From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Subject: Re: Judgmentalism (was Re: Whose Truth?)
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:12:51 GMT

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.

>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?

>                            Fundamentalists do not believe they are lying,
>or trying to "trick" anybody. They simply announce the truth as they
>see it. If those listening are too biased against them to hear the
>truth, that is not the Christians' fault.

I used to attend one of the largest Fundamentalist churches in the
country.  They see the truth as the inerrancy of the Bible.  And they
went to great lengths to justify their beliefs, not all of which were
factual.

>On a final note, I'd have to say that no amount of "scientific evidence"
>could ever call into question the value of Christian morality.

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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"