Christianity and Homosexuality

[Autumn Wind]

...fighting the Whomeverites for access to water and arable land...

A fairly concise summarization of the majority of the Old Testament.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Lust is the fourth in a series of Seven Deadly Sins. Their name describes their severity: these are mortal sins.

The church teaches that when someone chooses mortal sin they exercise their free will to forfeit heaven and choose hell.

The seven vices also known as “Capital Sins” or “Deadly Sins” lead to breaking one or more of the Ten Commandments, so they are, in fact, quite serious sins.

What are Mortal Sins, Anyway?

A mortal sin is an act or thought which makes one turn away from God and turn toward something ungodly instead.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, mortal sin “destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God… (CCC 1855).

The church believes that mortal sin erodes the presence of Christ in the sinner’s soul. It brings pain, anguish and suffering to the one who sins and to those around him. Mortal sins jeopardize a soul’s eternal life.

Is Attraction the Same as Lust?

The church says that it’s normal and healthy to be attracted to and appreciative of the opposite sex. That’s not lust, and it’s not a sin.

Lust is considering and treating others as mere sex objects, not people but rather dispensable things which gratify sexual cravings. Lust is having someone please you, whether in fantasy or reality; it depersonalizes the object of lust. It divides that which God meant to join together: sexual love with committed married life.

What is Lust, Exactly?

Lust, like greed and gluttony is a sin of imbalanced attachment to physical things. Lust is an imbalanced attachment to sexual activity and the physical pleasure it brings.

One of Jesus’ greatest concerns from his sermon on the mount (see Matthew chapter 5) is that we need to not treat people as objects, and lust does just that.

Lust reduces a person from a whole being made in the image of God to a mere object of personal satisfaction. It leads us away from God and hurts our relationships with other people. Lustful relationships can never be enduring, satisfying and healthy ones.

What Kind of Thoughts Count as Lust?

Spontaneous involuntary sexual thoughts, like the ones that occur during adolescence, aren’t sinful because they aren’t an act of conscious free will. These thoughts can be rejected and dismissed without sin occurring.

The sin of lust occurs when one intentionally initiates and continues fto antasize about another person in a lustfully sexual way, knowing that it is wrong, but choosing to do it anyway.

When Jesus said “that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery in his heart” (Matthew 5:28) he taught that sins begin with a thought.

Thinking lustful thoughts about another person is sinful, but acting on that thought is even worse because it has social consequences. One thought-sin of lust can lead to a worse one.

The Antidote to the Deadly Sin of Lust - Chastity

Chastity is refraining from sexual activity until marriage and then enjoying a lifetime of sexual activity within the bounds of marriage.

Chastity is also moderation in dress, speech, thoughts, and sexual activity. Without chastity, humans are not unlike animals which copulate purely out of instinct. Chastity compliments the higher intelligence of humans.

1) A lot of this is "It's bad because it's bad."

2) What level of sexual attraction counts as lust?

3) This still doesn't explain, in any rational sense, what's wrong with lust.

4) Humans ARE animals, so the last few sentences are fail.

[Acadzia]

1. To borrow your phrase, "it's bad because it objectifies people" is a more prevalent explanation in the article. That's the most poignant temporal explanation. (I'll assume you stuck your nose up at the spiritual consequences, understandably so.)

2. "Anna is really hot! And she's a joy to be around, to boot!" = Not lust.
"Anna is really hot. I wanna take that back to my place and get all up on that ass." = Lust.

3. See 1?

4. Difference in worldview. I agree, we are animals, but we're a specific type of animal that is unparalleled in our mental, ethical, and moral capabilities. To quote Chesterton, "Man is always something worse or something better than an animal; and a mere argument from animal perfection never touches him at all. Thus, in sex no animal is either chivalrous or obscene. And thus no animal invented anything so bad as drunkeness - or so good as drink."

We can't resolve this disagreement without going off on a tangent, and since this is a tangent of a tangent of a tangent, I'm not sure I want to do that. At any rate, "Without humility some angels became devils, and with humility some devilish people became angels." - Saint John el-Daragi.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

1. To borrow your phrase, "it's bad because it objectifies people" is a more prevalent explanation in the article. That's the most poignant temporal explanation. (I'll assume you stuck your nose up at the spiritual consequences, understandably so.)

Spiritual consequences are not demonstrable. We might as well avoid steping in fairy rings so that we can avoid having our souls damned for doing so.

So why is objectification bad? Sure, it could lead to bad things, but why is it inherently bad?

2. "Anna is really hot! And she's a joy to be around, to boot!" = Not lust.
"Anna is really hot. I wanna take that back to my place and get all up on that ass." = Lust.

So actually wanting to have sex is lust?

We can't resolve this disagreement without going off on a tangent, and since this is a tangent of a tangent of a tangent, I'm not sure I want to do that. At any rate, "Without humility some angels became devils, and with humility some devilish people became angels." - Saint John el-Daragi.

How have I demonsrated a lack of humility? The fact that I've stated that humans are animals and the fact that I haven't automatically put hamanity up on a pedestal is a sign of humility, not the lack thereof.

[Acadzia]

1. To borrow your phrase, "it's bad because it objectifies people" is a more prevalent explanation in the article. That's the most poignant temporal explanation. (I'll assume you stuck your nose up at the spiritual consequences, understandably so.)

Spiritual consequences are not demonstrable. We might as well avoid steping in fairy rings so that we can avoid having our souls damned for doing so.

So why is objectification bad? Sure, it could lead to bad things, but why is it inherently bad?

2. "Anna is really hot! And she's a joy to be around, to boot!" = Not lust.
"Anna is really hot. I wanna take that back to my place and get all up on that ass." = Lust.

So actually wanting to have sex is lust?

We can't resolve this disagreement without going off on a tangent, and since this is a tangent of a tangent of a tangent, I'm not sure I want to do that. At any rate, "Without humility some angels became devils, and with humility some devilish people became angels." - Saint John el-Daragi.

How have I demonsrated a lack of humility? The fact that I've stated that humans are animals and the fact that I haven't automatically put hamanity up on a pedestal is a sign of humility, not the lack thereof.

1. Objectification is bad because it robs people of their humanity and dignity. Like slavery or something. How is that not inherently bad?

2. The dude who said the first quote probably wouldn't be opposed to sleeping with Anna, he finds her "really hot" after all. The difference is that her physical attractiveness isn't the be-all and end-all for him. He values Anna as a person, enjoys her company, etc. The second dude wants a quick fuck. That was what I was trying to demonstrate, anyway. Are you still confused about the difference between lust and physical attraction?

3. Not you, I was just further exploring the idea of humans as animals. Pride, which is the first sin in that it often leads to others, "brought angels down to devils" whereas humility elevates man beyond our basic, animal natures.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

1. Objectification is bad because it robs people of their humanity and dignity. Like slavery or something. How is that not inherently bad?

Because what happens in the mind has no real, measurable consequences?

[Acadzia]

1. Objectification is bad because it robs people of their humanity and dignity. Like slavery or something. How is that not inherently bad?

Because what happens in the mind has no real, measurable consequences?

You've lost me.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

You've lost me.

I'm unconcerned with abstract immorality. If something "degrades" someone in some immeasurable, Kantian sense, I don't care. Morality that is separable from consequences and reality is morality that has lost sense of its purpose for existing in the first place.

[Acadzia]

You've lost me.

I'm unconcerned with abstract immorality. If something "degrades" someone in some immeasurable, Kantian sense, I don't care. Morality that is separable from consequences and reality is morality that has lost sense of its purpose for existing in the first place.

Ok, I think I understand now. Then, in an entirely empirical sense, there is nothing with objectifying people in your head, so long as it doesn't "leave" the mind? It is ok to be a misogynist so long as you don't physically or verbally abuse a woman? Interesting.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Ok, I think I understand now. Then, in an entirely empirical sense, there is nothing with objectifying people in your head, so long as it doesn't "leave" the mind? It is ok to be a misogynist so long as you don't physically or verbally abuse a woman? Interesting.

The problem with internal misogyney is that it tends to cause external misogyney. If it didn't, then I fail to see why something that only affects you is a problem.

[Asserted]

You've lost me.

I'm unconcerned with abstract immorality. If something "degrades" someone in some immeasurable, Kantian sense, I don't care. Morality that is separable from consequences and reality is morality that has lost sense of its purpose for existing in the first place.

Ok, I think I understand now. Then, in an entirely empirical sense, there is nothing with objectifying people in your head, so long as it doesn't "leave" the mind? It is ok to be a misogynist so long as you don't physically or verbally abuse a woman? Interesting.

If the prejudiced notions of the misogynist isn't manifested in his physical actions, there would be no problem.

[Bottle]

Ok, I think I understand now. Then, in an entirely empirical sense, there is nothing with objectifying people in your head, so long as it doesn't "leave" the mind? It is ok to be a misogynist so long as you don't physically or verbally abuse a woman? Interesting.

The problem with internal misogyney is that it tends to cause external misogyney. If it didn't, then I fail to see why something that only affects you is a problem.

Well, that's the key though, isn't it?

In my experience, people who THINK objectifying thoughts about others will, sooner or later, act in a shitty way because of those thoughts. You can't really separate the two, pragmatically speaking.