| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Therion Ware" |
| Date: |
11 Jan 2004 01:39:13 PM |
| Object: |
Lust declared virtue, not vice |
Lust declared virtue, not vice
Lust has been wrongly branded a vice and should be "reclaimed for
humanity" as a life-affirming virtue, according to a top philosopher.
Professor Simon Blackburn of Cambridge University is trying to
"rescue" lust, arguing it has been wrongly condemned for centuries,
the Sunday Times says.
His campaign is part of an Oxford University Press project on the
modern relevance of the seven deadly sins.
The list of sins was drawn up by Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th
Century.
OUP has commissioned books on each of the sins - lust, anger, envy,
gluttony, sloth, pride and greed.
Controlling lust
It says Prof Blackburn is aiming to save lust "from the denunciations
of old men of the deserts, to deliver it from the pallid and envious
confessor and the stocks and pillories of the Puritans, to drag it
from the category of sin to that of virtue".
According to the Sunday Times, Prof Blackburn has defined lust as "the
enthusiastic desire for sexual activity and its pleasures for its own
sake".
The philosopher says that if reciprocated, lust leads to pleasure and
"best flourishes when unencumbered by bad philosophy and ideology...
which prevent its freedom of flow".
He points out that thirst is not criticised although it can lead to
drunkenness and in the same way lust should not be condemned just
because it can get out of hand, the paper says.
Professor Blackburn is quoted as saying: "The important thing is that
generally anything that gives pleasure has a presumption in its
favour.
"The question is how we control it."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/3387169.stm
Published: 2004/01/11 13:54:22 GMT
© BBC MMIV
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
| User: "Shuggy" |
|
| Title: Re: Lust declared virtue, not vice |
11 Jan 2004 11:50:20 PM |
|
|
Lust declared virtue, not vice
The trouble with lust is that it very often leads to excess. And
excess often hurts.
For example, I have a friend who has taken sexual lust to the point
that he sleeps with several women at once. He has a steady
girlfriend, and his sexual excesses are very painful to her. Not to
mention the risk of STDs his excesses pose for both of them.
Lust for food can lead to over-eating and obesity. Which is not
healthy.
Lust for money can lead to type-A behavior, which leads to stress
disesases such as heart attack and runaway consumerism.
I won't go so far as to say that I think lust is "evil," but I do
think there are healthier states in which to live than in lust. To
have a healthy want for something is okay, but lust-- uh uh.
Shuggy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Lust declared virtue, not vice |
12 Jan 2004 11:19:55 AM |
|
|
On 11 Jan 2004, (Shuggy) screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:cb98d700.0401112150.78c2dd77@posting.google.com:
Lust declared virtue, not vice
The trouble with lust is that it very often leads to excess. And
excess often hurts.
For example, I have a friend who has taken sexual lust to the point
that he sleeps with several women at once. He has a steady
girlfriend, and his sexual excesses are very painful to her. Not to
mention the risk of STDs his excesses pose for both of them.
Lust for food can lead to over-eating and obesity. Which is not
healthy.
Lust for money can lead to type-A behavior, which leads to stress
disesases such as heart attack and runaway consumerism.
I won't go so far as to say that I think lust is "evil," but I do
think there are healthier states in which to live than in lust. To
have a healthy want for something is okay, but lust-- uh uh.
Shuggy
'According to the Sunday Times, Prof Blackburn has defined lust as "the
enthusiastic desire for sexual activity and its pleasures for its own
sake".'
There you have your answer. Under that definition, lust does not
necessarily have any of the detrimental effects you list above, unless
it is untempered by a sense of resonsibility. But then, anything not
tempered by a sense of responsibility is potentially dangerous.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Klowmhundur" |
|
| Title: Re: Lust declared virtue, not vice |
11 Jan 2004 02:23:39 PM |
|
|
In article <lg9300lbpabb60op8clpj9ra15tjpom3u4@4ax.com>,
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
Lust declared virtue, not vice
Lust has been wrongly branded a vice and should be "reclaimed for
humanity" as a life-affirming virtue, according to a top philosopher.
Professor Simon Blackburn of Cambridge University is trying to
"rescue" lust, arguing it has been wrongly condemned for centuries,
the Sunday Times says.
His campaign is part of an Oxford University Press project on the
modern relevance of the seven deadly sins.
The list of sins was drawn up by Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th
Century.
OUP has commissioned books on each of the sins - lust, anger, envy,
gluttony, sloth, pride and greed.
Controlling lust
It says Prof Blackburn is aiming to save lust "from the denunciations
of old men of the deserts, to deliver it from the pallid and envious
confessor and the stocks and pillories of the Puritans, to drag it
from the category of sin to that of virtue".
According to the Sunday Times, Prof Blackburn has defined lust as "the
enthusiastic desire for sexual activity and its pleasures for its own
sake".
The philosopher says that if reciprocated, lust leads to pleasure and
"best flourishes when unencumbered by bad philosophy and ideology...
which prevent its freedom of flow".
He points out that thirst is not criticised although it can lead to
drunkenness and in the same way lust should not be condemned just
because it can get out of hand, the paper says.
Professor Blackburn is quoted as saying: "The important thing is that
generally anything that gives pleasure has a presumption in its
favour.
"The question is how we control it."
Lust and Hedonism go hand-in-hand, enjoying pleasures for enjoyments
sake, without guilt (presuming that you are not hurting another in
your pursuit for pleasure).
Your closing line still smacks of ancient thinking by implying that
lust needs to be controlled. It doesn't, as can be seen by millions
and millions of people who lust for one thing or another, and who are
still "pretty good" people (atheists included). Lust is not an issue
in and of itself. It only becomes a scapegoat if it appears as a
manifestation of, or appears to be linked to some other issue, such as
obsessive behavior, or something that goes against socially accepted
norms, like incest or homosexuality (aren't all those gay guys so
lusty, unlike us normal hetero folks?)
I'm all for lust. Go, lust, go! :-D
-Klowmhundur
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Lust declared virtue, not vice |
12 Jan 2004 11:17:58 AM |
|
|
On 11 Jan 2004, Klowmhundur <nobody@home.com> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:nobody-D166B4.15233911012004@enews.newsguy.com:
In article <lg9300lbpabb60op8clpj9ra15tjpom3u4@4ax.com>,
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
Lust declared virtue, not vice
Lust has been wrongly branded a vice and should be "reclaimed for
humanity" as a life-affirming virtue, according to a top philosopher.
Professor Simon Blackburn of Cambridge University is trying to
"rescue" lust, arguing it has been wrongly condemned for centuries,
the Sunday Times says.
His campaign is part of an Oxford University Press project on the
modern relevance of the seven deadly sins.
The list of sins was drawn up by Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th
Century.
OUP has commissioned books on each of the sins - lust, anger, envy,
gluttony, sloth, pride and greed.
Controlling lust
It says Prof Blackburn is aiming to save lust "from the denunciations
of old men of the deserts, to deliver it from the pallid and envious
confessor and the stocks and pillories of the Puritans, to drag it
from the category of sin to that of virtue".
According to the Sunday Times, Prof Blackburn has defined lust as "the
enthusiastic desire for sexual activity and its pleasures for its own
sake".
The philosopher says that if reciprocated, lust leads to pleasure and
"best flourishes when unencumbered by bad philosophy and ideology...
which prevent its freedom of flow".
He points out that thirst is not criticised although it can lead to
drunkenness and in the same way lust should not be condemned just
because it can get out of hand, the paper says.
Professor Blackburn is quoted as saying: "The important thing is that
generally anything that gives pleasure has a presumption in its
favour.
"The question is how we control it."
Lust and Hedonism go hand-in-hand, enjoying pleasures for enjoyments
sake, without guilt (presuming that you are not hurting another in
your pursuit for pleasure).
Your closing line still smacks of ancient thinking by implying that
lust needs to be controlled. It doesn't, as can be seen by millions
and millions of people who lust for one thing or another, and who are
still "pretty good" people (atheists included). Lust is not an issue
in and of itself. It only becomes a scapegoat if it appears as a
manifestation of, or appears to be linked to some other issue, such as
obsessive behavior, or something that goes against socially accepted
norms, like incest or homosexuality (aren't all those gay guys so
lusty, unlike us normal hetero folks?)
I'm all for lust. Go, lust, go! :-D
-Klowmhundur
I think by "control" he means, for example, that you shouldn't allow
your lust to influence you to rape someone, or to have unprotected sex
with an STD-infected person or a fertile woman who does not want a baby,
and so on. He's just saying you shouldn't do whatever your lust prompts
you to do without considering the consequences of certain actions.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "Klowmhundur" |
|
| Title: Re: Lust declared virtue, not vice |
14 Jan 2004 05:20:12 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns946E7344A14D4Mekkala@199.45.49.11>,
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote:
On 11 Jan 2004, Klowmhundur <nobody@home.com> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:nobody-D166B4.15233911012004@enews.newsguy.com:
In article <lg9300lbpabb60op8clpj9ra15tjpom3u4@4ax.com>,
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
Lust declared virtue, not vice
Lust has been wrongly branded a vice and should be "reclaimed for
humanity" as a life-affirming virtue, according to a top philosopher.
Professor Simon Blackburn of Cambridge University is trying to
"rescue" lust, arguing it has been wrongly condemned for centuries,
the Sunday Times says.
His campaign is part of an Oxford University Press project on the
modern relevance of the seven deadly sins.
The list of sins was drawn up by Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th
Century.
OUP has commissioned books on each of the sins - lust, anger, envy,
gluttony, sloth, pride and greed.
Controlling lust
It says Prof Blackburn is aiming to save lust "from the denunciations
of old men of the deserts, to deliver it from the pallid and envious
confessor and the stocks and pillories of the Puritans, to drag it
from the category of sin to that of virtue".
According to the Sunday Times, Prof Blackburn has defined lust as "the
enthusiastic desire for sexual activity and its pleasures for its own
sake".
The philosopher says that if reciprocated, lust leads to pleasure and
"best flourishes when unencumbered by bad philosophy and ideology...
which prevent its freedom of flow".
He points out that thirst is not criticised although it can lead to
drunkenness and in the same way lust should not be condemned just
because it can get out of hand, the paper says.
Professor Blackburn is quoted as saying: "The important thing is that
generally anything that gives pleasure has a presumption in its
favour.
"The question is how we control it."
Lust and Hedonism go hand-in-hand, enjoying pleasures for enjoyments
sake, without guilt (presuming that you are not hurting another in
your pursuit for pleasure).
Your closing line still smacks of ancient thinking by implying that
lust needs to be controlled. It doesn't, as can be seen by millions
and millions of people who lust for one thing or another, and who are
still "pretty good" people (atheists included). Lust is not an issue
in and of itself. It only becomes a scapegoat if it appears as a
manifestation of, or appears to be linked to some other issue, such as
obsessive behavior, or something that goes against socially accepted
norms, like incest or homosexuality (aren't all those gay guys so
lusty, unlike us normal hetero folks?)
I'm all for lust. Go, lust, go! :-D
-Klowmhundur
I think by "control" he means, for example, that you shouldn't allow
your lust to influence you to rape someone....
Speak with behavioral specialists, as well as criminal specialists,
and they will concur that rape has nothing to do with lust. It is a
crime of violence, manifesting sexually.
...or to have unprotected sex with an STD-infected person or a
fertile woman who does not want a baby, and so on...
Again, a person who is normally very prudent, risk adverse, and
cautious is very unlikely to become all willy-nilly due to lust and
"act out of character." People who are "usually cautious" but have
been known to throw caution to the wind or to act impulsively may be
prompted to act in such a manner if lust is thrown into the mix. It
just shows you that lust does not make you something that you are not
already. Lust is the almighty scapegoat vice for puritans.
He's just saying you shouldn't do whatever your lust prompts
you to do without considering the consequences of certain actions.
That would apply for just about anything, no? A child wanting candy,
and adult wanting a car he can't afford, a teenager salivating over
the picture of a swimsuit model. It all boils down to a person's
values, independently of lust. Pedophiles are a problem, with or
without lust in the mix. Let us not delude ourselves into believing
that a pedophile is perfectly fine, providing that he can keep his
lust under control :-) A pedophile's lust does not diminish while he
is in prison. It's just that his opportunties decrease.
-Klowmhundur
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Lust declared virtue, not vice |
15 Jan 2004 10:12:41 AM |
|
|
On 14 Jan 2004, Klowmhundur <nobody@home.com> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:nobody-CA283D.18201214012004@news.newsguy.com:
In article <Xns946E7344A14D4Mekkala@199.45.49.11>,
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote:
On 11 Jan 2004, Klowmhundur <nobody@home.com> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:nobody-D166B4.15233911012004@enews.newsguy.com:
In article <lg9300lbpabb60op8clpj9ra15tjpom3u4@4ax.com>,
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
Lust declared virtue, not vice
Lust has been wrongly branded a vice and should be "reclaimed for
humanity" as a life-affirming virtue, according to a top
philosopher.
Professor Simon Blackburn of Cambridge University is trying to
"rescue" lust, arguing it has been wrongly condemned for centuries,
the Sunday Times says.
His campaign is part of an Oxford University Press project on the
modern relevance of the seven deadly sins.
The list of sins was drawn up by Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th
Century.
OUP has commissioned books on each of the sins - lust, anger, envy,
gluttony, sloth, pride and greed.
Controlling lust
It says Prof Blackburn is aiming to save lust "from the
denunciations
of old men of the deserts, to deliver it from the pallid and envious
confessor and the stocks and pillories of the Puritans, to drag it
from the category of sin to that of virtue".
According to the Sunday Times, Prof Blackburn has defined lust as
"the
enthusiastic desire for sexual activity and its pleasures for its
own
sake".
The philosopher says that if reciprocated, lust leads to pleasure
and
"best flourishes when unencumbered by bad philosophy and ideology...
which prevent its freedom of flow".
He points out that thirst is not criticised although it can lead to
drunkenness and in the same way lust should not be condemned just
because it can get out of hand, the paper says.
Professor Blackburn is quoted as saying: "The important thing is
that
generally anything that gives pleasure has a presumption in its
favour.
"The question is how we control it."
Lust and Hedonism go hand-in-hand, enjoying pleasures for enjoyments
sake, without guilt (presuming that you are not hurting another in
your pursuit for pleasure).
Your closing line still smacks of ancient thinking by implying that
lust needs to be controlled. It doesn't, as can be seen by millions
and millions of people who lust for one thing or another, and who
are
still "pretty good" people (atheists included). Lust is not an issue
in and of itself. It only becomes a scapegoat if it appears as a
manifestation of, or appears to be linked to some other issue, such
as
obsessive behavior, or something that goes against socially accepted
norms, like incest or homosexuality (aren't all those gay guys so
lusty, unlike us normal hetero folks?)
I'm all for lust. Go, lust, go! :-D
-Klowmhundur
I think by "control" he means, for example, that you shouldn't allow
your lust to influence you to rape someone....
Speak with behavioral specialists, as well as criminal specialists,
and they will concur that rape has nothing to do with lust. It is a
crime of violence, manifesting sexually.
This is true. However, *some* instances of rape (e.g., "date rape
drugs") are prompted by a simple desire for sex.
...or to have unprotected sex with an STD-infected person or a
fertile woman who does not want a baby, and so on...
Again, a person who is normally very prudent, risk adverse, and
cautious is very unlikely to become all willy-nilly due to lust and
"act out of character." People who are "usually cautious" but have
been known to throw caution to the wind or to act impulsively may be
prompted to act in such a manner if lust is thrown into the mix. It
just shows you that lust does not make you something that you are not
already. Lust is the almighty scapegoat vice for puritans.
Look, I'm not saying lust is bad. I'm simply explaining my
understanding of what Professor Blackburn meant by "controlling" lust.
And people who have a tendency to throw caution to the wind need to
remember to use caution... in matters of lust, for example. That's a
simple case of someone who needs to "control" lust, as well as other
things. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here,
except to say lust isn't necessarily a bad thing, which was never in
dispute to begin with.
He's just saying you shouldn't do whatever your lust prompts
you to do without considering the consequences of certain actions.
That would apply for just about anything, no? A child wanting candy,
and adult wanting a car he can't afford, a teenager salivating over
the picture of a swimsuit model. It all boils down to a person's
values, independently of lust. Pedophiles are a problem, with or
without lust in the mix. Let us not delude ourselves into believing
that a pedophile is perfectly fine, providing that he can keep his
lust under control :-) A pedophile's lust does not diminish while he
is in prison. It's just that his opportunties decrease.
Yet a pedophile's lust still has to be controlled, whether it be by
imprisonment, self-control, institutionalization, or whatever... it's
still a matter of controlling his lust so that he does not harm
children.
Again, it seems all you're arguing is that lust isn't bad; and that was
never in dispute. What point are you trying to make, or are you just
preaching to the choir?
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "Klowmhundur" |
|
| Title: Re: Lust declared virtue, not vice |
15 Jan 2004 09:01:13 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns94716837FAC4CMekkala@199.45.49.11>,
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote:
On 14 Jan 2004, Klowmhundur <nobody@home.com> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:nobody-CA283D.18201214012004@news.newsguy.com:
In article <Xns946E7344A14D4Mekkala@199.45.49.11>,
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote:
On 11 Jan 2004, Klowmhundur <nobody@home.com> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:nobody-D166B4.15233911012004@enews.newsguy.com:
In article <lg9300lbpabb60op8clpj9ra15tjpom3u4@4ax.com>,
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
Lust declared virtue, not vice
Lust has been wrongly branded a vice and should be "reclaimed for
humanity" as a life-affirming virtue, according to a top
philosopher.
Professor Simon Blackburn of Cambridge University is trying to
"rescue" lust, arguing it has been wrongly condemned for centuries,
the Sunday Times says.
His campaign is part of an Oxford University Press project on the
modern relevance of the seven deadly sins.
The list of sins was drawn up by Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th
Century.
OUP has commissioned books on each of the sins - lust, anger, envy,
gluttony, sloth, pride and greed.
Controlling lust
It says Prof Blackburn is aiming to save lust "from the
denunciations
of old men of the deserts, to deliver it from the pallid and envious
confessor and the stocks and pillories of the Puritans, to drag it
from the category of sin to that of virtue".
According to the Sunday Times, Prof Blackburn has defined lust as
"the
enthusiastic desire for sexual activity and its pleasures for its
own
sake".
The philosopher says that if reciprocated, lust leads to pleasure
and
"best flourishes when unencumbered by bad philosophy and ideology...
which prevent its freedom of flow".
He points out that thirst is not criticised although it can lead to
drunkenness and in the same way lust should not be condemned just
because it can get out of hand, the paper says.
Professor Blackburn is quoted as saying: "The important thing is
that
generally anything that gives pleasure has a presumption in its
favour.
"The question is how we control it."
Lust and Hedonism go hand-in-hand, enjoying pleasures for enjoyments
sake, without guilt (presuming that you are not hurting another in
your pursuit for pleasure).
Your closing line still smacks of ancient thinking by implying that
lust needs to be controlled. It doesn't, as can be seen by millions
and millions of people who lust for one thing or another, and who
are
still "pretty good" people (atheists included). Lust is not an issue
in and of itself. It only becomes a scapegoat if it appears as a
manifestation of, or appears to be linked to some other issue, such
as
obsessive behavior, or something that goes against socially accepted
norms, like incest or homosexuality (aren't all those gay guys so
lusty, unlike us normal hetero folks?)
I'm all for lust. Go, lust, go! :-D
-Klowmhundur
I think by "control" he means, for example, that you shouldn't allow
your lust to influence you to rape someone....
Speak with behavioral specialists, as well as criminal specialists,
and they will concur that rape has nothing to do with lust. It is a
crime of violence, manifesting sexually.
This is true. However, *some* instances of rape (e.g., "date rape
drugs") are prompted by a simple desire for sex.
Damn! I thought "date rapes" were perpetrated by persons who tended to
do poorly with self-restraint and/or anger-management, and who
happened to be horny at the time.
...or to have unprotected sex with an STD-infected person or a
fertile woman who does not want a baby, and so on...
Again, a person who is normally very prudent, risk adverse, and
cautious is very unlikely to become all willy-nilly due to lust and
"act out of character." People who are "usually cautious" but have
been known to throw caution to the wind or to act impulsively may be
prompted to act in such a manner if lust is thrown into the mix. It
just shows you that lust does not make you something that you are not
already. Lust is the almighty scapegoat vice for puritans.
Look, I'm not saying lust is bad. I'm simply explaining my
understanding of what Professor Blackburn meant by "controlling" lust.
Okay. I think Professor Blackburn's ideas on lust need some more
refinement before we can consider them to be entirely factual.
And people who have a tendency to throw caution to the wind need to
remember to use caution...
True. And this is entirely separate from the issue of lust.
...in matters of lust, for example. That's a
simple case of someone who needs to "control" lust, as well as other
things....
As is over-eating, or consuming alcohol.
I don't understand what point you're trying to make here,
except to say lust isn't necessarily a bad thing, which was never in
dispute to begin with.
List isn't a distinguishing factor. Professor Blackburn claims that
lust needs to be controled, while I argue that people need to act
prudently, take responsibility for their actions, and so on. My
statements apply to all thinking and desires. Lust is being used as a
scapegoat by trying to separate it from the issue that is at the root
of the problem. This is similar to condemning pornography because many
rapist, predators, and pedophiles have sizable porn collections. As a
result, it's easy (and wrong) to conclude that porn pushes people over
the edge to do evil deeds. The same goes for lust.
The problem is not "uncontrolled lust" that trigger "date rape" (I
talk about this earlier). Nor is it "uncontrolled lust" that makes a
person who is typically a less than prudent person to have unprotected
sex. Nor is it "uncontrolled lust" that causes a pedophile to violate
a child. In each case, the person perpetrating the deed is doing it
because of their own nature. THEY are to be blamed. Not "uncontrolled
lust". To point at lust as a contributing factor in these cases and
others is to use it as a scapegoat, and void the real cause of the
problem.
He's just saying you shouldn't do whatever your lust prompts
you to do without considering the consequences of certain actions.
That would apply for just about anything, no? A child wanting candy,
and adult wanting a car he can't afford, a teenager salivating over
the picture of a swimsuit model. It all boils down to a person's
values, independently of lust. Pedophiles are a problem, with or
without lust in the mix. Let us not delude ourselves into believing
that a pedophile is perfectly fine, providing that he can keep his
lust under control :-) A pedophile's lust does not diminish while he
is in prison. It's just that his opportunties decrease.
Yet a pedophile's lust still has to be controlled, whether it be by
imprisonment, self-control, institutionalization, or whatever... it's
still a matter of controlling his lust so that he does not harm
children.
No, the _pedophile_ must be controlled, regardless if he's feeling
particularly lusty, or not. Self-control appears to not be an
effective cure for pedophelia. You are getting sexual lust confused
with violent crimes that have sexual manifestations.
Again, it seems all you're arguing is that lust isn't bad; and that was
never in dispute. What point are you trying to make, or are you just
preaching to the choir?
If we want to make statements about lust, or how it needs to be
controlled, we first need to prove that lust, and not other factors,
causes problems if left unchecked. That has not been done as far as I
can see. This reply has provided examples of "perceived lust" actually
being another problem with lust playing the roll of a convenient
scapegoat. If we do not examine our thinking, then we may as well
enshrine the Seven Deadly Sins and take them all at face value, and
condemn them equally. That sounds like a religion to me (accepting
beliefs to be true without proving that they are factual).
I think the choir has been thoroughly preached.
-Klowmhundur
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Lust declared virtue, not vice |
16 Jan 2004 10:54:31 AM |
|
|
On 15 Jan 2004, Klowmhundur <nobody@home.com> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:nobody-11FFB2.22011315012004@news.newsguy.com:
<snip>
As far as I can tell, you are stuck in the thinking that anyone, myself
or Professor Blackburn or anyone else, is claiming that lust is in any
way bad or that it is inherently dangerous in any way. This is not
true; indeed, the opposite is true, since both Professor Blackburn and
myself are claiming that lust is indeed a *good* thing and desirable.
To say that you must control how much you eat, if you have a tendency to
eat too much or too little, does not mean that food is in any way bad or
undesirable. You seem a bit too afraid that someone will call lust
"bad", and are jumping through hoops trying to avoid anything that could
possibly ever be misconstrued to imply such a thing.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "Klowmhundur" |
|
| Title: Re: Lust declared virtue, not vice |
17 Jan 2004 09:51:55 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns94726F4ED749EMekkala@199.45.49.11>,
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote:
On 15 Jan 2004, Klowmhundur <nobody@home.com> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:nobody-11FFB2.22011315012004@news.newsguy.com:
<snip>
As far as I can tell, you are stuck in the thinking that anyone, myself
or Professor Blackburn or anyone else, is claiming that lust is in any
way bad or that it is inherently dangerous in any way. This is not
true; indeed, the opposite is true, since both Professor Blackburn and
myself are claiming that lust is indeed a *good* thing and desirable.
To say that you must control how much you eat, if you have a tendency to
eat too much or too little, does not mean that food is in any way bad or
undesirable. You seem a bit too afraid that someone will call lust
"bad", and are jumping through hoops trying to avoid anything that could
possibly ever be misconstrued to imply such a thing.
You are right on the money. Some people say "eating must be controlled
because if you over-indulge, you'll get fat or suffer gastric
distress." While I agree with this, I don't see the "problem" as that
of over-eating because one typically does not find a person who has
"all in order, except for that gluttony thing going for him." The more
accurate description is that the over-eating is a manifestation of
some other issue, such as an obsessive personality, impulsiveness,
etc., which will manifest in other ways as well, so focusing on
over-eating is to focus on the symptoms without appreciation for the
cause of the symptoms.
Rather than giving people a shopping list of rules, such as "keep lust
in check, keep greed in check, keep gluttony in check, do unto
others," and so on, I prefer to adopt relatively fewer "principles"
that can be broadly applied to many aspects of life. This philosophy
of mine is similar to relying on critical thinking in all aspects of
life rather than not using critical thinking and instead having a lot
of rules, such as "do not trust emails from unknown sources, if
something looks too good to be true it probably is, there is no free
lunch," and so on.
-Klowmhundur
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
