[Sesquipedalian]

As for the rest of you good-hearted jokers, if you are worried about another flamewar starting, go away!  Ford and I are having a great little conversation as we hide in this off-topic thread, and we'd appreciate it if you didn't call attention to us!

Originally posted by TrashMan
Where the hell do you get this from?

...From spending the last eight years of my life studying Christian doctrine and history.

[Ford Prefect]

But I'm saying that this tendency for the 16-year-old to continually fantacize about getting into that girls pants is just as natural as a more "innocent" form of attraction, (if there even is such a thing.) The difference is that we can control our actions, but not the existence of the urges. A boy can't help but want to have sex with a girl, but he can make the choice not to do it unless they're both comfortable with it. I am quite certain that you would be hard-pressed to find an attached man in this entire world who has not had sexual fantasies about other women.

Anyway, as a side note: The way I see it, for a man to have a sexual fantasy about another woman has no bearing on the love he feels for his wife. If two people love each other, it means they're together for more than simply the pleasure of sex, and if their emotional bond is strong, neither one of them is going to act on those natural sexual fantasies.

Now, no Christians I know have ever expressed such an interpretation of humanity's ultimate fate, (then again, none of them are as educated on the subject as you are), but I think it still makes sense in the context of my argument. A world freed from all evil and suffering, in which everyone lives forever, strikes me as psychologically the same as spiritual transcendence, which makes the logical relationship the same whether we're talking about a purified world or an ascension from the corporeal to the spiritual. And this actually raises an interesting point: You believe in this religion, so to you, there is a difference between spiritual transcendence and a perfect physical world. I, however, do not believe in this or any concept of spirituality, so to me, the only thing that matters is the psychological basis behind the belief, which is what I am arguing is the same in all religions. So perhaps we simply suffer from having irreconcilable perspectives on the matter.

Your examples regarding religious asceticism are noted. My argument here was weak and tangential, and just generally a mistake.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
...A boy can't help but want to have sex with a girl...

No one said wanting sex was lust.  There is a certain crossover point from instinctive attraction to chosen actions, and lust, as meant in biblical parlance, is the second.  Like I said above, I am often attracted to other women, which is fine, but when I become aware of myself, then I have a choice: to continue staring at her, or to stop.  In my experience, merely instinctive attraction doesn't involve mind-pictures.  It is only when I have chosen to continue that visualisation of specific circumstances ever begins.

To be honest, I really think the "it's just our animal nature" argument is a cop-out.  Trying to make instinctive attraction into a carte-blanche for whatever degree of unethical sexual activity is fallacious.  We can chose what to think about, and when an idea comes into our heads, we can chose to dwell on it or to turn it out.   Trying to claim a chosen action as a merely instinctive response is really just making excuses.

Now, no Christians I know have ever expressed such an interpretation of humanity's ultimate fate

 That's probably because I've been trying to be very clear and explicit, and to avoid "Christianese" terms that are easily misunderstood, in order to help correct any misunderstandings you had.  

A world freed from all evil and suffering, in which everyone lives forever, strikes me as psychologically the same as spiritual transcendence, which makes the logical relationship the same whether we're talking about a purified world or an ascension from the corporeal to the spiritual.

If so, then why the vastly different sorts of responses to the world, such as what I mentioned above?

And this actually raises an interesting point: You believe in this religion, so to you, there is a difference between spiritual transcendence and a perfect physical world. I, however, do not believe in this or any concept of spirituality, so to me, the only thing that matters is the psychological basis behind the belief, which is what I am arguing is the same in all religions.

Allow me to ask you, what precisely do you mean with the phrase "psychological basis of belief"?

So perhaps we simply suffer from having irreconcilable perspectives on the matter.

No doubt, but I see no need to stop yet.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
No one said wanting sex was lust.  There is a certain crossover point from instinctive attraction to chosen actions, and lust, as meant in biblical parlance, is the second.  Like I said above, I am often attracted to other women, which is fine, but when I become aware of myself, then I have a choice: to continue staring at her, or to stop.  In my experience, merely instinctive attraction doesn't involve mind-pictures.  It is only when I have chosen to continue that visualisation of specific circumstances ever begins.

To be honest, I really think the "it's just our animal nature" argument is a cop-out.  Trying to make instinctive attraction into a carte-blanche for whatever degree of unethical sexual activity is fallacious.  

I'm curious.  Define 'unethical'.