When Greed & Lust is a Good thing.

  • Thread starter Thread starter AgnosTheist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
arvinsim said:
@TS

IMHO, you are arguing about semantics. If you define lust by another definition and the people here by another definition, how would you hope to reconcile the case? There is no common ground.
Click to expand...
Yeah I believe that is the case too. Christians are allergic to the word lust. If I used the phrase “intense sexual desire”, they would be more open minded. The hypocricies of religion, oh well. 🤷
 
AgnosTheist said:
Yeah I believe that is the case too. Christians are allergic to the word lust.
Click to expand...
As we should be, since it is a sin.
If I used the phrase “intense sexual desire”, they would be more open minded. The hypocricies of religion, oh well. 🤷
Click to expand...
When you equate a morally indetermate thing (intense sexual desire) with a moral unacceptable thing (lust), who’s being the hypocrit?
 
AgnosTheist said:
What do you mean ‘objectify’? Whats so bad with it?
Click to expand...
Love is a relationship between persons / personalities / souls.

You can’t love an “object” - despite the recent Mercedes commercials I’ve seen with a Paris-Hiltonesque looking lady draped over the hood of the car, and caressing it, with the song “I love you, Iove you, I love you…” playing in the background.

Doesn’t the person of your wife deserve more than your object / car?
 
My original statement “Lust is a sin…”
AgnosTheist said:
thats the opinion you get when your church is ruled by old unmarried men & women. 😃
Click to expand...
Appearances are sometimes deceiving. Lust as a sin is only a part of what the Church says. Here’s a short item JP2 had to say about spousal love… I hope the mods don’t have an issue with this 🙂

"…the man must take the difference between male and female reactions into account…so that climax may be reached by both…and as far as possible simultaneously. “…if we take into account the shorter and more violent curve of arousal in man, such tenderness on his part in the context of marital intercourse acquires the significance of an act of virtue.” - from JP2’s “Love and Responsibility” - pages 272, 275 as quoted in Theology of the Body for Beginners.

I wonder what the handbook of greed and lust has to say? Would your spouse prefer to be an object, or might she prefer JP2’s vision of a marriage?
 
ricmat said:
Love is a relationship between persons / personalities / souls.

You can’t love an “object” - despite the recent Mercedes commercials I’ve seen with a Paris-Hiltonesque looking lady draped over the hood of the car, and caressing it, with the song “I love you, Iove you, I love you…” playing in the background.

Doesn’t the person of your wife deserve more than your object / car?
Click to expand...
what about the idea behind “the object of my affection”. perhaps what you had in mind is tied to the idea of 'being used’?
 
AgnosTheist said:
what about the idea behind “the object of my affection”. perhaps what you had in mind is tied to the idea of 'being used’?
Click to expand...
Yes, lust “uses” the other person to satisfy one’s desires. That’s exactly what I meant. 🙂

BTW1 - The church does not see attraction as a sin, or pleasure from spousal interactions as a sin. It is only when we mis-use our sexual capabilities that they become sins.

BTW2 - I bet that “lust” had primarily a religious definition and meaning before it became just “intense sexual desire.” No proof, and I need to be off now for a few hours, but just a hunch.
 
ricmat said:
Would your spouse prefer to be an object, or might she prefer JP2’s vision of a marriage?
Click to expand...
The world is not as simple as black & white. Im sure she would prefer a taste of both. I know I would. 🙂
 
AgnosTheist said:
…

Think about it, is greed & lust always bad? Or is there a benevolent reason why greed & lust remains to be an inherent human trait?
Click to expand...
Greed is defined AS an evil, therefore it is always “bad”.

Same for Lust.

Wanting more of some things can be a good, which encapsulates the “possible positive substitutives (!?)” of both Greed and Lust.

It is the OBJECT of the want that defines the moral value of a person’s wanting.

But Greed and Lust, qua Greed and Lust, are ALWAYS evil, and therefore never a “Martha Stewart”, er, good things.

I’d love to see you “debate” Augustine! 🙂 You should dredge up some quotes from Augustine’s writings and post some “rebuttals” to his works.
 
Greed and selfishness is good and should be deemed virtuous:
Selfishness is extremely important. It’s the force behind capitalism and the thing that makes people work hard all day long at their jobs. It’s why when you go to wal-mart there was someone there that morning that stocked the shelves for you.
Click to expand...
How would you genetically alter people to make them more charitable without government? If one chose to impose this upon others how do you convince the people getting the charity gene to comply?
Click to expand...
History has shown that it is not necessary for people to “work for the greater good”? Do you have some evidence this is important, or does it just have a good ring to it when people say the words?
Click to expand...
We’ve already conceded that capitalism produces more, even for the poor and those that choose not to participate but value their cable TV more.
Click to expand...
People spend their own money very selfishly. But that’s the beauty of capitalism. When they spend the money they are employing others. People don’t actually get nearly as much for their hard work and money as you might imagine. Capitalism allows for a framework where that waste is recaptured and quickly recycled into value.
Click to expand...
Selfishness also does not stop people from being charitable. The two are hardly mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
 
AgnosTheist said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
It is the OBJECT of the want that defines the moral value of a person’s wanting.

Moral value is defined by the amount of harms or benefits of a deed. If the object of your lust is your spouse and spouse welcomes it, how is that immoral?
Click to expand...
“Harms or benefits” to whom?

Lust, by definition, is a disordered desire (sin). If your desire for your spouse is not disordered then you don’t lust after your spouse at all.

“Pleasing God” in some fashion, as described by God’s laws, is the only object of a non-sinful desire, and the definition of describing some act as moral.

This poses a problem for those who don’t believe in God as God as God is as made known to us by the Church (Catholic).

How does one figure out if something is a good (moral) thing to do if God’s laws are not taken into consideration?

(( Hint: Natural Law or it ain’t moral. ))
 
CalmDownWisWins said:
“Harms or benefits” to whom?

Lust, by definition, is a disordered desire (sin). If your desire for your spouse is not disordered then you don’t lust after your spouse at all.
Click to expand...
Lust by definition:

***intense sexual desire or appetite. ***

dictionary.reference.com/browse/lust
CalmDownWisWins said:
“Pleasing God” in some fashion, as described by God’s laws, is the only object of a non-sinful desire, and the definition of describing some act as moral.
Click to expand...
What person thinks of “pleasing God” on the night of their honeymoon?

You are not being realistic.
 
davidv said:
No, you are the one being unreasonable. You are the one insisting on using an unacceptable definition of lust in this context.
Click to expand...
How about a compromise? By secular definition I am right. By vatican definition you guys are right? Ok? 😃
 
AgnosTheist said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
“Harms or benefits” to whom?

Lust, by definition, is a disordered desire (sin). If your desire for your spouse is not disordered then you don’t lust after your spouse at all.

Lust by definition:

intense sexual desire or appetite.
dictionary.reference.com/browse/lust
Click to expand...
I define lust as disordered. Apparently you don’t. That clarifies your meaning perfectly.

If you use the word “lust” to mean a possibly good thing, then why didn’t you simply say that in the beginning as we’d all HAVE to agree with you that YOUR “lust” can be a good thing while OUR “lust” can’t be a good thing?

But, where would be the gratuitously argumentativeness in that!? 🙂
 
AgnosTheist said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
“Pleasing God” in some fashion, as described by God’s laws, is the only object of a non-sinful desire, and the definition of describing some act as moral.

What person thinks of “pleasing God” on the night of their honeymoon?

You are not being realistic.
Click to expand...
(( “lust” ))

Obviously our respective meanings of the word “realistic” are at odds as well! 🙂

When you understand what God wants for us in our marriages you’ll understand what really wanting a spouse means, and how that is so very pleasing to God.

Now, what do YOU mean by “reallistic”?
 
AgnosTheist said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
Now, what do YOU mean by “reallistic”?

What actually occurs.
Click to expand...
(( Sorry for the extra “el” in “realistic” above! ))

What **actually occurs **when we actively work to please God by pleasing our spouse in ways God has told us to do so is that we (both spouses) have the most intense “spousal pleasure (psychosexual)” imaginable.

Are you going to argue with that? 🙂
 
Lust kept us from dying out for 10,000 years when we were animals. Now the difficulty is trying to reconcile those feelings while we are human. The thing is, I’ve come to realize that guilt (especially Irish Catholic guilt) is always stronger than lust or even love. That’s just the saddest thing I can think of. 😦
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top