Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

Post by Viveka »

thedoc wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:26 pm
Viveka wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 10:12 pm I am not redefining ID to suit myself. Just read Behe's writings! And creatonism is ID, yes, but ID is not creationism.
Behe writes Bull Shit, and is not an authority on anything real. ID is what it is, and neither you nor Behe can change it.
You saying that ID has to do with God would be like the media calling Trump a liberal.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

Post by thedoc »

Viveka wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:05 pm
thedoc wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:26 pm
Viveka wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 10:12 pm I am not redefining ID to suit myself. Just read Behe's writings! And creatonism is ID, yes, but ID is not creationism.
Behe writes Bull Shit, and is not an authority on anything real. ID is what it is, and neither you nor Behe can change it.
You saying that ID has to do with God would be like the media calling Trump a liberal.
It wouldn't be the first time the media got their information wrong and then tried to report it as true. The only reason the proponents of ID try to claim they aren't referring to God is to get their psudo-science into the science class room, There is nothing scientific about ID, it is strictly a religious concept. Behe is a creationist and ID is just relabeled Creationism which claims that everything was miraculously created by God and not through natural processes.
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

Post by Viveka »

thedoc wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:18 pm
Viveka wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:05 pm
thedoc wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:26 pm

Behe writes Bull Shit, and is not an authority on anything real. ID is what it is, and neither you nor Behe can change it.
You saying that ID has to do with God would be like the media calling Trump a liberal.
It wouldn't be the first time the media got their information wrong and then tried to report it as true. The only reason the proponents of ID try to claim they aren't referring to God is to get their psudo-science into the science class room, There is nothing scientific about ID, it is strictly a religious concept. Behe is a creationist and ID is just relabeled Creationism which claims that everything was miraculously created by God and not through natural processes.
It is not a religious concept. It is a philosophy of science concept. Like I said before, ID can be about aliens or angels or whatever.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

Post by thedoc »

Viveka wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:30 pm It is not a religious concept. It is a philosophy of science concept. Like I said before, ID can be about aliens or angels or whatever.
Aliens are a natural concept and therefore able to be investigated by science. Angels are associated with a God and are therefore a religious concept not able to be investigated by science. ID proponents might suggest the possibility of aliens but only as a smoke screen to mask their true intentions to attribute creation to God. ID is Creationism and both attribute creation to God.
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

Post by Viveka »

thedoc wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:06 pm
Viveka wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:30 pm It is not a religious concept. It is a philosophy of science concept. Like I said before, ID can be about aliens or angels or whatever.
Aliens are a natural concept and therefore able to be investigated by science. Angels are associated with a God and are therefore a religious concept not able to be investigated by science. ID proponents might suggest the possibility of aliens but only as a smoke screen to mask their true intentions to attribute creation to God. ID is Creationism and both attribute creation to God.
Both can attribute it to God. And besides, what God would it be? Shiva or Vishnu? YHVH? Jesus? The Buddha? Zoroaster's God? or simply Deism?
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

Post by Nick_A »

Viveka wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:06 am According to Evolution, Lust is one of the most primal and primordial emotions. What is the role of Lust in an Intelligently Designed Universe? Or in Theism, what is the role of Lust according to whatever Religion?
Lust is really an intense desire. Only its results can be subjectively labeled good or bad so it is a difficult question. A person can lust after physical needs like food, water, and sex. A person can also lust after what provides satisfaction for a negative emotion like pride and vanity.

Simone Weil had an intense need for truth. She lusted after the experience of truth at the expense of attachments to worldly pleasures? Some will admire her for it while others will hate the results of her lusting which disturbs the peace. But lusting after the experience of religious truths will disturb moments of secular peace. Can learning to love from a more conscious perspective without first lusting for what exists above animal level possible which makes higher love possible? Love of God.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

Post by davidm »

Viveka wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:05 pm
thedoc wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:26 pm
Viveka wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 10:12 pm I am not redefining ID to suit myself. Just read Behe's writings! And creatonism is ID, yes, but ID is not creationism.
Behe writes Bull Shit, and is not an authority on anything real. ID is what it is, and neither you nor Behe can change it.
You saying that ID has to do with God would be like the media calling Trump a liberal.
You saying that ID has NOT to do with God would be like the media calling Trump a liberal.
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

Post by Viveka »

Nick_A wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:21 pm
Viveka wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:06 am According to Evolution, Lust is one of the most primal and primordial emotions. What is the role of Lust in an Intelligently Designed Universe? Or in Theism, what is the role of Lust according to whatever Religion?
Lust is really an intense desire. Only its results can be subjectively labeled good or bad so it is a difficult question. A person can lust after physical needs like food, water, and sex. A person can also lust after what provides satisfaction for a negative emotion like pride and vanity.

Simone Weil had an intense need for truth. She lusted after the experience of truth at the expense of attachments to worldly pleasures? Some will admire her for it while others will hate the results of her lusting which disturbs the peace. But lusting after the experience of religious truths will disturb moments of secular peace. Can learning to love from a more conscious perspective without first lusting for what exists above animal level possible which makes higher love possible? Love of God.
I agree.

Lust can be sexual, attracted to the beauty of their mate, but even with that can Love follow. I think Mother Teresa described her Lust for Jesus. I would say that Lust as you describe it is after Luster, which is ultimately rooted in ignorance. However, this is simply a Buddhist perspective. If I were to say that Lust can Lust after Goodness, as Simone Weil did, then it means that Lust itself can have Luster simultaneously, which means that both self-arose from Ignorance. Not only this, but whatever has Lust and Luster simultaneously is ultimately the fulfillment of wishes of Lust itself. Therefore, both are set-up for suffering as well as redemption. It is Duality in Lust and Luster that ultimately causes suffering. The Will is the epicenter of both of duality of lust and luster and non-duality as lust and luster as a singular co-arising. The will that relinquishes lust and luster as one is the one that attains Nirvana, in other words, to become Lackluster. The will that wills for lust as separate from luster is the one that attains Duhkha. The Desire World is so-called because it is personified and populated by all forms of Lust and Ignorance.
Last edited by Viveka on Tue Nov 21, 2017 1:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

Post by thedoc »

Viveka wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:57 pm
Both can attribute it to God. And besides, what God would it be? Shiva or Vishnu? YHVH? Jesus? The Buddha? Zoroaster's God? or simply Deism?
I like Shiva.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

Post by Nick_A »

Viveka wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:12 pm
Nick_A wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:21 pm
Viveka wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:06 am According to Evolution, Lust is one of the most primal and primordial emotions. What is the role of Lust in an Intelligently Designed Universe? Or in Theism, what is the role of Lust according to whatever Religion?
Lust is really an intense desire. Only its results can be subjectively labeled good or bad so it is a difficult question. A person can lust after physical needs like food, water, and sex. A person can also lust after what provides satisfaction for a negative emotion like pride and vanity.

Simone Weil had an intense need for truth. She lusted after the experience of truth at the expense of attachments to worldly pleasures? Some will admire her for it while others will hate the results of her lusting which disturbs the peace. But lusting after the experience of religious truths will disturb moments of secular peace. Can learning to love from a more conscious perspective without first lusting for what exists above animal level possible which makes higher love possible? Love of God.
I agree.

Lust can be sexual, attracted to the beauty of their mate, but even with that can Love follow. I think Mother Teresa described her Lust for Jesus. I would say that Lust as you describe it is after Luster, which is ultimately rooted in ignorance. However, this is simply a Buddhist perspective. If I were to say that Lust can Lust after Goodness, as Simone Weil did, then it means that Lust itself can have Luster simultaneously, which means that both self-arose from Ignorance. Not only this, but whatever has Lust and Luster simultaneously is ultimately the fulfillment of wishes of Lust itself. Therefore, both are set-up for suffering as well as redemption. It is Duality in Lust and Luster that ultimately causes suffering. The Will is the epicenter of both of duality of lust and luster and non-duality as lust and luster as a singular co-arising. The will that relinquishes lust and luster as one is the one that attains Nirvana, in other words, to become Lackluster. The will that wills for lust as separate from luster is the one that attains Duhkha. The Desire World is so-called because it is personified and populated by all forms of Lust and Ignorance.

Your post leads to many questions but they are meaningless for me if there is no ID. That being the case, I’d like to ask your opinion first if there is any way that universal laws sustaining our great universe could occur accidentally? It seems to me that these laws must be the result of conscious intent. Secondly, you are of course familiar with the Eastern idea of the breath of Brahma. This suggests that the birth and death of a universe is a cycle.
Time in Buddhist cosmology is measured in kalpas. Originally, a kalpa was considered to be 4,320,000 years. Buddhist scholars expanded it with a metaphor: rub a one-mile cube of rock once every hundred years with a piece of silk, until the rock is worn away -- and a kalpa still hasn’t passed! During a kalpa, the world comes into being, exists, is destroyed, and a period of emptiness ensues. Then it all starts again.
As I’ve studied it, the process of involution creates the levels of reality that comprise the universe. It is the devolving process of unity into diversity. Evolution begins the process of the return from diversity into unity.

It does seem far more reasonable than this idea of things arising from nothing and interact by accident serving no purpose. Why in your opinion is the idea of conscious intent forming the foundation for the process of involution so ridiculed? If a person tried to describe gravity by saying “what goes up” and leaves it at that people would notice the second half or “must come down” Yet it is the same with explanations of evolution ignoring involution essential for the cyclical process.

My gut feeling is that the cycle of breath of Brahma must be ignored in a secular society since it suggests a conscious ineffable source or the dreaded G word. It is a threat to the imagined superiority of secular politics defining values.

If it is true, human life has objective meaning greater than animal life on earth. Is it so wrong to lust after it by ignoring first the luster of the quality of meaning the word offers? If science is concerned with the facts of the world, the essence of religion is concerned with awakening humanity to its objective meaning and purpose sustained through values. Do you see nirvana as something other than escapism from meaning or are they the same?
AMod
Posts: 169
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

Post by AMod »

EchoesOfTheHorizon,
EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote:... Might get banned if I talk about them..... the puritanical Quaker Oat moderator bot will unleash.
Stop taking snipes as I will ban you just for bothering me.

AMod.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Viveka wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:33 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:16 pm
Viveka wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:27 pm By Lust I simply mean longing for, craving, and sexual attraction.
Then it isn't forbidden. In fact, it's not even controversial.

And then your whole line of questioning doesn't make sense. The Creator obviously created sex. Healthy sex is encouraged. And pleasure is not wrong. Who said it ever was?
Depends on what you mean by 'healthy sex'. Considering that the Intelligent Designer gave us the anatomy that we do, it's awfully strange to say that adultery is prohibited by YHVH, if he is indeed God. I think sex is ultimately something 'encouraged' by our society, but never spoken against due to its painful opposite of celibacy or at least waiting until marriage.
Celibacy and over-sexual indulgence can both be dangerous when taken out of context.

Celibacy has its place, and often times requires an environment to corresponds with it.

Take for example, you don't take a man who is trying to stay chaste/celibate and put him in a room with nothing but women in yoga pants doing yoga. The inherent result will be the man having an increased sense of division within himself that could result in him back falling further into some sexual extreme.

The ideal environment would be in community or environment where he will not be continually divided through temptation.

Sexual indulgence follows the same form and function.

Take for example, and this is the primary example, the marriage bed. The sexual act between the couple enables not only a deeper cohesion but opens up the possibility for more life. When a married couple cannot communicate certain ideas, due to gender differences, the sexual act maintains a unity between the two.

However if one or both of the people decide to indulge their desires elsewhere, often times a degree of division appears for a variety of reasons mostly rooted in mistrusted, jealousy, etc. as the sexual act in many respects "marks" each partner physically, psychologically, and intellectually in the respect they "own" eachother.

Sex as an extension of the self corresponds to ownership as well for both parties involved.
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

Post by Viveka »

Nick_A wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:57 am
Viveka wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:12 pm
Nick_A wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:21 pm

Lust is really an intense desire. Only its results can be subjectively labeled good or bad so it is a difficult question. A person can lust after physical needs like food, water, and sex. A person can also lust after what provides satisfaction for a negative emotion like pride and vanity.

Simone Weil had an intense need for truth. She lusted after the experience of truth at the expense of attachments to worldly pleasures? Some will admire her for it while others will hate the results of her lusting which disturbs the peace. But lusting after the experience of religious truths will disturb moments of secular peace. Can learning to love from a more conscious perspective without first lusting for what exists above animal level possible which makes higher love possible? Love of God.
I agree.

Lust can be sexual, attracted to the beauty of their mate, but even with that can Love follow. I think Mother Teresa described her Lust for Jesus. I would say that Lust as you describe it is after Luster, which is ultimately rooted in ignorance. However, this is simply a Buddhist perspective. If I were to say that Lust can Lust after Goodness, as Simone Weil did, then it means that Lust itself can have Luster simultaneously, which means that both self-arose from Ignorance. Not only this, but whatever has Lust and Luster simultaneously is ultimately the fulfillment of wishes of Lust itself. Therefore, both are set-up for suffering as well as redemption. It is Duality in Lust and Luster that ultimately causes suffering. The Will is the epicenter of both of duality of lust and luster and non-duality as lust and luster as a singular co-arising. The will that relinquishes lust and luster as one is the one that attains Nirvana, in other words, to become Lackluster. The will that wills for lust as separate from luster is the one that attains Duhkha. The Desire World is so-called because it is personified and populated by all forms of Lust and Ignorance.

Your post leads to many questions but they are meaningless for me if there is no ID. That being the case, I’d like to ask your opinion first if there is any way that universal laws sustaining our great universe could occur accidentally? It seems to me that these laws must be the result of conscious intent. Secondly, you are of course familiar with the Eastern idea of the breath of Brahma. This suggests that the birth and death of a universe is a cycle.
I think that the universe is self-and-other created. In other words it pulls itself up by its own bootstraps, but also in its totality is preceded by God.
Nick_A wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:57 am
Time in Buddhist cosmology is measured in kalpas. Originally, a kalpa was considered to be 4,320,000 years. Buddhist scholars expanded it with a metaphor: rub a one-mile cube of rock once every hundred years with a piece of silk, until the rock is worn away -- and a kalpa still hasn’t passed! During a kalpa, the world comes into being, exists, is destroyed, and a period of emptiness ensues. Then it all starts again.
As I’ve studied it, the process of involution creates the levels of reality that comprise the universe. It is the devolving process of unity into diversity. Evolution begins the process of the return from diversity into unity.

It does seem far more reasonable than this idea of things arising from nothing and interact by accident serving no purpose. Why in your opinion is the idea of conscious intent forming the foundation for the process of involution so ridiculed? If a person tried to describe gravity by saying “what goes up” and leaves it at that people would notice the second half or “must come down” Yet it is the same with explanations of evolution ignoring involution essential for the cyclical process.

My gut feeling is that the cycle of breath of Brahma must be ignored in a secular society since it suggests a conscious ineffable source or the dreaded G word. It is a threat to the imagined superiority of secular politics defining values.

If it is true, human life has objective meaning greater than animal life on earth. Is it so wrong to lust after it by ignoring first the luster of the quality of meaning the word offers? If science is concerned with the facts of the world, the essence of religion is concerned with awakening humanity to its objective meaning and purpose sustained through values. Do you see nirvana as something other than escapism from meaning or are they the same?
I am more of a Hindu like you than a Buddhist. I like Buddhism for its psychology and philosophy and I pair that with a belief in God. Even the Buddha said that one can go to an afterlife as the God Brahma. It really depends on people's Views and Samadhi. I fear that Nirvana wouldn't be a state of happiness but simply a release from the round of birth and death, which I find repugnant if it is not a union with God. I don't agree with the universe being cyclic simply because i believe it to be infinite in space and time and matter. If a kalpa is the beginning and ending of a universe, I would think God likes to laugh and dance because it wouldn't make sense that a serious God would create just to destroy and create again and put people through reincarnation only to meet with her again. Then again, the Archetype of a God that Laughs and Dances invites absurdity and purposelessness, although I guess God can laugh because she is blissful and empty. I find it very difficult to believe in a God that laughs, but I'm trying the idea out.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

Post by davidm »

Nick_A wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:57 am Your post leads to many questions but they are meaningless for me if there is no ID. That being the case, I’d like to ask your opinion first if there is any way that universal laws sustaining our great universe could occur accidentally?
"Laws" don't "sustain" the universe, they describe it.

And yes, modern physics suggest that our observable universe is likely a contingent (accidental) event.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

davidm wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:42 pm
Nick_A wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:57 am Your post leads to many questions but they are meaningless for me if there is no ID. That being the case, I’d like to ask your opinion first if there is any way that universal laws sustaining our great universe could occur accidentally?
"Laws" don't "sustain" the universe, they describe it.

Thanks for the law.

And yes, modern physics suggest that our observable universe is likely a contingent (accidental) event.
Modern physics is strictly bound in quantification, it is not equipped to handle metaphysical questions such as the nature of "accident". A common phrase they use is "Shut up and calculate".

In regards to the philosophical implication of the universe being an accident, does that mean both your statement and you are accidents?
Post Reply