From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: Judgmentalism (was Re: Whose Truth?)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 16:59:53 GMT

hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:

>fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
>>hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
>>
>>>  However, the effect of modern scientific inquiry has been to question
>>>our societal preconceptions.  We need tangible reasons to believe that
>>>certain actions are truly bad for us.  Christianity has failed to provide
>>>satisfactory reasons.  People ask, "Why is lust a sin?".  "I'm not hurting
>>>anyone as long as I don't act."  Christianity says, "Jesus said it was a
>>>sin."  People ask, "Why did Jesus say that?"  Christianity says. "His
>>>reasons are too wondrous for us to comprehend."  People walk away, shaking
>>>their heads and mumbling to themselves.
>>
>>I have to disagree here. While I believe it is necessary to have some faith
>>to grasp the truth and significance of Christian morality, it is certainly
>>not beyond our reason to see that this moral code is actually quite practical,
>>that it is in our best interest to follow it.
>>
>>Why is lust considered sinful? Of course, because Christ condemned it. But
>>why did he feel it necessary to condemn it you ask? We can simply appeal
>>to reason. If one is not discouraged from lust, then he will be view it
>>as acceptable behavior. Due to the nature of lust and sexual passion, if
>>it is not checked, then it will grow to consume an individuals every
>>thought - it is an addictive pleasure. One no longer experiences it every
>>now and then - it becomes a chronic condition. Why is this? Well, what is
>>lust? It is not in any way a true love for another, but rather a desire
>>for sexual contact, and only that. Surely, we should not think of others
>>as objects for sexual gratification, but we should respect others as we
>>ought to be respected, for we all have worth as human beings. Through this
>>depersonalization, it becomes easier and easier to justify lust. So, by
>>enjoying lust, one enjoys degrading another's worth and human dignity.
>>Surely, no reasonable person would wish to do this. 

>Your argument is very good, although it seems to me that the actions you
>criticizing have more to do with obsessive-compulsive behavior than it does
>with lust itself.  And of course, if people didn't think of their spouses
>(spice? :-) as objects of sexual gratification for at least a small instant
>of time (some smaller than others), none of us would be here.

That's true - but then again, that is what I think of as lust. Again, I think
that a large degree of our differences arise from our definitions of what
lust is. As long as sexual attraction is accompanied by a true love for 
another person, and a commitment to that person, then it is not lust, the
way I see it. I guess that I sincerely believe that lust, or sexual desire
without love, is addictive.

>>While I'm not a Fundamentalist, it is not up to the Christian to make
>>the non-Christian believe.
>Then why all of the Christian missionaries?

Good point. I guess I should have said that if a certain moral requires
some degree of faith for a person to adhere to it, then no amount of
teaching and argument on the part of the Christian will convince the
person to believe it. All the Christian is required to do is teach the
faith - once the seed is planted, it is hoped that the person who has
heard the Christian truth will help it grow. I think that faith is 
something that no man can give to one another. All that can be done is
provide evidence and reason as to why faith is, in fact, desirable.

-ACF
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh