Lust to no longer be a Deadly Sin?
 

link to story

I was beginning to wonder about the religious types until I read the very last nice.

Control; I thought adding it to the list of deadly sins was control enough?

Please add your reactions.

I call it a logical evolutinosary step. They'll probably call me a heretic for saying that.

depends on your defition of lust. if it amounts to objectification and devaluation of other human beings...then no. if it is a passion to express love...then yeah, its cool.

Well, as far as I know, most traditional Christians would tend to agree with Blackburn's definition to some extent, and argue that under that definition, lust would be inherently objectifying. Since Blackburn defines lust as desire for sexual activity for its own sake, it's hard for me to see how that could not be objectifying, since you're having relations with the other person not for their sake, but for the sake of the sex. It should hardly need saying that the denunciation of that sort of lust doesn't mean that there's not something else that could be called lust which is in fact a virtue.

The aversion to lust has been a manifestation of the believe that the mind and body are two seperate entities. Valuing the mind over the body led to a religious doctine that devalued anything more strongly connected to the body and less of the mind. Since the mind is more ethereal, and god-like apparently... in any event, we're moving away from this duality towards a better representation of humanity where the mind and body are not seperated, but very closely connected. And away from shame, guilt, and in general a schizophrenic view of the self.

Yay for lust.

This actually makes a lot of sense......you can't argue with the thirst analogy.

I dont see how lust can ever be considered sin, that is, with the exception of the cases of rapists, molesters, and pedophiles...those extreme cases are just plain WRONG!!...other than that...if you're horny and in love, Go for It!(assuming both parties are both horny and in love) :thumbsup:

lust, anger, envy, gluttony, sloth, pride and greed

The "sin" in each of these is in the excessive pursuit. In actuality, a life without at least a little bit of each of these incomplete (all things in moderation, eh?) These are the things that drive society... evolution, even.

Pope Gregory the "Great" was, like us all, a product of his Age. He was trying to define life for his times and looking for Christians to rededicate themselves to the spread Christianity. His "Dialogs" are extensively about self denial in the service of God. A decadent Roman Empite had recently been overrun by Germanic tribes and his appeal to a more disciplined lifestyle resonnated well. The Seven Deadly Sins became dogma, even thought they had no basis in the teaches of Christ.

In other words, the thoughts themselves are not the "sin." Sin comes when action harmful to others, is taken.

IMO, yes. Contrary to what the Catholic Church tried to drum into me, thoughts cannot be, by themselves, "sin." The manner in which you act upon your thoughts make them "sinful" or not.

Untrue. Unconscious thoughts are not sin -- that is, if some idea pops into my head, I'm not responsible for it. But if I dwell upon it, it is sin. Why? Because if I dwell, say, on the fantasy of killing my advisor, there might come a time when I'm not free to not kill him. It might become an obsession, and in any case would make me a worse person. And, of course, that's what sin's about -- whether or not doing something makes you a worse person.

I mostly agree except for one small point:

Some are by definition excesses:

Gluttony, excessive consumption
Sloth, excessive laziness
Greed, excessive materialism
Lust, excessive desire.

That's the point of the list as I understand them, they are all excessive demonstrations of normal human behaviours.

Whether it's officially removed or not, I will always consider lust a deadly sin.

imho,

-bear

lust, i believe, is a sin only to the extent that one goes overboard with it.

his comparison of thirst to lust is a bit off I think. gluttony would be a better comparison: i.e. thirst is to gluttony as love(??) is to lust thirst does not lead to drunkenness or gluttony just as love does not lead to lust.