I Am Heretic #19: Lust (Seven Deadly Sins #5)

"I Am Heretic" is a satirical comic, often accompanied with commentary in the form of an article. Download the comic strip from this issue (right click, save as...).


No one’s preference should be law. And as usual, with sins, lust is one with much hypocrisy attached.

LUST is one of seven deadly sins that are supposedly so wicked they are one-way tickets straight to hell. If you commit any of them, you deserve to be tortured for all eternity. Well, that's what God thinks, at least.

The sin of lust is the most understandable of all the stupid sins. Murder and thievery are not counted (rape isn’t a sin, neither among the Ten Commandments nor the seven deadly sins, even if Christians use it as a go-to example of objective morals that "come from God"). Why I say this is an understandable sin is merely because sex is a sensitive issue, and while it doesn't have to be a deal breaker, promiscuity is not something I find attractive. But you see, that's where the stupid begins. My preference isn't law, nor is anyone else's. Okay, that isn't strictly true. What I meant to say is that no one's preference should be law. And as usual, with sins, lust is one with much hypocrisy attached. Let's find out why this is one of the dumb sins, shall we?

SEVEN DEADLY SINS: LUST: This is a short comic strip. It was written and designed by Patrick Hall on July 14, 2014. Copyright © 2014 by Patrick Hall. All rights reserved. Feel free to download it and spread it around, as long as you credit the source and don't charge people for it.

Personally, I think we’re a bit too shallow and vain, but that’s my opinion, not the law.

As I said, why lust is actually a sin comes from personal preference, which makes it stupid. It's not about an objective measurement of damage caused to others. And I feel a bit confused as to what is the actual sin: is the sin to act on sexual arousal, or to just be aroused? Because if it is the latter, once again does Christianity seek to punish humans for having feelings they cannot control. How stupid is that? Why does Christianity feel the need to have arbitrary rules about something that cannot really be called evil, and then they claim moral superiority because they've got an "objective" source of morals? I think I just answered my own question. But the problem is that they don't have an objective source of morals, because it is very subjective.

Why is lust subjective? Because it is about a victimless crime, depending on the situation, of course. If it's between any consenting adults, then no one is hurting anyone else, except for the transfer of diseases. Personally, I think we're a bit too shallow and vain, but that's my opinion, not the law.

This is the classic excuse for women to behave as poorly as men, but it is a legit one: Why is it okay for men, but not women?

But there are situations in which lust is immoral. But it isn't actually lust that is immoral; it is the act of hurting another human being. I am, of course, speaking about rape. We can all agree that rape is bad, and Christians claim it’s objectively immoral. But is it? Shall we look at history? Has anyone ever raped somebody? Oh, yeah, millions upon millions of people have raped, including Christians. I wonder where their objective morals went. That’s the thing: morals are not objective in the sense theists mean; I believe there is a basis for morality, which is intent and consequence, but there's not a man in the sky who made the rules. Rape isn't even amongst the big no-no's of Christianity—the Ten Commandments and the seven deadly sins. Why was it not important enough to go up on the list of very important commandments?

Perhaps for the same reason this sin is hypocritical. This is the classic excuse for women to behave as poorly as men, but it is a legit one: Why is it okay for men, but not women? Seriously, the sin of lust appears to mostly be directed at women. "If a woman is not a virgin when she marries, she ought to be stoned," the Bible states, with slightly less paraphrasing. What about men who are not virgins? What about the men in the Bible who had multiple wives? God seemed to like those men, and having more than one spouse cannot be about anything other than more pussy to fuck. Or maybe more hands to clean pipes? No, I mean actual pipes. Aren't women supposed to clean and cook? I know it certainly is not about pleasant conversation or building a damn soccer team. Most people probably agree a monogamous relationship is moral, while a polygamous is not. I can give an objective reason: the former is based on respect and love; the latter is about patriarchal bullshit. So, if lust means rape, unfaithfulness, or exploitation, I can agree it is, indeed, immoral.

Most people probably agree a monogamous relationship is moral, while a polygamous is not. I can give an objective reason: the former is based on respect and love; the latter is about patriarchal bullshit.

All in all, lust is as much a sin as a porn actress is an actress. It's hypocritical and subjective, as it's about an act that doesn't hurt anybody and is mostly considered bad if women do it. It's okay if you don't want to be promiscuous or don't find it attractive, but that's your subjective opinion and you don't have the right to decide what other people can do with their own bodies. However, let’s end with a last piece of hypocrisy: God allegedly made men and women, with organs for sexual reproduction; he made the use of these organs feel good; and then he made it a sin to enjoy it. Thanks, God.