You misunderstood me, hobbes. That’s okay, since you don’t know me. We moved to Germany when I was just five and we were all pretty much left under the care of a ‘nanny’ who was Sudetendeutsche. She didn’t teach us anything other than German and how proper little girls and boys should behave. I received some religious training there, the basic catechism, etc., so I could receive my first Communion at the same time as a German friend–that way, we could share our party!
We weren’t sent to parochial school until we got back from Europe. Even then, it wasn’t continuous because my Father was an Army officer and we moved a lot. My parents seldom, if ever, discussed religion and even less, sex. My misuse of the word may have come from Sister Clair Isabelle. The poor thing had a terrible problem with acne and she was mentally abusive toward me. She may have used the word ‘prurience’ and I not only didn’t know the meaning of the word, but didn’t remember it correctly. Nine yr. olds are like that. I may have, then, put the word together with the nun’s acne, then made up a definition that made sense to me.
Anyway, none of this makes any nevermind. I was trying to be facetious when I replied to phylo. I’m truly sorry if anyone in your family was taught that sex is a bad thing. It isn’t. Lust, however, is one of the seven major sins–anything taken to excess is. Rhino could feel he’s excessive in his game-playing and, therefore, being slothful.
You and phylo need to loosen up a bit when it comes to humor–and no one here should make assumptions about anyone s/he doesn’t know.
So you were brought up to expect Kinder, Küche, Kirche - I get it.
Does that also mean that you don’t really have a sense of humour?
Does that also mean that you can’t make your own choices and enjoy your life?
Lust is nature’s way of promoting the species. It is not bad or evil.
If you believe god created us, then you have also to accept that he gave us lust. Why deny his greatest gift?
I think it is you that needs to loosen up when it comes to humour you don’t seem to have any whatever.
No it doesen't. My father was also of Swabian ancestry, and it takes one to no one. Cleanliness is next to Godliness in the most extreme. Right. Liz?
There is little humor in that. Once the parquet is squeeeeeeeeky clean you can reflect some humor off the surface, like who is going to get exciled for ever for dropping a cigarette ash…
While cleanliness is certainly a plus, obe, I’m not sure it puts a clean person in a position next to God. Howsomever, I appreciate your back-up. I’m taking the advice of many people around here. I’ll no longer have anything to do with hobbes.
Lust is not bidden anymore than emotions.
I never thought of lust as emotion, it is I guess but, it does not seem so. Emotions are more short lived, less driving and more controlled.
This thread leans toward lust in connection with sex, it seems as if sex dominates when the word is used.
That’s due to practice, and I would say that many would define lust as a strong desire for sex.
But the world should not conform to our words, our words should conform to reality.
There is not an underlying thing, lust, which some do not talk about properly, whilst others do. Words are about convention.
There are good reasons why some might wish to restrict the use of the word to include only sex, whilst lust after money or food might be called greed or gluttony.
Sex dominates when the word is used, and domination itself is what is going on in the use of sex as a tool in role-play of associating pleasure, power, and self/other definition. The domination may be evenly devided, or totally reversed.
Maybe there is a way out of this circularity not loose hope. Your absurd reduction (he said she said) shows the argument is stuck in a pragmatic/existential mode. If it’s really stuck here, bypass the insanity of guilt,without allusion to the will as it relates to redemption. On that level it’s pretty well stuck.
Only a total regression to basic forms saves the day: while were at it, the archaic Jesus, as an intentional agent, or agency? Have to be taken in account. There is tremendous fear in wading through this, but I am a firm believer, that only an intuitive way can point to the original. Call me crazy, but what the mystics had to say is relevant here. The saints, the prophets, and early seers. Once this eye of the needle can be transcended can the value be understood.
This is on a level so far above the existential, that any sin, including misuse of the computer, is so far away from intent or commission (of sin), as to approach 0, as to the vanishing point. This is the point of redemption. Once the capacity approaches this limit, watch out: there will be accountability.
The circularity is a premature recognition of this fear. It sees it's self as drawn in, as a structural deficiency, not realizing the numbers out there. The phenomenological reduction is anchored in the old fear. (Of divisibility)
