Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

Post by Viveka »

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?
EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon »

I'm not sure of the primordial origins of the concept of lust, but I don't think Aristotle made the concept up. We've seen it as a vice in circumstance, but it is also a necessary component of a good reproductive household, of love.

I'm not aware of any evolutionary, anti-religion writers who made lust a central aspect of their work. I'm talking the full scope of philosophical lust, of the individual,household and community. If anyone was to do it, they would have to be a excellent classicist as well as a good neurologist. I don't think modern atheists have the intellectual sophistication here to pull it off, they are largely unaware of the lineage of works necessary to tackle in order to come off competent and respected by all sides on this topoi.

https://www.amazon.com/Aspasius-Michael ... dpSrc=srch

This text be a good starting off point, I haven't finished it, but have found it rather insightful. You have to understand both the early Peripatetic and the Stoa in general grew out of the Platonic Academy, who presumed a divinely created universe, from which vice and virtue came out of into this world, but likewise was cultivated by men in response. The evolutionary concept in this era existed, but wasn't in the individual gene, but of the community arising from the deposition of the terrain. A good spot, a good person (let's not touch upon the awkward question of monarchy).

I can try to use modern concepts to further explain this, but may of done too much damage as it is, simply from neglect of including other aspects of the philosophy that isn't well known today. I don't want people thinking it is too closely similar to modern ideas, these were not simple thinkers.... but it is related to modern ideas in other ways. It simply put, is complicated, and not nailed in a single thread with a reduction to a few terms, they made it a full blown religion, of which we use a few inherited and poorly understood terms from, rather loosely.
User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck »

I'm not sure that your typical theist necessarily knows why lust exists. I don't see why he would need to know that.
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

Post by Viveka »

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:02 am I'm not sure that your typical theist necessarily knows why lust exists. I don't see why he would need to know that.
To deepen his morals and ideas about Lust and how it is intended by God since life is intelligently designed.
EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon »

Your kidding, right? Lust is a topic heavily written on by theists, it was the Catholic Church which preserved most of what we call the Satyricon. It has a similar structure to Monkey/Journey To The West.

Most vice ridden work ever written, but both John Locke and Thomas Jefferson loved the book, intact I've held one of his Latin texts in my hand (he wrote no notes unfortunately when I flipped through it), but it held a great role in the formation of the US Constituion, given Jefferson's reflections on the abnormal habits of human nature. The Satyricon appears to be organized around the phallic religion of that era, just as Journey To The West sought ultimate power, via the Sutras. It is obvious neither quite got what they expected after the summation of all the episodes in both. In the Satyricon, it appears to of ended in death of his butt budy outside a phallic temple in Africa (Nero sent a bunch of expeditions into Africa). In Journey To The West, it was empty sutras.

It is a deeply religious metamorphosis that bucks all expectations entering into it, akin to the old mystery religions. The theme of the Satyricon was hedonism, usually lust (but also literally every other disturbing vice in existence, was a systematic exploration of them).

Needs to be recognized, the early church fathers who preserved the fragments seemed rather positive of this work. They saw the morale in it, not so easy for us today given the fragmentary form of much of the text. Still, enough exists to give for a excellent read. They've made several movie versions of it.... filming the scenes that are legal to film at least. The hermaphrodite scene from the Fellini version reminds me of Trixie a lot actually.

I don't think Dawkins has a response just yet to the work. It would be a challenge to explain such Eros in the context of evolutionary theory as it is rattled off today, as a simple, reasonable formula. Most of that seems to kill or mutilate. How irrational unreason survives from then to now.... impressive, bucks all expectations.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?ipadtype=3& ... =mv-google

You'll have to read a translation for the missing scenes. Might get banned if I talk about them..... the puritanical Quaker Oat moderator bot will unleash.

Can't find a better book on the subject though, was written for Nero, hopefully to tame him.... but he made the author commit suicide later on.
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 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?
1) Sexual appetite that is not open to procreation.

2) Sexual appetite that is open to procreation but intended to fulfill bodily pleasure at the expense of oneself and/or the other. (ie, using the body as a means to pleasure and nothing more).

3) Sexual appetite which is not controlled through aspects of the mind, body and or spirit.

4) Sexual appetite that is indulged without "love".

5) Sexual appetite outside of a marriage bond, with the marriage bond as a mediator between the couple and eachother as a covenant, the couple and the social group as a covenant, and the couple and God(s) as a covenenant.

****In simpler and more direct terms, the act of marriage through sex (sex as a form of marriage under natural law) and sex through marriage (marriage as a form of sex, or unity, through social and divine law) as a form of "unification".

6) Sexual appetite which breaks any form of physical, emotional, or spiritual unity within the couple.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

Post by Immanuel Can »

Viveka wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:09 am
Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:02 am I'm not sure that your typical theist necessarily knows why lust exists. I don't see why he would need to know that.
To deepen his morals and ideas about Lust and how it is intended by God since life is intelligently designed.
But isn't that rather a question like, "Why does murder exist?'

If you mean by "lust," simply "intense desire," you've got a legit question there...but intense desire is nowhere prohibited. "Lust," traditionally, crosses the line into dark, evil and destructive forms of desire.

So the simple answer would be that intense desire is intended to impel and make rewarding healthy procreation. And "lust" would merely be the corruption of that, just the way that "gluttony" is a corruption of "appetite."

In other words, "lust" wasn't "designed" at all. Intense healthy desire was; and lust is simply the corrupt human take on that.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:58 pm
Viveka wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:09 am
Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:02 am I'm not sure that your typical theist necessarily knows why lust exists. I don't see why he would need to know that.
To deepen his morals and ideas about Lust and how it is intended by God since life is intelligently designed.
But isn't that rather a question like, "Why does murder exist?'

If you mean by "lust," simply "intense desire," you've got a legit question there...but intense desire is nowhere prohibited. "Lust," traditionally, crosses the line into dark, evil and destructive forms of desire.

So the simple answer would be that intense desire is intended to impel and make rewarding healthy procreation. And "lust" would merely be the corruption of that, just the way that "gluttony" is a corruption of "appetite."

In other words, "lust" wasn't "designed" at all. Intense healthy desire was; and lust is simply the corrupt human take on that.
To extend upon that point lust is a deficiency in sexuality and not a thing in itself but rather a lack of structure within the human person.
User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie »

Japan=lust.

Lust occurs when society cucks you and discourages any healthy sexual function.

Religion is actually the cause of lust, as it encourages sexual dysfunction.
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

Post by Viveka »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:58 pm
Viveka wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:09 am
Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:02 am I'm not sure that your typical theist necessarily knows why lust exists. I don't see why he would need to know that.
To deepen his morals and ideas about Lust and how it is intended by God since life is intelligently designed.
But isn't that rather a question like, "Why does murder exist?'

If you mean by "lust," simply "intense desire," you've got a legit question there...but intense desire is nowhere prohibited. "Lust," traditionally, crosses the line into dark, evil and destructive forms of desire.

So the simple answer would be that intense desire is intended to impel and make rewarding healthy procreation. And "lust" would merely be the corruption of that, just the way that "gluttony" is a corruption of "appetite."

In other words, "lust" wasn't "designed" at all. Intense healthy desire was; and lust is simply the corrupt human take on that.
It's not quite like why does murder exist considering that we weren't given arms to murder people with. However, we were given certain bodily functions and bodily aspects that I won't get into that validate the idea of Lust given by an Intelligent Designer. Even Evolution would most likely claim that Lust is a very primordial and primitive emotion that evolved our bodies as well as the emotion of Lust for the purpose of reproduction and pleasure, which I believe would be the same aim of the Intelligent Designer.

Lust as longing has much to do with Lust as sexual, as Sexual Lust also arises from appreciation of beauty and preciousness.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

Post by Immanuel Can »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:20 pm To extend upon that point lust is a deficiency in sexuality and not a thing in itself but rather a lack of structure within the human person.
I like that. Well put.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

Post by Immanuel Can »

Viveka wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:10 pm However, we were given certain bodily functions and bodily aspects that I won't get into that validate the idea of Lust given by an Intelligent Designer.
I don't think that's true. I think "lust" is a defective expression of "intense healthy sexual desire." I'd really need some evidence to think you had a good question there.
Even Evolution would most likely claim that Lust is a very primordial and primitive emotion that evolved our bodies as well as the emotion of Lust for the purpose of reproduction and pleasure, which I believe would be the same aim of the Intelligent Designer.
But "lust" is defective. You can see this, because it can issue in all kinds of behaviour that are not reproductive, and are not even legitimately pleasurable -- such as rape, sadism or pedophelia, expressions of lust in which people's rights and personal integrity are violated, violence is done and victims are created.

But I'm pretty sure you're not going to say those are legit, are you?
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

Post by Viveka »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:48 pm
Viveka wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:10 pm However, we were given certain bodily functions and bodily aspects that I won't get into that validate the idea of Lust given by an Intelligent Designer.
I don't think that's true. I think "lust" is a defective expression of "intense healthy sexual desire." I'd really need some evidence to think you had a good question there.
Even Evolution would most likely claim that Lust is a very primordial and primitive emotion that evolved our bodies as well as the emotion of Lust for the purpose of reproduction and pleasure, which I believe would be the same aim of the Intelligent Designer.
But "lust" is defective. You can see this, because it can issue in all kinds of behaviour that are not reproductive, and are not even legitimately pleasurable -- such as rape, sadism or pedophelia, expressions of lust in which people's rights and personal integrity are violated, violence is done and victims are created.

But I'm pretty sure you're not going to say those are legit, are you?
Well, now we're just playing with words. Lust can be healthy sexual desire (is that even possible in most religions besides marriage?), as it is sexual desire itself unqualified by evil or good tinges. Lust itself is simply a longing for or craving, and/or sexual desire. Those that are degenerate are those who take lust to be something other than what its healthy aspect is. For instance, rape is usually about power and submission; not your average Lust as defined as sexual desire. Likewise with sadism and pedophilia. I think it is because we are using a term that the Catholic Church uses to denote Sin that there is this confusion.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

Post by Immanuel Can »

Viveka wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:06 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:48 pm
Viveka wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:10 pm However, we were given certain bodily functions and bodily aspects that I won't get into that validate the idea of Lust given by an Intelligent Designer.
I don't think that's true. I think "lust" is a defective expression of "intense healthy sexual desire." I'd really need some evidence to think you had a good question there.
Even Evolution would most likely claim that Lust is a very primordial and primitive emotion that evolved our bodies as well as the emotion of Lust for the purpose of reproduction and pleasure, which I believe would be the same aim of the Intelligent Designer.
But "lust" is defective. You can see this, because it can issue in all kinds of behaviour that are not reproductive, and are not even legitimately pleasurable -- such as rape, sadism or pedophelia, expressions of lust in which people's rights and personal integrity are violated, violence is done and victims are created.

But I'm pretty sure you're not going to say those are legit, are you?
Well, now we're just playing with words.
Yes, "lust" is a word. But I think we're not "playing with" it. We're trying to define it. And how we define it makes all the difference with regard to what is true to say about it. How can we asses the validity of your question unless we know what you mean by "lust"?
Lust can be healthy sexual desire
In the Catholic tradition, it's one of the "seven deadly sins." So I don't think you can expect to be granted that definition without demonstrating its accuracy first.
Those that are degenerate are those who take lust to be something other than what its healthy aspect is.
Really? You want to call all Catholics "degenerate"?

Well, I'll let the Catholics defend themselves as they may. I have no stake in that contest. But I'll support them this far: that traditionally, and even by common usage, I think "lust" is pretty clearly not what you say it is. People use that word when they want to indicate something naughty, forbidden or even rapacious. So if you want to include "healthy desire" as part of it, you're going to have to make your case.

Ironically, if you succeed in making "lust" out to be a "healthy" thing, that's a problem for your question. Because your question depends for its shock value on people hearing "lust" as meaning "wanton desire," not "healthy desire." And if you allow that you mean "healthy desire," then people are going to dismiss your question as obvious, saying, "Of course the Creator allows us to have healthy desire; why would you even ask such a weird question?"

Thus, if you want your shock value and your question, you've got to concede that "lust" means something bad. So where do you stand on that?
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Lust and Intelligent Design and Religion

Post by Viveka »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:26 pm
Viveka wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:06 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:48 pm
I don't think that's true. I think "lust" is a defective expression of "intense healthy sexual desire." I'd really need some evidence to think you had a good question there.


But "lust" is defective. You can see this, because it can issue in all kinds of behaviour that are not reproductive, and are not even legitimately pleasurable -- such as rape, sadism or pedophelia, expressions of lust in which people's rights and personal integrity are violated, violence is done and victims are created.

But I'm pretty sure you're not going to say those are legit, are you?
Well, now we're just playing with words.
Yes, "lust" is a word. But I think we're not "playing with" it. We're trying to define it. And how we define it makes all the difference with regard to what is true to say about it. How can we asses the validity of your question unless we know what you mean by "lust"?
By Lust I simply mean longing for, craving, and sexual attraction.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:26 pm
Lust can be healthy sexual desire
In the Catholic tradition, it's one of the "seven deadly sins." So I don't think you can expect to be granted that definition without demonstrating its accuracy first.
That's why I said that we are playing with definitions. I am not using the Catholic definition.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:26 pm
Those that are degenerate are those who take lust to be something other than what its healthy aspect is.
Really? You want to call all Catholics "degenerate"?

Well, I'll let the Catholics defend themselves as they may. I have no stake in that contest. But I'll support them this far: that traditionally, and even by common usage, I think "lust" is pretty clearly not what you say it is. People use that word when they want to indicate something naughty, forbidden or even rapacious. So if you want to include "healthy desire" as part of it, you're going to have to make your case.

Ironically, if you succeed in making "lust" out to be a "healthy" thing, that's a problem for your question. Because your question depends for its shock value on people hearing "lust" as meaning "wanton desire," not "healthy desire." And if you allow that you mean "healthy desire," then people are going to dismiss your question as obvious, saying, "Of course the Creator allows us to have healthy desire; why would you even ask such a weird question?"

Thus, if you want your shock value and your question, you've got to concede that "lust" means something bad. So where do you stand on that?
I don't think Lust as a term meaning what I mean by it to be something bad. I mean that Lust itself can be sexual desire without tinges of good or evil,and while it may not always denote what is good or evil, it can through the meaning of lust, such as opposed to rape. Thus, rape, sadism, and pedophilia do not fit in with what lust means, mainly by its own definition, as rape is about power and not 'lust' nor are any of those about lust as i have defined it. I think I have done a good job of defining what is healthy through the idea of lust as I have defined it, and simply through defining lust as 'longing for, craving, and sexual desire.'

I also wonder how 'sexual attraction' through a means to an end of pleasure can be healthy. Wouldn't both luster and lusted give their own bodies as means to an end of pleasure? And if so, wouldn't that be wrong?
Post Reply