Do societies become more puritanical over time?

Great Debates
21

Not true.

Such churches do exist.

Followers of Santo Daime – one of the Christian religions, based in Brazil – use ayahuasca (which contains DMT, an extremely powerful psychedelic) as a central part of their mass. Hell, the central part of their mass. The religion has won court cases in both Europe and the States, upholding both its status as a “real religion”, and, crucially, its right to use ayahuasca for mass.

That kind of thing is certainly not without precedent.

During the second half of the 19th century, drugs of different kinds – hasch, mescaline, opium, etc. – were used for specifically religious purposes on both sides of the Atlantic, including by self-professed Christians.

A staunch Scottish Protestant doctor named George Wyld, for example, used chloroform for religious purposes, believing that the effect it had on him – essentially, it gave him “out-of-body experiences” – not only proved the existence of the soul, but also allowed for it to travel independently of the body, and freely explore unseen worlds.

A Spiritualist newspaper (and mind you practically all Spiritualists back then self-identified as Christians) wrote enthusiastically about Dr. Wyld’s experiments that:

OK then, but what about sex?

Well, first off, practically all churches “feature” sex in the sense that they allow it. There is a certain place for it (marriage), within which it is considered absolutely cool. Very few Christian churches outright forbid sex.

As for making sex part of the actual religious rituals… Well yes, it’s uncommon, but certainly not unheard of. The followers of abbé Boullan used sex to purify themselves; the followers of Georges Le Clément de Saint-Marcq put an odd twist on the idea of holy communion, believing that the correct way to perform it involved, uh, not bread and wine but, eh – hope all kids have left the room by now – a certain other bodily fluid. Sperm, is what I’m saying. They believed in eating sperm. And considered themselves 100% Christian, too!

So, yeah: People mix sexuality and Christianity all the time, and always have. Same as with drugs.

Fringe phenomena, you say? Sure, yes – you won’t exactly see the Pope smoking crystal meth during New Year’s Mass anytime soon (but can you imagine…!?).

But it’s also not like mixing religion and sex and/or drugs is “inconceivable” in a Christian context, or that that kind of thing belongs to some long-gone hunter-gatherer past.

22

I’m reminded of (but cannot quite verify, as my copy is tucked away somewhere) that Phil Farrand (author of the “Nitpicker” books, citing plot holes and inconsistencies in the various Star Trek shows) noted that in a particular Deep Space Nine episode, the Bajorans are described as spiritual and whatnot, yet the characters of Kira Nerys and Bareil Antos were engaged in a nonmarital sexual relationship, establishing (Farrand thought) a contradiction between the ascetic and hedonistic.

I can see why Farrand (a born-again Christian) might feel that way, but there’s no reason a fictional religion (or a real one, for that matter) need particularly care who has sex with whom.

23

I’ve seen the European conquests given much of the blame for that; they dominated the world for long time, and pushed their anti-pleasure ideology the whole time.

24

And then you have Rasputin and his cult, who believed that since Jesus came here to redeem sin, and repentance was necessary to salvation, people oughta sin as much as possible so there would be much to repent for. So pretty much they fucked a lot, boozed a lot, then asked for forgiveness. Rinse, repeat.
Quite odd that the fellow wasn’t more popular, really.

25

There’s no progression unless you’re overly-selective. Cultural changes are somewhat cyclic but unpredictable and chaotic. You know how they say fashion follows a 20 year cycle, but that recycled fashion is always transformed in some new way? Fashion is just one small aspect of cultural change.

Look at England over a just a handful of centuries. You go from the Libertines of the late 17th and early 18th century, where the men dressed like drag queens, but could out-fuck and probably even out-fight the most tatted-up alpha male roid monsters of our era; to the Enlightenment which spawned the beginnings of modern science and technology and saw one of the high points in poetry and literature; to the uptight Victorians who decreed that the ankles of decent women couldn’t be shown in public but 12 year old prostitutes worked the streets and children were hung as adults in public executions.

The only constant is change. You see the same themes and some associated practices come 'round again over and over, but they’re never quite the same because the preceding time and culture were different from the earlier examples, and the people involved are of course a product of their culture. Anything you think of as conservative and immutable now will be looked back on as barbaric, hedonistic, or just plain weird by people living in exactly the same geographical location, but removed by a couple of hundred years temporally.

26

The Romans also endorsed slavery, infanticide, gladiator fights, “Carthaginian” solutions in war, and suicide among other things.

Europeans aren’t anymore “anti-pleasure” than any othe culture. Almost every non-Western traditionalist has condemned it for being hedonistic, materialistic, etc.

27

You should probably stop the Indian example from feeding your (self-suspected) confirmation bias. It may or may not have become more prudish over time on its own, but long periods of Islamic and European rule didn’t give it a chance.

28

Up till Aurangzeb and even then the Mughals could be accused of many things, prudishness was not one of them.

29

Partly because Christianity has lost so much of its grip over the region; and partly because people like that always accuse other people of being such things. Europe historically has most certainly been anti-pleasure, as is the norm of any culture dominated by Christianity. Christianity has always worked to grind humanity down into a grim grey society of automatons dedicated to hatred and the veneration of suffering. While it has become weaker in the last few decades, it has left most of humanity badly damaged, crippled by self hate.

30

The idea that all non-Europeans were fun-loving, free-spirited, all-fucking “noble heathens” until the Europeans came along and “pushed their anti-pleasure ideology” and ruined the party with their Bibles and their Pope-approved missionary positions has been debunked a million times over.

India is a perfect example. It’s part of the whole ignorant Orientalism thing to imagine that the existence of “Tantra” and “Kama Sutra” somehow equates a hedonistic, non-puritanical society.

31

I didn’t say they were, I said that Christianity was and is a grim, pleasure hating, life hating, anti-human religion.

32

Right, that too, but the more OP-relevant part of what you’ve said was this:

Those people who said that were wrong.

33

Now, now; there are two sides to the question. On the one side, arguing the case that Christianity critically weakened the Empire, we have Edward Gibbon. On the other side, rejecting that thesis, we have Some Guy On The Internet. Let us ponder their expertise and credentials for a moment…

34

Their credentials? I’d rather look at their arguments, and the underlying historical evidence.

35
36

Actually we are far more libertine today than in the real 1960s. My wife’s college (not a Bible college by any means) had strict rules against visitation at night until 1972. Now, tons of dorms are coed by floor - or even room. That might cut down sex, since us guys might be more appealing at a distance.

37

The night is young.
:smiley:

38

And not to mention: The Decline and Fall was written in 1776, before we had the advantages of a lot of archeaology and scholarship. While no doubt masterful for it’s time the idea that the decline was caused by Christianity has been debunked by later scholars:

wiki: "Historians such as David S. Potter and Fergus Millar dispute claims that the Empire fell as a result of a kind of lethargy towards current affairs brought on by Constantine’s adoption of Christianity as the official state religion. They claim that such a view is “vague” and has little real evidence to support it. Others such as J.B. Bury, who wrote a history of the later Empire, claimed there is “no evidence” to support Gibbon’s claims of Christian apathy towards the Empire:
“It has often been alleged that Christianity in its political effects was a disintegrating force and tended to weaken the power of Rome to resist her enemies. It is difficult to see that it had any such tendency, so long as the Church itself was united. Theological heresies were indeed to prove a disintegrating force in the East in the seventh century, when differences in doctrine which had alienated the Christians in Egypt and Syria from the government of Constantinople facilitated the conquests of the Saracens. But after the defeat of Arianism, there was no such vital or deep-reaching division in the West, and the effect of Christianity was to unite, not to sever, to check, rather than to emphasise, national or sectional feeling. In the political calculations of Constantine it was probably this ideal of unity, as a counterpoise to the centrifugal tendencies which had been clearly revealed in the third century, that was the great recommendation of the religion which he raised to power. Nor is there the least reason to suppose that Christian teaching had the practical effect of making men less loyal to the Empire or less ready to defend it. The Christians were as pugnacious as the pagans. Some might read Augustine’s City of God with edification, but probably very few interpreted its theory with such strict practical logic as to be indifferent to the safety of the Empire. Hardly the author himself, though this has been disputed.”[10]
Today, historians tend to analyze economic and military factors in the decline of Rome.[11]
Furthermore, Gibbon has been criticized for his portrayal of Paganism as tolerant and Christianity as intolerant. In an article that appeared 1996 in the journal Past & Present, H.A. Drake challenges an understanding of religious persecution in ancient Rome, which he considers to be the “conceptual scheme” that was used by historians to deal with the topic for the last 200 years, and whose most eminent representative is Gibbon. Gibbon had written:
“The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosophers as equally false; and by the magistrate as equally useful”."
Drake counters:
“With such deft strokes, Gibbon enters into a conspiracy with his readers: unlike the credulous masses, he and we are cosmopolitans who know the uses of religion as an instrument of social control. So doing, Gibbon skirts a serious problem: for three centuries prior to Constantine, the tolerant pagans who people the Decline and Fall were the authors of several major persecutions, in which Christians were the victims. …Gibbon covered this embarrassing hole in his argument with an elegant demur. Rather than deny the obvious, he adroitly masked the question by transforming his Roman magistrates into models of Enlightenment rulers — reluctant persecutors, too sophisticated to be themselves religious zealots.”

39

Main thing is to have an erect penis and penetrate sexual partners with it. So, for instance, performing oral sex on a male or female partner was ‘unmanly’. Ideally, the penetration would reflect the society’s hierarchies. So, for example, for ancient Romans the idea of a slave penetrating a free citizen would be the height of sexual perversion. But a citizen penetrating a slave of any sex would be as vanilla as the missionary position.

People broke these taboos all the time, I imagine. We know for sure not everyone followed them. But back then there were far fewer people able to get those kinds of thrills because ancient Romans had little concept of privacy – people did not have the freedom which stems from the idea that sex (or religion, etc.) was a private matter for the individual.

40

Quite true. Does anyone know what the whole point of Puritanism was? Why it was called “Puritan”? If you answered anti-sex, you’re wrong. The Puritan tendency in England was an ultra-Protestant movement formed because they thought the Anglican church was still too Catholic. They were for getting rid of every last trace of anything that resembled Catholicism; in other words, they wanted to “purify” the church from a given type of religion. I’m not aware that circa 1600 they were significantly more anti-sex than the Anglicans or Presbyterians around them. Liturgy was what they really got all worked up over. Boring subject, though. Makes you want to sex it up some…

They founded the Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay colonies. The New England Puritans came to be known as Congregationalists. In the 19th century the Unitarian movement arose from within Congregationalism and there was a split. Most of the Congregationalists who didn’t go Unitarian were eventually absorbed into the United Church of Christ.

The UU and UCC are the two most liberal major denominations in America. They have contributed greatly to liberal causes like the civil rights movement, women’s rights, and LGBT rights. Yep, that’s our Puritans. What a country! :smiley: