In response to my post about being sexually starved and feeling horny s-p posted a comment wondering what his sexual behavior would be like without the moral boundaries provided by his Christian faith. The following is my response, a little embellished.
*************
I think the germain issue here is one of "self-control," as in, how does one have a sufficient amount of self-control to keep from ruining their own or others' lives? I've been thinking about this the last couple of days since you posted your comment and here are my thoughts...
1) In my opinion, lack of self-control is largely a matter of maturity, not of religion. In other words, we all are born with radical self-interest. Nothing else really matters. A big part of any growing up process is learning that we can't always get what we want when we want it... either because it will hurt others or hurt ourself. Everyone in every culture has to learn that. Some do it better than others. Some do it earlier than others. Teenagers usually don't do it very well at all. Parents start out by imposing lots of "other control," but ideally do that less and less as their child learns "self control." Most people eventually grow up, and learn what the limits of their behavior needs to be. Life teaches them. It's simply a matter of what works.
2) Many people reach the point of maturity without the need for the "other control" of an invisible all-powerful justice-meting being (god) to keep them in line.
3) Most people throughout history have been able to reach this point of maturity without even knowing about the god of the bible.
4) Many people who rely on the justice-meting god to keep them in line never seem to grow up. They seem to stay stuck in perpetual adolescence... trying to get away with as much as they can without getting in too much "trouble." They never develp an "inner" morality that is a part of who they "are," vs what they "do."
5) For those of us from our background, when we feel out of control it is very tempting to run back to the safety of the god-pen, where the rules are well defined and the consequences for misbehavior are dire. It feels safer. We are relieved. The chaos dissipates somewhat. From a psychological standpoint, however, this seems to be a retreat from the task of maturity that one had been facing. Obviously, this is preferable to running amuck, but is it the best choice?
6) When we feel out of control and have made a mess out of our or others' lives the metaphors of the sinful nature, and the war between the flesh and spirit ring very true. However, in my experience, if I sent one person in this out of control state to a pastor to help them learn the dire consequences of their sin, and to help them learn how to be filled with the spirit and crucify the flesh... and sent another person to a psychotherapist to help them learn self-control... my bet is with the psychotherapist. That is, the person I send there will have a much better chance at truly growing and maturing as a person, vs simply "containing" their most extreme behavior via a perpetual dependence on an invisible and difficult to comprehend/access force.
7) Leaving the god-pen can be very scary. All that freedom. What will we do with it? (Think young adults returning home.) Eric Fromm wrote a book called "Escape from Freedom," wherein he describes the tendency of man to succumb to authoritarian systems (including religion) to escape from the fear and complexities of freedom. But in so doing, they give up a piece of themselves.
8) It may go without saying, but because one finds comfort and relief and less chaos within a punitive religious system does not make it true.
9) There are reasons for self-control, even in religion, that appeal to something higher than a fear of punishment... a desire to please god, to be like christ, etc. In religious and non-religious environments one can certainly learn "empathy," truly not wanting others to experience any unnecessary pain because of us. Treating others the way we want to be treated is a common teaching in pretty much all religions and is common in societies with no religion at all.
10) Self-control often has to do with delayed gratification. We have the impulse to do or have something, but we many need to wait in order to get it in a way that won't hurt us or others. It has a long-term perspective on life; not just what makes us feel good in this very moment. Many things that would feel real good right now will lead to destruction down the road. So, a big part of maturity is learning to deal with a certain degree of discomfort now for better rewards later.
11) In my upbringing the fear of hell was the primary motivation for not doing wrong. In my religious environment one unreprented sin at death would send you straight to the lake of fire. When I got older I encountered this strange breed of Christians who believed in "once saved always saved." That completely flummoxed me. If they're saved, and they know that nothing can change that, why don't they live like the devil?? Well, obviously they found many other reasons to live a moral life other than fear. In actuality, they probably lived better lives than those of us constantly cringing!
So what do you think? Do you need god or religion to help keep you in line? If you absolutely unquestionably came to believe that there was no god, how would that change your behavior?
No, I don't need god or religion to help keep me in line. I don't think I'd change all that much, really. I learned "do unto others", the value of honesty, hard work, and integrity from my parents apart from religion. Building a good "name" for yourself has benefits far reaching beyond religion.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't be a liar because I like for people to trust me, I'd have a good work ethic because I like being dependable. I wouldn't become a tramp because I value a monogamous relationship. I would still value all the same ethical standards I valued before. I just wouldn't feel guilty for living my life.
D'ma
ReplyDeleteFor some reason that reminds me of a quote about episcopalians... all the liturgy without the guilt!
D'Ma, I think this is where the "total depravity" and "all your good works are filthy rags" kind of stuff shoots people in the foot. It essentially denies the "image of God" in which we are created. Insofar as we are living according to that image, it is of God whether we "believe in God as defined by someone's doctrine" or not. I'd probably go out on a limb and say "theology" obliterates the image more often than "sin" does.
ReplyDelete@s-p,
ReplyDeleteThe problem is scripture does tell us our righteousness is as filthy rags, and the we are not one of us good, no not one. Though I would agree with you the God that fundamentalists have created is too hard to please. Some progressives/liberals have created one who is just love and sunshine. I guess it just comes down to the question for me: Is there any "image of God" that wasn't created by man? I'm not convinced that the Bible God is it.
D'Ma, Yup, I agree everyone has their Bible verses to support their views. One person's "IN context" is another person's "heresy". Ultimately, yes, God is a mystery and the bottom line of the mystery is the only scripture that says what God "IS": Love. He is not "judgment", He is not "wrath". All of our human experience (created in the image of God), says "romance" is a much better story than "court".
ReplyDelete