and many deeds we consider evil it's hard to do for a right reason (especially when there is an absolute law against them--a rational person not under duress cannot commit adultery without sinning).

So throwing out the whacked-out situations in which God told people to commit infanticide, in a normal situation we are ruled by the law against murder. Therefore we would obviously intervene if we saw someone attempt to kill a baby--there is no circumstance under which that could be a right action, although if the person is retarded, insane, or senile they might not be guilty of attempted murder.

Breaking it down to the very simplest level, I say that physical deeds are not morally significant because it is the mind behind them that is responsible. If you built an android that looked exactly like a human, it could commit all of the physical deeds we think of as evil or good, yet it would be incapable of either pleasing or displeasing God because it has no moral sense.

So the android donates money to charity, helps little old ladies across streets, and memorizes the entire Bible in half an hour. Then it has a short-circuit, knocks someone down for simply being in the way, steals a car, and breaks the speed limit. So what? Its actions are amoral.

You might as well say a crocodile sins when it drowns a swimmer.

If at some point in the future such androids become common, one that kills someone will be feared and destroyed, but it will not be blamed for having sinned. If we can call some action it does evil, it is evil only if the android has been programmed to do that deed by a moral agent with evil intent--a person who is responsible for the android's actions.

 

Hitler mercifully killed Jews, Christians, and others who were deemded to be a cancer on the Aryan race. He did so with the full support of the German, British, and American eugenics movement. Therefore, it is completely unfair to label Hitler as one who is crazy, insane, or Satanic. He acted on a good and moral basis to preserve the human race against mental, moral and physical misfits and defectives. He followed the logic of "survival of the fittest" to its logical conclusion. He should be applauded.

 

See, you're not understanding what I'm trying to say. Hitler's moral compass did not align with God's absolute morality, so his mindset was evil. Because his mindset was evil, his deeds were evil.

 

John of Japan wrote,

In Rom. 13 Paul is admonishing the Christians in Rome to obey the laws of the Romans government, and he tell them very plainly that if they disobey the laws, they can expect to be punished by the Roman government, which is “a minister of God to [them] for good.”

1. Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
2. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
3. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
4. for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. (NASB, 1995)

Obedient acts are therefore good acts; disobedient acts are evil acts. And, of course, it was up to the Roman government to decide how to deal with those who broke the law, and the Roman government was free to take into consideration the degree of responsibility for the act and evaluate the intentions of those who broke the law and judge them accordingly.

It is expressly clear that Paul here is addressing willful rather than accidental or unintentional disobedience and obedience.

Petrel’s response to this was the correct Biblical response so I need not comment further upon it.

 

Thank you for this excellent, scriptural reply!

 

There was no scriptural reply.

My point, and I think you made it for me, was that Hitler's moral compass did not align with God's.

That's right. And so his actions were wrong because God's Word declares that they are wrong. It matters little whether or not Hitler knew God's Word or acted on Darwinian ethics.

Hiter's "ACTIONS" were wrong despite his "INTENTIONS" being in the right place (For Darwinists, that is).

Something besides his desires and intentions made his actions wrong, namely, God's Word.

I don't have to prove that every action is backed up with a correct or moral intention. I only have to prove one case of "behavior" without immoral intent" to be a sin.

Hitler's actions were not immoral according to the ethic he was following. He didn't have to hate anyone. In preserving the human race and advancing it to a super race of human beings, he acted morally in his love for humanity and humanity's betterment.

What made his actions sinful? God's Word. Period.