could not agree more. its a definite symptom of being alive. very.
Yes, I read that a couple of years ago. Like it, too. It's worth the time.
It is silly to claim that a feeling is a sin.

What you choose to do as a result of a feeling may or may not be a sin.
Lust is only a problem when it leads to stuff like harrassment, stalking, rape, infidelity or a self-destructive addiction to sex.


I suppose that, in the same way that Kosher is really about food hygiene, the idea of treating lust as a sin is a vague attempt to get men in what was a very patriarchal society to take responsibility for controlling their own sexual conduct instead of claiming "she led me on", "I couldn't help it" or any of the other feeble excuses for lack of self control.
It's fundamentally about patriarchy and succession. In a society where "free love" is available without shame or sanction, men don't know who their children are, while women do - so men can't reliably guarantee they're passingproperty down to their own children and not someone else's ; so when you shift from a matrilinear to a patrilinear society (which seems to have happened pretty early on), you have to start enforcing rules that make women sleep only with their Man (and to some extent, vice versa, since sauce for the gander is babies for the goose). So Christianity invents monogamy, adultery, lust as a sin etc. It sucks bigtime.
I'm pretty sure monogamy predates Christianity, although the established churches have certainly been major promotors of it.

Before there was property beyond what people carried, there was another issue - childcare. Men wouldn't be likely to care for or take care of children that weren't likely to be theirs, but
could at least sometimes be persuaded to do so if they could be confident that they were. Hence conspicuous fidelity. Heritable property follows the same pattern, but it will have been well-established before then.
> I'm pretty sure monogamy predates Christianity

There's a theory that it developed in the last Ice Age when the climate was sufficiently harsh that children wouldn't survive unless they had two full time carers instead of one.

> Men wouldn't be likely to care for or take care of children that weren't likely to be theirs

Actually, human males generally make remarkably good step-fathers. Oddly enough they bond better with slightly older children than they do with babies.
And, in pre-industrial society children are an asset whoever the biological parents are, because if you bring them up then they'll take care of you in your old age.

The passing of property rights and stuff through the male line really messed things up for society, though. It's such an illogical system.


I'm reasonably sure the commandment against lust was aimed at men, because the early christians thought the best way to restrict womens' sexuality was to keep them locked up so they never had opportunities for infidelity.
In some african societies men care for/leave property to their sister's children. So don't assume the western solution is the only option :)
At the risk of sounding like a cliche, I'm sure Dr. LaVey would be proud :-). Good to see that you're still in the land of the living by the way. Take care.
rehabilitate pride, too
If you're proud of your achievements or of who you are, there's less chance you're going to be pushed around by the church's dictates. In their eyes it's better to damn the transgressors and hope the mob gets them ...
Yes. Most of these things have their place. Stephen Donaldson, of course, wrote a six-novel series in praise of guilt as a motivating factor. It all depends on what it is that you do under the influence.