From: KKRUEGER@Zeus.unomaha.edu (Kurt R. Krueger)
Subject: Re: Judgmentalism (was Re: Whose Truth?)
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 18:46:43 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11

In <1992Jul30.151251.9588@dbsun.uucp> hulsey@dbsun.uucp 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.

Christianity provides reasons, and a lot of good, logical ones.  I think
you have just been talking to some know-nothings.  Scientific inquiry into
morality has been disastrous for society.  This is because the morality often
winds up being based on desire instead of truth.

> >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.

I think the original poster didn't go far enough in explaining lust.  There
is really nothing wrong, according to Christianity, with looking at one's
spouse as the object of sexual gratification.  In fact, this is one of the
reasons for getting married, the Bible states.  Now, if that is the only
thing one sees in one's spouse, well that's another matter.

> >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?

Your point is accurate.  One simply cannot believe in the Bible and say that
"it is not up to the Christian to make the non-Christian believe."  (Well,
"make" is too strong, but I don't think the poster intended force.)  I am
tired of seeing Christians being afraid to admit this as if there were some-
thing wrong with it.  The best thing for civilization is a free marketplace
of ideas.  This new concept that all religions are equal and good, and we
dare not try to convince others that our own is the correct one dilutes the
value of Christianity.  Suppose we applied this same principle to politics?

> I agree that there are certain Christian moral values that are, in fact,
> supported by scientific evidence.  However, others, such as the
> proscription of birth control, are questioned.

There is no proscription of birth control in the Christian faith.  All the
Protestant, married Christians I've known (and they're conservative) have
used it.  The only proscription is in the Catholic dogma, and this may
change someday.  The guiding concept behind the Catholics' belief is that sex
is primarily intended for procreation.  I am a Protestant, and a fairly con-
servative one at that, and I see nothing wrong with the concept of birth
control whatsoever.


--
/*        Kurt Krueger | kkrueger@zeus.unomaha.edu | kkrueger@unoma1        */