Well, I don’t think it’s hard to see how a religion that’s trying to be a moral force (as opposed to the ‘perfunctorily worship the crazy Emperor’ kind) would emphasize self-control. I mean, whether Christian or not, most people would think it’s morally wrong to let your wife and kids starve because you’re spending all the family’s money on your own pleasure, whether that pleasure is gambling, liquor, hookers, or continually buying solid-gold statutes of yourself as a centaur.
Obviously there’s a balance in life between being a soulless robot and being purely selfishly obsessed with shallow physical pleasures. I assume Christianity grew the way it did because people were seeing too many wild orgies and too few voices for self-restraint.
Why sex became emphasized more than other pleasures is maybe a harder question.
Not quite - people decrying the decline of morals in the younger generation didn’t start with Christianity. Augustuswanted to return to the more strict morals with less orgies.
Please remember that Christianity - seen objectivly - didn’t drop from the sky (even in the Bible it builds upon the Isrealite foundations), but rather is a young religion influenced by many others before it and contemporary. None of the ideas of Christianity is originally, but rather can be found similar in other religions.
Secondly, it wasn’t only sex that was forbidden or limited, it was all sorts of carnal pleasure, or pleasure of the body. It’s just that telling people that sex is bad and should be restricted is a very powerful tool precisly because sex is such a strong drive. This makes it likely that people will overstep the rules and “sin”, making them feel guilty, which will distract them from other issues and make them dependent on the priests for forgiveness.
Many other religions use sex restrictions similarly - Indians have ascetics (And were earlier than Jesus), to concentrate the mind more on important stuff. That’s the main reason, not supporting a family.
Because a good Christian man who doesn’t sleep with his wife can still piss away the income on whiskey - which isn’t forbidden by the church.
:rolleyes: thank you Maam.
I am impressed with your extensive knowledge about religious history. I am not exactly Christian, per se, but I do live in the United States, which has a large Christian population, and therefore I am inclined to hear readings, interpretations, and spoken words by Christians (even from young children) about their faith. I do recall that there was one time when a young child told another young child (both prepubescent) about saying God’s name in vain, and how one should not do that. I have read and watched biblical stories, and read the book of Genesis. Nevertheless, I confess that my knowledge on the Christian faith is still meager, but fortunately, it is growing. I have always wanted to read the entire Christian Bible, but never really got around to it. Perhaps, I can make this my New Year’s resolution. 
Your claim that “Christianity didn’t drop from the sky” reminds me of another claim, “No one lives in a vacuum.”
Your claim about using sex as a restriction implies that defining illicit sexual activities as “sinful” is all about power, correct? And yet, self-control, like the other member mentioned, does have benefits. Your claim does have historical support. I do recall reading a history textbook about how people in the 1800s advocated the reduction of consumption of alcohol, and how women could use this prohibition of alcohol against their drunk husbands as legal protection. Whether the prohibition was related to Christianity or not, I cannot tell. So far, my history textbook did not mention anything about Christianity. Just the prohibition.
As long as you are aware of that reading the Christian Bible (which version?*) will give you not a lot of knowledge either about the history of Christianity beyond the first mission as told in “History of Apostles” and the asides in the Letters, but will also not give you much information about Christian beliefs today. The development both of the Christian Church (and later, Churches) and of theology - of how to interpret the parts in the Bible (and which should be chosen when in conflict) is not in the Bible itself.
- There is no one version of the Bible that all denominations agree upon.
A good overview of the history of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) (Vicars of Christ) and of the story of Jesus (The Great Myth) are the books by Peter DeRosa, educated as Catholic Priest before leaving the church. He writes in an easy to read style oriented towards lay readers.
A more scholarly approach would be Deschners Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (Criminal history of Christianity) but I don’t know if it’s been translated into English.
You could start with the staff reports and columns about Biblical topics:
Who wrote the Bible? (5 parts in all)
Lost books of the Bible * this also explains a bit why different Churches = denominations have different books added into the Bible or left out
What’s up with Noah and the curse of Ham? (How the Bible was used to justify slavery, but the interpretation has changed today)
A good perspective, if you have enough time to go through years of posts, is Fred Clark’s site. He used to be on slacktivist, but then moved to patheos, an interfaith site for many religions (the community of slacktivists, who contain atheists, pagans and gays, were received less than friendly at patheos and several have set up their own site now at the old slacktivist site).
Fred grew up a fundie Evangelical, but then became rational and started learning history and theology. Now he writes from a compassionate, humanist, liberal, perspective, still a faithful believer in Christian God, pointing out how many of the fundie preachers are going against established theology, logic etc.
He also recommends books about theological topics, discusses parts of the scriptures, writes about politics and poverty. And he dissects Left Behind series, and explains why you should never use a Schofield “annotated” Bible. (I would recommend you the Bible in fair language - Bibel in gerechter Sprache - but AFAIK it’s only in German.
I’m not claiming that’s the only motivation, only that rules about sex from religious figure predate Christianity and are found all over the globe.
Religious morals in many cases are not about self-control, but about following rules strictly. Looking esp. at the Roman Catholic rules, often times the conclusion reached by applying strict logic to a wobbly premise sounds utterly insane to anybody outside.
For example, that lustful sex inside your marriage is a sin as great as murder, because sex is only intended for procreation, not for lust (that was at one point - the popes changed their minds several times on what exactly sex in the marriage was for, how much was allowed, how you should feel about it… when trying to decide if, and yes, what, kinds of birth control were allowed.
That’s also an example of how the “natural” explanation can end up misleading: the calendar method (counting the days from the period, to calculate the infertile and fertile days, and then abstain on fertile days and only have sex on fertile days.) is now allowed for Catholics because it’s “natural”
At first, it was forbidden, because all birth control besides total abstaining was bad (it interfered with God’s plan). Now it’s allowed because sex has a major and minor purpose* in the marriage, no longer only procreation, and so birth control can serve a Christian purpose, but total abstinence is too difficult to do.
So messing with nature by counting days is natural, but using a barrier like a condom is not natural because …? (No other species use the calender method, either.)
Critics called it the Vatican Roulette, or joked that the only reason that it’s allowed is because it doesn’t work.
** People in the alternative scene often use thermometers (the temp rises slightly when ovulating) or watching the viscosity of the slime in the vagina opening to determine the fertile days when trying to conceive as more natural and less disruptive to the body than using hormones, but that’s not what the Vatican was thinking about.
*** Minor purpose means that the unmarried Clergy have finally realized that in real life, people have sex not only for making babies, but as part of making love. That is what biologists speculate as the reason for why humans alone have desire to have sex even when the female is already pregnant: human babies need stable families; sex binds them together. Not 100%, but often enough that it worked for evolution.
Self control is something else entirely.
Probably because it was not only a Christian movement. There were many groups advocating for less drinking because of the many problems from it; some of them feminists, some of them health-related, some of them Christians concerned about the families, some of them Christians concerned about morals from doing anything in excess.
If you want to know about the Christian angle, you would need to read a book about the development of the Christian attitude towards ascetism/ puritanism, which waned and grew in influence over different periods and different countries.
The older I get, the more I become aware that sexual abstinence is too difficult to do for certain individuals. If the number of individuals is really the whole human race, then I must be one peculiarity! I have never believed this claim, even though you (and many other sources) point this out. Rather, I have doubted it, because it seems to conflict with me. In other words, it’s like saying that people want to have sex, and not having sex is difficult and unnatural, thereby I must be abnormal or at least unusual or suffer from some sort of mental disorder. I think the claim is forgetting that there may be a small – perhaps negligible – minority of people who naturally are not interested in sex, don’t think about sex, and don’t want sex, and are perfectly sane. I am not convinced that I am insane, though your wording sounds like I (or people like me) are just not “normal”.
Please don’t twist my words. I did not at all make the claim that because you aren’t interested in sex that you are in any way insane!
But yes, the number of people is the “whole human race” and history shows that even if you threaten people with burning in eternal hell fire - most people will not permanently abstain.
Therefore, abstinence is hard.
This statement borne out by hard studies as well as biology that sex is an important drive in human mind does not make any statement about those people who aren’t “interested much in sex”.
In the Bible, in one of the Paul letters there’s the famous line that “some people are eunuchs for the sake of heavens, let him that grasps this understand it”. This has been twisted by the RCC to mean that priests must be celibate, when it’s obvious that Paul is referring to
most people like sex and can’t abstain for ever
but some people aren’t interested in sex, so better for them if they want to take care of other things (spiritual).
Paul was adressing the real problem in the new churches: were all believers required to abstain? Were those who were celibate better than those who struggled? His answer was pragmatic and diplomatic: no, not everybody is required to; those who happen to naturally not be inclined, good for them.
One question is: what’s the purpose of celibacy/ abstinence - to concentrate on heaven? Then it’s a bonus if you aren’t interested.
or to simulate Jesus’ suffering by denying yourself something (Similar to other forms of ascetism like fasting) - then celibacy isn’t any sacrifice if you aren’t interested; you aren’t struggling, after all.
(Many apologists for celibate today use both reasons).
The claim that people who aren’t interested in sex are not quite normal (nobody calls it insane) does not come from mainline Christianity, after all, but from Psychologists. They coined the terms of frigidity to describe somebody who has sex without feeling pleasure - for the Church, that’s a commendable aim! For the shrinks, it’s a sign that either something is wrong with the brain, or (more often) the education of that person was messed up (the Church stressing over and over again how women shouldn’t feel any lust during sex led naturally to a lot of frigidity and repression).
Shrinks also say that the other extreme side - people who want to have sex all the time or change partners without getting into any real relationships - are also damaged and not normal.
From a psychological perspective, a normal human has a desire both for sex (with some people) and for companionship/ relationship*. Having no pleasure in sex with somebody you otherwise love = unhealthy
having lots of sex but nobody to love (or falling in and out of love all the time) = unhealthy
Note that psychologists aren’t passing judgment; they are saying that deep down, people who are unhealthy (or not-normal or what’s the current correct term in English) suffer and want to have a healthier relationship. Not all seek help, depending on how much they suffer (or what other problems they have), but when they got to a shrink, the shrink will try to integrate the sex into their life so they will feel better.
One other question is: What kind of life is the abstaining person living? “Alone without a partner” is different from “living with a loving spouse” from “living in a cold estranged marriage”. “Their whole life is happy so they don’t miss sex because they are totally concentrated on their work” is different from “under stress because working 12 hrs/day in shitty job away from the family, no pleasure outside work except drinking or whores” or “working with beautiful women hanging on to his lips all day”. It’s easy to see why in some cases, “no interest” is not a big deal, but in other, it affects another person, or how in some cases, it’s easy to abstain, but in others, very hard.
*Notice that’s the reason why Adam in Genesis wants a wife - he’s lonely, not horny.
This was never in doubt. There are certainly some individuals for whom abstinence works. It’s a generality. It’s not meant to be true for literally every single human being on the planet.
Surely, you understand this. I can make the claim, “Everybody is against murder”. That’s probably NOT literally true, but it’s true for the overwhelming majority of the human race.
That said, it is completely ludicrous to even entertain the notion that total abstinence is possible for more than a small token number of people.
The proof is ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY! Teenagers have been finding ways to have sexual intercourse across all of human history in every human society ever known, whether or not it was discouraged or punished.
Nobody has ever found a way to enforce total abstinence for more than a few token individuals. Even among Buddhist monks, you’re going to get the occasional backslider. And even when total abstinence is practiced, the desire to engage in sexual intercourse is rarely extinguished. It’s merely controlled.
as the responses show, it’s only within the abrahamic religions that male homosexuality is considered unnatural. men have always been butt buddies in tribal society, as patty smith (the one with hairy armpits) once said, being any gender is a drag.
Sex and reproduction are part of the magic spell that holds the fabric of society together. To allow anyone to put a DC plug into an AC receptacle could short circuit the entire program and the harvest might not come.
I wasn’t twisting your words. I made a misinterpretation and exaggeration of your words, but I was not “twisting” them to fit any sort of agenda, for I have none. “Twisting” implies one has a secret agenda, usually a political one. “Misinterpreting” or “exaggerating” would be more suitable here.
Hmmm… as I recall, there were two versions of Genesis. One version was when God made Adam and Eve together at the same time. Another version was when God made Adam first and took a back bone from Adam to make Eve. Neither of them said that Adam wanted a wife. On the other hand, I may be mistaken altogether. My memory of this story is getting a bit fuzzy.
Yeah. And I hope that Constanze understands that “in ancient times” does not really mean literally Ancient Greek times. I meant to say any time that happened past living memory, which would be, for example, the Victorian Age. In the first post, I even mentioned the “Victorian Age”. Hmmm… I should have been more specific, though. :rolleyes:
Before we go on further, maybe it’s best to define what is “total abstinence”. That way, we can be on the same page. 
Is it me, or am I the only one who find it remarkable that teenagers would have sex, even when there is a negative incentive to do so? I would assume that people are more likely to choose something with more positive incentives. If there is a negative incentive, such as a rule that discourages a behavior, then one would be less likely to engage in such behavior. Or perhaps there may have been rebellious teens all throughout history?
I wonder how does personality affect choices. Perhaps, one teenager can be docile, quiet, and reserved, and another teenager can be wild, noisy, outgoing, and overwhelmingly rebellious against one’s elders. Just a thought.
“Nobody said that humans are rational” is probably a metaphor. If taken literally, it can easily be made false when one person announces, “Humans are rational creatures.”
I read The Cartoon Guide To Sex, by Larry Gonick, and I swear it does say that one of the reasons that people do not use birth control to protect themselves is that it requires planning. Not really “timely planning”. That is my erroneous addition. But it does require planning, such as buying condoms or contraceptives in the first place and overcoming the embarrassment of buying them. If you read the book, then you can see a funny picture of some person’s parent wondering what the purchasing condoms is all about, as if the parent is opposed to buying condoms and having premarital sex. I think the cartoon is hinting that some people do not want to face the embarrassment of interest of sex, so they don’t plan, and by not planning, they risk their lives.
I was paying attention to this passage:
The phrase “the spilling of the seed” is referred to once, while I was reading in an American History textbook. In the 19th century, there were groups that wanted to prevent “social evils”, one of which was “the spilling of the seed”. “The spilling of the seed” influenced people to not waste the seed and to engage in sex non-gratuitously. I may have extrapolated the phrase to mean “masturbation” or “wasting the seed on unnecessary sexual activities”.
Embarrassment of sex is probably one common experience that people face in the U.S. In The Cartoon Guide To Sex by Larry Gonick, the first page totally addresses this issue. When I read it, I found it too funny, because the first page really asked the reader to make a boring cover, if the reader was too embarrassed about reading about sex. In high school, one of my classmates was asked to read the names of some biological, technical terms of the human reproductive system, and the classmate giggled and felt embarrassed at even saying them. Then there was the time when one male classmate said while responding to someone else, “Counting sheep in my sleep? I’d rather count women in my sleep.” A female classmate added, “I’d rather count men in my sleep.” The third said the most humorous, “I think she was saying that she would rather count men, and you would rather count women. Nothing perverted or anything. Sheep. Fields. Men. Fields. Get it?” So, a mind interested in sex is a perverted mind. Now, what kind of person would want to be associated with sexual perversion?
I’m having a hard time believing that you think this is a credible line of thought.
People in general (not just teenagers) don’t always think through their actions. Why should teenagers be any different? Especially when it involves an act that occurs thousands of times a day and is not considered all that unusual or bad.
As for “incentives”: sex feels good. Really good. It’s hard to come up with a much more positive incentive than that. Most brains are pretty much wired to seek out pleasurable sensation. Why do kids prefer candy to oatmeal? Why are video games more popular than 18th century novels?
External “rules” or standards of behavior require engaging just the rational part of the brain. That doesn’t touch the part that acts on impulse or instinct, like sex does. Is this really such a surprise?
What does this have to do with anything?
I was overwhelmingly the former (as I still am and as I imagine many other people are). It didn’t mean I wasn’t actively seeking out sex as a teenager, no matter what the folks at church, parents, teachers, or society had to say about the matter.
It strikes me as incredibly naive that you would think teenagers “choose” to seek out sex because they are being rebellious.
Heck, even in countries where public displays of affection are discouraged with potentially life-altering punishments (say…Saudi Arabia), you can’t stop kids from trying to have sex.
They seek sex out because it feels good. Full stop. End of Line. That’s all, folks.
Where and how does this follow (no, your explanation makes abso-freaking-lutely no sense)?
Teenagers (and certainly American teenagers) have had embarrassing sexual experiences for all of recorded history.
Take a look at any teen sex comedy. It’s full of embarrassing sexual experiences and intense interest in sex, yet rarely presents sex as an inherently bad thing.
Note that it’s NOT associated with perversion but, instead, with a (perhaps slightly overly) healthy interest in the act of sex.
None of your thoughts on sex make any sense if you have had ANY exposure to popular culture. Or indeed any culture in human history.
I wasn’t trying to exclude out only teenagers. I was only setting teenagers as an example. Sorry for the confusion.
In the PBS episode, Mind Over Money, it is shown that emotion does influence decisions, so you do have a point on that part. However, just because emotion influences decisions, I am wary that reason cannot overcome it at all. If candy has a negative incentive (eating too much can ruin your appetite for supper), then a child would reason that eating candy is, although pleasurable, should not be taken to extremity OR choose to avoid eating candy altogether in order to avoid the temptation of eating candy.
It strikes me as incredibly inconsiderate that you would think or imply that I think that that was my way of thinking that could not be changed; inherently, I think you meant to say that my mind was dogmatic and unchangeable. I was merely posing a hypothesis: it might be true or false. And according to your opinion, it seems that my hypothesis has no support. That’s it.
Thank you so much for criticizing me ad hominem. You really think that I do not have any exposure to popular culture or any culture in human history, based on my words of this thread. From where, may I ask, do you draw this conclusion? Do you know where I live? Do you know what books I like to read? Do you know what movies I like to watch? Do you have any rational ground to say that a person who questions the mindset of others is a person who does not have any exposure to popular culture or any culture in human history?
In summary, I would like to explain my reasoning for starting this thread. Two school quarters ago (during summer quarter 2011), I took an English class at my university to finish the English GEC requirement. One of the books that I had to read to study was Oscar Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray. Oscar Wilde was a brilliant, very creative, and very witty author during his time, but when the infamous court case opened up his private life and sexuality, his reputation in society was quickly ruined. My English teacher said that the Victorians didn’t understand homosexuality at the time, but after reading the book, I have had two additional questions.
-
Why were the Victorians so prudish in terms of sex? Why did the lawyer in the court case call Oscar Wilde’s case as “gross indecency”? How “grossly indecent” was it? One passage from the novel was extracted to be used in court, as if it had sexual connotations, but why did the court believe that the book had sexual connotations in the first place? Yes, it is an obvious sign that Basil Hallward shows his love for Dorian though his painting, but he never makes an attempt to have sex with Dorian. Oscar Wilde probably also self-censored to make sure that the novel would not be too scandalous in the Victorian era, in addition to the additional censorship he received from critics when the novel was first published. It was called an “immoral book”, and Wilde replied that books could never be judged immoral or moral, but rather well written or badly written. Why did the Victorians dislike sodomy? One phrase used in the court case, I recall, was “sodomitic vice”. Why was sodomitic vice so bad? What’s so bad about two men having sex with each other? How did sodomy harm society, as people presumably thought it did?
-
In terms of living a life of restrictions, why are there some people who would not play by the rules and do something objectively or subjectively bad anyway? What is their motivation? What incentive makes these people say that a behavior has more positive incentives than negative incentives and therefore one should have sex despite that the sex is socially disapproved? Is emotion really so powerful enough as to dictate people’s conscious decisions so that it appears that rationality has no effect no matter what? Please note that I am NOT making a remark that homosexuality is a conscious choice; I am merely stating in general conscious decisions, and having sex is a conscious choice. Sexual orientation, on the other hand, has been supported extensively that it is not a conscious choice.
Oh, trust me, total abstinence is easy. I speak from experience. You just have to be fat, balding, ugly and have an abrasive personality, and it quickly becomes the only option.
Or you may be shy, reserved, and have high expectations for marriage. Someone like Jane Bennet, the eldest sister of the Bennet family in Pride and Prejudice. Then again, maybe I shouldn’t compare someone from the early 19th century with someone today. It wouldn’t be fair, since social norms have changed a lot since then!
Yes, there are two different, [a href=“Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia”]seperate stories of Genesis[/a]: the Jahwe narrative and the Priestly narrative. They have different ages and the priestly one - though younger, appears first - is obviously influenced by the Babylonic religion, hence the strong emphasis on the Number 7.
In the priestly narrative, man and woman are created together in God’s image; but in the jahwist narrative, man (Adam) is created first. He feels lonely and God realizes it’s not good for him to be alone, so he brings all the other creatures to Adam for naming. Adam names them, but doesn’t find a companion, so God lets a sleep fall over him, takes the rib and makes Eve.
There is quite a difference between “Ancient times” which encompasses not only ancient Greece, but generally known history, and “Living memory” which is around 100 years.
Even then, you’re still talking only about those cultures influenced by judeo-christian values, not all cultures on Earth.
Total abstinence means “No sex ever”. It doesn’t mean “no sex until I found the spouse I want to marry” or “no sex until the child is 2 years old”.
Even temporary abstinence: “no sex while migrant workers are away from their families for months on end” or “no sex for teens until marriage” have a catastrophic high rate of failure. This is what’s shown by bare numbers, even if you don’t believe it because you are so different. How you feel about sex doesn’t change how must humans react towards it. (And abstinence-only sex education turns out catastrophically in all studies because it never offers alternatives. It’s not about “as teens, you should delay sex until you are emotional mature enough, and should have it in an approriate context, not drunk in the backseat of a car - but if you do loose control from the hormones raging wild in your body, then use a condom, here’s how”. Instead, it’s about “Good girls keep their virginity until marriage, otherwise they are sluts who go to hell, so guard your vagina”, so when the teens loose control sooner or later, they do it without condoms, which is bad both because of possible pregnancy and of AIDS/ STD.
It is you, and you must have grown up in an extremly isolated place to believe this. First, during puberty, hormones are raging wild while at the same time the frontal lobe - which controls long-time behaviour planning and thoughts - is being re-structured. Not only does character and personality change, there are wild mood swings. Again, this is biologically proven even if you don’t want to believe it from your own experience.
All these hormones make teens want to have sex despite negative consequences; and the positive consequence is the sex itself, which releases hormones of satisfaction. That’s why people keep having sex, it makes them feel good despite the guilt.
And teens have been rebellious throughout history - real history, that is, not only “Living memory past 100 years” history. It’s a good evolutionary tool: if a society is too stable for generations, it can’t adapt to changing enviroment; if a society is too anarchic-chaotic, it also can’t survive in an enviroment. So each generation society must balance between the need to conserve what’s good of the old ways - the function of older people - and the need to implement what’s good of the new ideas - the function of rebellious teens asking “Why don’t we do things different?” (Because we always did it this way is not a satisfactory answer).
Um, this is not news. Yes, teens can be docile - an apt choice because it usually describes animals, not humans. It means that people have been so crushed that they don’t dare express their own opinion, preferences or anything that goes against the elders, instead becoming a puppet or clone.
This is bad not only for the individual, who can’t develop into a mature personality, but will remain stunted and dependent on authority telling them what to do and feel, but also for society who lacks fresh impulses and will calcify until it topples over unable to deal with the modern world.
Unless the younger person at a later age finaly throws of the mental restraints from education - but if somebody rebels not at age 15, as most people do, but at age 25 or 35, the fallout is usually greater.
No, it’s not a metaphor, and it can’t be disproven by somebody saying “they are”. It refers to the fact that although people may believe or claim that they act rational, in fact a lot of decisions are based on emotions.
I don’t know how reliable Larry Gonick is, and I don’t usually refer to Cartoon Guides, but to studies based on thousands of people.
I can’t adress the embarrassement issue without another warning.