Re: Religion and Sex
J J R (jrovira@juno.com)
Mon, 19 Oct 1998 16:46:55 -0400 (EDT)
On Sun, 18 Oct 1998 10:46:06 -0400 Lomanno <lomanno@ix.netcom.com>
writes:
>Jim wrote:
>
>> But, within the context of my experience, a good orgasm does the
>same
>> thing :) So what do we use to judge between experiences?
>>
>
>I don't think an orgasm has ever made anyone a better person by
>providing insight into the nature of the world (although they may have
>thought so at the time). In fact, orgasm is a good analogy because
>that's how I think of religion (more specifically, ORGANIZED
>religion).
eh, I was replying to something else, now :) The post I replied to
defined religion, at that point, as a Good Feeling--something that
"incites that ultimate emotion inside." My point was that we could get
that "ultimate emotion" from a number of different sources, an orgasm
being one of them.
And the use of the imagery wasn't random, either. If you read anything
from Donne to Herbert to Solomon to Ron Hansen to the Apostle Paul human
sexuality is often used as an analog for intimacy with God.
But where do we get our ideas of being a "better" person? What is the
goal we are striving for? What makes a better person? If we gain
insight into the world around us, what difference does that make?
And what do we mean by "insight into the world around us"? If we are a
part of this world, and there is nothing else, what relevance does
"insight" have? What difference do our beliefs make if we are indeed
just complex chemcial mechanisms running on some kind of biological
autopilot, our existence ending when we die?
Doesn't the desire to denounce theism as a form of "untruth" require some
form of the transcendent itself? As if there were something "bigger" or
"outside" that we could know about? Or, more accurately, an "outside" we
could go to in order to look at our present situation from a more
objective position?
It's like trying to look at your eyeball when you live inside your
eyeball. If there's just the eyeball, it's impossible. If there's an
"outside" of the eyeball, however, you can see it from there, even if
it's only in the reflection of a mirror placed in front of the eyeball.
>It's something that people do to make them feel good about themselves,
>to make them feel like they "belong," and for some, to make them feel
>self-righteous (please note, I'm not referring to anyone on this
>list).
Sorry, but you're not really in a position to judge the motives people
have for holding to certain beliefs unless you share those beliefs
yourself. I mean, couldn't your criticism here be viewed as a bit smug
and self-righteous?
Look, if I want to feel good about myself, I wouldn't go to a church that
requires me to admit I'm a sinner, eh? I'd go somewhere that told me I
was God, really, and that there is no substantial difference between
right and wrong (hence, no need for guilt). Honestly, I'd feel better
about myself as a Hindu than as a Christian. At least initially--on a
surface level. Once I got deeper, I'd have to admit that there's no
"self" to feel good about, at least not a "my"self.
>But the feelings that come from orgasm are not real; they are NOT
>"love"
>or "respect" or "transcendence," although many tend to think so.
>
That's not necessarily true either. The meaning of the orgasm depends
upon the relationship between the people sharing it. Between a
prostitute and her customer, well, no, there's probably no love, respect
or transcendence to speak of. Between a man and a woman deeply in love,
the culmination of the sexual act can be a powerful experience that goes
much deeper than just the chemical reactions involved.
I can only speak for my experiences. I've had sex that was pretty
meaningless, and sex that made me feel like a god.
But here we are again, up against the idea of transcendence. It's so
woven into our thought that we can't even argue with it without using
ideas borrowed from it. See, I can't distinguish between different kinds
of experiences unless I make reference to something beyond the mere
chemical reactions involved.
>Organized religion, to me, is that "fake" feeling that everything's
>alright with the world just because god is there.
Again, you can't speak about someone else's experience unless you've
shared it. In the church I attend, close to 50% of the people present
have been divorced at least once. One man I know has a kid in jail,
another woman has finally started getting over anorexia and bulimia. A
couple people have cancer, some have heart trouble, others have serious
financial problems. SEVERAL were terribly abused as children. None of
these people's feelings are "fake," and the fact is they would know
better than to say "everything's alright with the world."
In fact, they'd pretty much resent the idea.
What's really funny is that these people are caring, considerate, and
interested in you despite their own problems. That's not terribly fake
either.
I don't need
>something
>separate from myself to "judge between experiences." I can judge for
>myself; I know the difference between right and wrong, and I don't
>need
>the threat of eternal damnation to make me a good person :)
>
What is the difference between right and wrong, and how do you know? Are
you sure you're not just following some biologically wired survival
instinct, or simply swallowing wholesale some societal programming? How
can you say there are "good people" and "bad people" to begin with?
>I believe all the answers to the world lie right on this earth. We are
>born here, and we die here. I don't need to know anything beyond that.
>Like I said, I'm agnostic. Our spirits may go somewhere else. But
>that's
>not really my concern. All I want is to learn what I can about the
>world
>while I'm here, to be the kindest person I can be, and to try to make
>the lives of those around me a little better. Now would, say, the
>Christian god send me to hell for these things simply because I don't
>believe in him specifically?
>
>--Kari
>
Ok, let's pull a Keats and suspend disbelief for a minute. Let's say
there is a Christian God. Let's say the whole ball of wax is true.
Let's say that it's true that we can never really be that good--none of
us--so that the only way to get into heaven is by asking for mercy (and
recognizing that no, you're not all that good and kind after all).
Now, what's He supposed to do to people who Deserve ultimate punishment
but refuse mercy? Just say, "ah, forget about it?" Then He'd be unjust.
Suppose you were a Jew that had been killed in the Holocaust--wouldn't
you be a little Peed Off that someone got off scot-free without even
being Sorry for it?
So what choice is left?
Jim
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]