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.
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.
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?
To deepen his morals and ideas about Lust and how it is intended by God since life is intelligently designed.
Evidence?
Refer to the writings of Michael Behe and others.
Michael Behe and those like him are just about the least likely to be an authority to define anything. If you insist on your own definition, I would suggest that you find another term, as "lust" already has an accepted and well understood definition, and it isn't what you say it is.
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.
Last edited by Viveka on Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Michael Behe and those like him are just about the least likely to be an authority to define anything. If you insist on your own definition, I would suggest that you find another term, as "lust" already has an accepted and well understood definition, and it isn't what you say it is.
To lust after another is to have sexual desire for that other. It's as simple as that. What else should I call it? Libido? Eroticism? Aphrodisia?
Viveka wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:35 pm
To lust after another is to have sexual desire for that other. It's as simple as that. What else should I call it? Libido? Eroticism?
"Lust" is not a healthy desire for sex, there are many negative connotations to the term.
Viveka wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:35 pm
To lust after another is to have sexual desire for that other. It's as simple as that. What else should I call it? Libido? Eroticism?
"Lust" is not a healthy desire for sex, there are many negative connotations to the term.
BTW, YEC and Intelligent Design are not valid concepts for the creation of the universe and the development of life. These ideas are what Michael Behe and others like him promote, but they are very wrong.
Michael Behe and those like him are just about the least likely to be an authority to define anything. If you insist on your own definition, I would suggest that you find another term, as "lust" already has an accepted and well understood definition, and it isn't what you say it is.
Why is he in no position to be in authority?
He serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.
Viveka wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:43 pm
Can you suggest a better word?
"Eros" is a better fit to your definition, lust is not a good fit.
Too Jungian/Freudian/Technical sounding. I could say 'eros' instead of 'lust' but would it really be appreciated for what it means? I am 'erotic' of another. Sounds unpoetic and stilted.
Viveka wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:33 pm
...it's awfully strange to say that adultery is prohibited by YHVH,...
Why?
Why would it be "strange" if He prohibited sexual indulgence in some specific contexts (like adultery), and encouraged it in others (like between marriage partners)? I'm not seeing any "strangeness" in that at all. In fact, it looks like marriage is a kind of ideal scenario, does it not?
But "adultery" is, by definition, a cheating and betrayal of that ideal. Why would it be "strange" for God to be against cheating and betrayal of the ideal? Or are we only concerned about the perpetrator, and not about the woman or man he victimizes? Wouldn't it rather be strange if God had no prohibition against betraying your spouse or encroaching on someone else's?
Viveka wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:03 am
Why is he in no position to be in authority?
He serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.
While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
So much for his position at Lehigh University, he seems to be on his own there.
The Discovery Institute is just a vehicle for IC which has been disproved in every case that has been investigated by science, Behe is wrong about just about everything. The only way you can support IC is if you ignore and deny all the evidence against it.
Viveka wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:33 pm
...it's awfully strange to say that adultery is prohibited by YHVH,...
Why?
Why would it be "strange" if He prohibited sexual indulgence in some specific contexts (like adultery), and encouraged it in others (like between marriage partners)? I'm not seeing any "strangeness" in that at all. In fact, it looks like marriage is a kind of ideal scenario, does it not?
But "adultery" is, by definition, a cheating and betrayal of that ideal. Why would it be "strange" for God to be against cheating and betrayal of the ideal? Or are we only concerned about the perpetrator, and not about the woman or man he victimizes? Wouldn't it rather be strange if God had no prohibition against betraying your spouse or encroaching on someone else's?
Adultery is generally out of wedlock sex, or breaking wedlock, right?
Then why would he create our bodies the way they are with pleasure centers that have nothing to do with marriage or not?
Marriage appears ideal but there are homosexual marriages which have no aim of reproduction and a consequence of only pleasure.
