Sinful Thoughts are not Unrighteous

Fiction Portal Intergalactic Summit
1

Sometimes, someone will observe an object that they say caused them to have Sinful Thoughts, and usually they will then demand that similar objects be banned from existing, because they cause people to have Sinful Thoughts.

Statues, clothing, books, holovids, wine made from more than one variety of grape, you know, the usual cultural dinguses that religious extremists get angry about.

However, having Sinful Thoughts is not in itself Unrighteous. It only becomes an issue when a person then acts on those thoughts and commits an Unrighteous act. E.g. observing a statue and then blaspheming as a result of having seen that statue.

Because thoughts that do not lead to actions are meaningless. One would not call someone a saint for merely having thought about committing an act that glorifies God after all. Only if the act was committed. Similarly, one has not committed a sin by merely thinking that e.g. a Gallente dress would reveal more than is Proper.

So… it is only by succumbing to temptations that one would become a Sinner, and the fault there is of being weak-willed, not because of the existence of a Tempting Object.

The strong willed Righteous person is immune to temptation, and they do not need to lock themselves away from the world in a bare cell in a monastery. Only weak-willed persons pretending to be Righteous would do such things, as a performative act, to show how “righteous” they are to others.

The truly Righteous person would be able to walk down the Crystal Boulevard, past the lewd statues, and would merely think “Gallenteans.”, rather than becoming Engorged With Sinful Thoughts, as some people would claim.

Thus, there is no such thing as “Sinful Clothing” or “Lewd Statuary”, there are only objects that are inappropriately placed. One wouldn’t wear a cocktail dress to church. Context matters.

You wouldn’t call someone like say… Lunarisse Aspenstar, a Sinful Witch, just because she owns a Gallente-style party dress somewhere in her extensive wardrobe. Nay, you would only call her that, were she to wear that dress to the Empress’s coronation where it would be Inappropriate.

Thus, Sinful Thoughts are not intrinsically Unrighteous, only acting on those thoughts is. And consequently, objects that may cause Sinful Thoughts are not Unrighteous either.

Only those of weak Faith have anything to fear from such objects.

2

I have sinful thoughts.

:frowning:

3

Hello forum :smiley:
@Valerie_Valate Interesting thoughts you have there. Thank you for the read.
I would be more bothered by sinful *intents". Thoughts come and go like clouds but intents are born from a deeper part of the person. Many thoughts aren’t even our own as we are influenced by those around us and Media.

Fifie’s two cents.

2 Likes
4

Be Careful. Pure Thought is the Instigator of Sin.
Be Watchful. Free Thought is the Begetter of Disorder.
Be Respectful. Uniform Thought is the Way of Life.

- The Scriptures, Book I, The Code of Demeanor

1 Like
5

You do realize the irony of you of all people quoting a passage requiring conformity over individual thought and judgment, Mr. Nauplius?

3 Likes
6

I have several question though:

  1. Can my thought be sinful though if I don’t know what is a sinful thought?
  2. As I undrstood it, a tempting object is an object that tempts me to destroy it?
  3. Is destroying a tempting object an unrighteous?
  4. Does it mean my thought are sinful if I think not only “Gallenteans”, but also “I’d so wish to kill them all for such disrespect to human nature?”
  5. Is it righteous to destroy an object that tempts you to destroy it if it is part of your Duty?
7

As Third Underkeeper of the Ensî’s Glacette, I feel obliged to note that even the suggestion of single grape champagne makes me very angry.

1 Like
8

Miss Valate is confusing items, which are largely neutral, with thoughts which can be sinful and unrighteous because they lead to a corruption of the spirit. The Scriptural View is set forth in the Code of Demeanor.

3 Likes
9

Thoughts can only corrupt the weak of spirit. The resolute Believer is immune to all forms of temptation.

Though I may walk through the Shadow of the Valley of Sin, I shall fear no Temptation, for the LORD is with me.

1 Like
10

That is indeed true for the ideal believer, like the saints and prophets and the Empress.

But what if those under your care are not all saints? There is a shepherdly aspect to your question. You can try to strengthen the faith in those that fail to resist temptation, but that requires a lot of time, and most people will still fail from time to time. Moreover, a sin, not properly treated by the rite of confession, will fester and grow, and lead to more sin.

There is a saying: “don’t put the kitten next to the milk”, meaning that it is better to avoid temptation than to have to remedy it afterwards. Because most faithful -including myself- are fallible and they know it. And so, removing things that may tempt to sin is not all that unreasonable.

1 Like
11

I dunno, isn’t there a bit in your scriptures (ok, several bits) about how untested faith isn’t as worthy as faith that’s been tempered through adversity and temptation? and how basically everything the Amarr do is one big test of faith to maintain your adherence to your god in the face of a universe that rejects him?

Seems to me that removing temptation is, in addition to being, well, lazy… it’s also denying the test of faith, and so rendering the faith you seek to protect from that test… hollow, meaningless. Like it turns what’s supposed to be a tempering fire into an indulgence of comfort and convenience.

12

Yes, you are right about that. But just being alive and living your life, there is already more than enough happening to test your faith even if you put the milk away. You will have to deal with loss, pain, temptation, anger, frustration, and a general helplessness to ultimately alleviate the pain to those you love. There is no avoiding that test of faith, none. So, no need to add extras, life itself is already daunting enough.

1 Like
13

But if that’s true, then there is no test that will prove a man’s faith, because his faith is always being tested anyway. Every man can easily just believe his faith already proven. In effect, your position is negates the admonition in Book of Missions, 5:14.

14

The Friar’s point is simple. God provides the tests, we don’t. Deliberately putting in your reach or letting an object that will tempt you lie around so it does is silly and probably will annoy God!

15

I am also a missionary, and thus travel to places that are full of sin and depravity as a matter of routine.

Since, you know, that’s where the sinners that can be redeemed are, yes ? Not going to find the lost soul in need of salvation at church now, am I ?

Saying that one should not expose oneself to tempting situations deliberately because it would “annoy God” sounds like saying you do not believe in missionary work.

And without missionary work how is the Word of God supposed to be taken to every star in the heavens as expressly stated in the Book of Reclaiming ?

1 Like
16

By the same token, though, doesn’t that argue against deliberately seeking to avoid God’s tests?

17

By conquest and enslavement, of course.

18

Oh right of course. Silly me for forgetting that.

19

I am sinfully righteous.

20

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.