423b2e
423b2e

9.11.2011

make love, not war




xxx

27 comments:

The Painting Queen said...

Amen to love and peace!

Gary's third pottery blog said...

!!!

goatman said...

I always thought lust to be the unattainable longing. The cartoon character with his dripping tongue hanging to the ground at the sight of the pretty girl. He has not the chance.
But what is the word for attraction which may be talked about? Jimmy Carter lusted because it was not possible but he reacted to the observation.

I am not sure that lust equates to procreation!

red dirt girl said...

Goatman~

Unattainable longing describes yearning to me; the cartoon character is definitely lusting; Mr. Carter was responding to his Biblical upbringing:
"Whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28) as he was a married man, thus committing adultery in his heart.

Joseph Addison says this about lust:

"The most violent appetites in all creatures are lust and hunger; the first is a perpetual call upon them to propagate their kind, the latter to preserve themselves."

Leading one to think about procreation. Some synonyms are crave, hunger, covet, yearn.

Lust can be lecherousness, illicit, an intense craving or desire, or even ardent enthusiasm and a zest for life ... what great human endeavor has not begun with an intense longing or lust for ... power? wealth? prestige? information? creation? something that one does not possess?

The urban dictionary says lust does not involve love. Have you ever lusted for the one you love? I know I have ....

I read the quote not so much about having babies but having that unquenchable thirst for living and wanting.

xxx

Adullamite said...

Lust or love?

Pauline said...

there would certainly be fewer of us to relish the fun!

goatman said...

We defer to the Wikipedia:
"Lust or lechery (carnal "luxuria") is usually thought of as excessive thoughts or desires of a sexual nature. Aristotle's criterion was excessive love of others, which therefore rendered love and devotion to God as secondary[citation needed]. In Dante's Purgatorio, the penitent walks within flames to purge himself of lustful/sexual thoughts and feelings. In Dante's "Inferno", unforgiven souls of the sin of lust are blown about in restless hurricane-like winds symbolic of their own lack of self control to their lustful passions in earthly life."

These thoughts seem not to be acted upon which reinforces my original posit of unattainable longing.

But words are tricky and seem to be defined and re-defined by those who wield the power of distributed word. Which is why the phrase is "make love not war" rather than "make lust not war". But I guess in the end one follows the other.

red dirt girl said...

goatman~

You KNOW Wikipedia is not a reliable source ... but
well done, well done. I like the reference to Dante's "Inferno". The original quote does describe one of the seven deadly sins which 'love' is not one of ... I like Pauline's take on it: 'relish the fun!'

xxx

red dirt girl said...

Adullamite:

What comes first: love or lust?

xxx

red dirt girl said...

Pauline~

I love it~ indeed, let's relish the fun!

xxx

Adullamite said...

What lasts, Love or lust?
Love lasts, lust is a cheap thrill.

red dirt girl said...

Adullamite~

well put.

xxx

soubriquet said...

Lust: there's more than one meaning, one definition in this word, there's also a meaning of taking great pleasure, in hearty enjoyment.
"Old English (also in the sense ‘pleasure, delight’), of Germanic origin; related to Dutch lust and German Lust"
"lust:- pleasure, desire; sexual desire OE.; passionate desire XVII. OE. lust, corr. to (O)HG. lust, ON. losti, Goth. lustus, f. Gmc. *lust- (cf. LIST2).
Hence lust vb. XIII. lustful OE. lusty †joyful; †pleasing XIII; †lustful; powerful, strong XIV." (Concise Oxford Dictionary of Etymology)
And I also found this: "In the 9th century, lust meant simply ‘pleasure, delight’. So lusty meant ‘joyful, merry’ (and lustful ‘full of lust or joy’). In the 11th century lusty came to mean ‘sexual appetite’ (or ‘libidinous desire, degrading animal passion’ as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it) and this is the dominant meaning today, except in fixed expressions (like a lust for life) which preserve the earlier idea of enthusiasm for something. Risqué meanings will always come to dominate in this way. Economics has Gresham’s Law: ‘Bad money drives out good.’ Sociology has Knight’s Law: ‘Bad talk drives out good’. Linguistics has something similar: ‘Bad connotations drive out good’. So lust was doomed from the start — as soon as it took on the additional sense of ‘desire’ it went down the slippery slope. Assisting this shift in meaning was the fact that English has so many words beginning with [l] that mean ‘unchaste, wanton’— licentious, lascivious, loose, lubricous, lecherous, libidinous, lustful, lickerish, and lewd to name a few. Somehow this luscious liquidy l-sound seems well suited to convey the sense of wantonness."

soubriquet said...

RDG: Lust is fine, there's nothing wrong in lusting and loving, and so far as I can see, the bible does not prohibit lust, in many places it celebrates lust, nowhere more so than in the Song of Solomon.
The idea of lust as a sin? well, that came about later. Early christians somehow came to believe that pleasure was a bad thing, and tended to revere people who whipped themselves or wore clothes woven with thorns, somehow the idea took hold and for a couple of thousand years, some people have believed that pain/suffering somehow bring you closer to winning a place in heaven, whereas happiness, enjoyment of physical pleasures, whether they be sexual in nature, or the enjoyment of food or music, must be frowned upon.
If we are to believe, on any level, in god creating us, then, why did he build into us that ability to find joy in lust?
Adullamite sets Love and Lust as things apart. I disagree. My venn-diagram for them would show a huge overlap, lust and love, yes, they can exist separately, but so can scent and roses. Where they exist together, they enhance each other, becoming more than the sum of separate parts.
Like the scent of a rosebush in a twilight garden. I'll take both, and celebrate lust, love, and life.

soubriquet said...

The month of May was come, when every lusty heart beginneth to blossom, and to bring forth fruit; for like as herbs and trees bring forth fruit and flourish in May, in likewise every lusty heart that is in any manner a lover, springeth and flourisheth in lusty deeds. For it giveth unto all lovers courage, that lusty month of May.

Sir Thomas Malory (d. 1471)
Le Morte d'Arthur (1485)

Bulletholes said...

One little dance couldn't hurt a thing.

red dirt girl said...

Soubry~

Thank you for your erudite manifesto on 'Lust and Loving'. I'm all for lusty loving :). I do want to point out that the lust described in Song of Solomon was between a bride and her bridegroom on the eve of their wedding ... not just random wantonness for the babe strolling down the street. The new testament clearly defines lust as a sin, which came from the teachings of Jesus. It had to do with keeping the sanctity of a marriage, which is the building block of family. As well as keeping one's heart pure for Christ. Lust CAN ruin a marriage, as I well know.

xxx

red dirt girl said...

Cowboy~

Square dancing or dirty dancing ...?? ;)

xxx

soubriquet said...

It's not at all clear that the lovers in the song of songs are married.

As for random wanton lust, lets not forget Solomon had 700 wives, and didn't cleave only unto them, he also had 300 concubines.
Amazing that he had any time for singing... I'll bet he didn't even know all their names.
As for Matthew, the sin is that of coveting, of adulterous desire.
Whilst the word 'lust' is often used in the bible in a pejorative manner, I can't find any absolute statement saying that lust is of itself a sin.

Now, if Solomon looked out at a veritable crowd of women, and his loins were stirred with lust, would that be sinful?, considering he'd probably be married to all of them?
And it seems that the bible considers Solomon to be one of the good guys. Though, of course, he wouldn't be admitted to heaven, would he, on account of his being undeniably wealthy. Unless of course, he'd got a mega-giant needle and a dwarf camel.

soubriquet said...

Okay, I skipped a bit in my biblical reading there....
Solomon ended his days out of favour with god, on account of his flirting with other gods, so even with a dwarf camel he'd have been turned around at the gate.... but during his thousand woman reign, he and god were the best of pals... Maybe I'd better read it all again.

red dirt girl said...

Soubry~

Song of Songs: Chapter 3 describes King Solomon on his wedding day; Chapter 5, he calls his lover, 'My sister, my bride.' The entire book is considered to be an allegory of Christ, as the royal bridegroom/king, returning to earth for his bride, the Church, believers in Christ.

I suggest you re-read Matthew 19 to understand the CONTEXT of your oft-quoted statement about needles and camels and wealth. It does not state that it is impossible to enter heaven if you are wealthy.

Lust in the Bible is equated with adulterous thought and is, therefore, considered a sin. Many references exist that you can research on your own.

As for the rest of your argument, I'll let some other biblically minded scholar sort you out there. I do not read the bible in the same literal sense that you do, but as the living, breathing word of God. It stands to reason, therefore, that you and I are not able to discuss it in any way that makes sense.

xxx

red dirt girl said...

Whilst Solomon was considered to be the wisest of kings, he was not a perfect man. Yes, God favored him, but Solomon defied many of God's commandments, INCLUDING the multiplying of wives. Ultimately, in an effort to please his many wives, Solomon built many temples to their foreign gods, angering the Lord his God. He was punished for it. All that lusting, just to lose a kingdom ... so much for wisdom.

xxx

Bulletholes said...

I've lusted after my neighbors wife. Whenever I had a neighbor. And whenever he had a wife, umm-hmm!

soubriquet said...

"It is considered" HAH!
Yes, various scholars have come up with that tortuous explanation for the Song, but far more have disagreed with them.
As ever, the bible is full of ambiguity, and we're left to interpret it as best we can.
The original, if such a thing can be said ever to have existed, did not come with a study-guide.

red dirt girl said...

"Yes, various scholars have come up with that tortuous explanation for the Song, but far more have disagreed with them."

Oh. So you're a biblical scholar as well now, too.
I'm beginning to think the bible you've been reading has been written in little notebooks with green crayons.

xxx

red dirt girl said...

Cowboy~

Haha - You just love stirring the pot, don't you??

xxx

soubriquet said...

My lips is zipped.
mmmmmf!