The difference being?
Yes, it is, Malacandra.
Christianity is an evil, but what’s your point?
[shrug] So much the worse for the Church.
I disagree.
But what’s your point?
I agree with that. Calling it “lust” is just a way to make it a sin, to differentiate “good” sexual desire from “bad” sexual desire. But it’s all lust to us atheists, baby!
I beg to differ. Just as self-assurance is a good thing of which pride is the sinful perversion, and appetite is a healthy thing of which gluttony is the sinful perversion, sexual desire is the good, God-given character that makes one want to select a mate and reproduce. And lust is its sinful perversion.
Many people make that mistake. Good Christian theology does not condemn sex; it merely says there’s a proper time and place for it (marriage, yeah, but also desire being appropriate as a part of courtship, for example; it’s not head-in-sand about human nature). There is nothing sinful in a teen thinking, “S/He’s hot; I’d love to marry him/her and spend several hours ‘joyfully loined together.’”
No, it isn’t, BrainGlutton.
[mode contradiction=false]
[mode argument=true]
You can feel hungry without being guilty of gluttony; indeed, you can enjoy a good bellyful of food. You can feel tired without being guilty of sloth; indeed, you can enjoy your eight hours solid in a comfy bed. The Church’s position is that sex is just fine and dandy in its proper place. So is everyone’s; barring a few eccentrics, whoever advocated that it was OK to shag whoever you liked, whenever you liked, whyever you liked?
As a former choirboy I got to be quite well acquainted with the marriage service from the Book of Common Prayer. In the opening address, the priest explains the purpose of marriage; one of the purposes is “that the natural instincts and affections implanted by God should be directed and used aright”. In other words, sex within marriage is positively approved, and the sex drive is spoken of as a creation of God.
And if it comes to it, the Song of Solomon ain’t no pancake recipe, either.
Differentiating “good” anything from “bad” anything is what societies do, fella. It’s like distinguishing “good” acquiring of property (work) from “bad” acquiring of property (theft).
True. But you cannot feel sexual desire without feeling lust. That’s how the word is commonly used (when we use it at all, nowadays), and the Catholic Church has no authority over the English language. You can, OTOH, feel sexual desire without being “guilty of” lust, because there is no meaningful connection between lust and guilt.
Well, that may be how you commonly use the word, and I’d even give you that much of the public equates the two ideas. But you cannot use that to negate a technical distinction. Imagine if you went into a store and bought a package of “D” cells for your flashlight, and a policeman observing this arrests you for “committing battery.” I seem to recall a detailed discussion in here once in which you and I maintained that disagreeing with GWB does not in and of itself constitute treason as defined by law, no matter what conservaloonies may mean by the term.
Where do you draw the line between the two?
And that is because the conservaloonies do not get to define the law. And the RCC does not get to define our language.
Commonly shmommonly. You’ve just had a clear explanation of what the Church does and does not condemn as lust, and you want to ignore that and say that because the church condemns “lust”, and you define “lust” as a necessary precursor to sexual desire, therefore the Church condemns sexual desire. The logical fallacy is plain for all to see: you’ve just said in effect “There’s no hunger without gluttony, therefore the Church condemns hunger”.
I need a clearer definition of “sinful perversion.”
But they are not defining “your” language. You are taking a word that already has two related but distinct meanings and claiming that when they use the word in a sense that they have used it for years, you get to change the meaning and tell them that they have to use it your way.
George Orwell and Humpty Dumpty would be proud.
[enters thread, plunks down tip of scepter on desk]
Da Bishop!
[play Count Basie music, run credits]
I just don’t see any real benefit to outing gay (or non-celibate straight) priests. All it would do is concentrate the collection of intolerant people in the Church and make it a haven for them (and their worshippers) more so than it is now.
Little difference, you may say, because the real intolerant replacements behave the same way as the faux-intolerant gay ones you’re ousting.
I say, how will the Catholic church and its adherents ever agree to change its policies unless it can be shown that gay priests can perform their duties as well as anyone? One may well consider this time period akin to the “Rosie the Riveter” years where women demonstrated they were indeed capable of running heavy industry while the boys were at war.
Or does the OP assume that defrocked gay Catholic priests will just go off and promiscuously switch to another religion more accommodating to their beliefs in an attempt to change the Church through outside pressure?
I dunno: they’re better on the inside stop laughing where they can do the most good, adhering to their calling and setting a good example. Outing a thousand gays now might not be enough; but a hundred years from now, with a thousand gay priests at his back, outing one might do it.
[plunks scepter on desk]
Da Bishop!
[run credits]
It is curious, however, that one can eat without the Church’s sanction, and not be gluttonous. One can sleep without an Ok from a priest, and not be guilty of sloth. But if one slates his sexual desire outside the rigid precepts of the Catholic church, he’s suddenly guilty of lust.
Ooooooh…you’re good! Kudos, dude!
Demonstration is better than definition! 