Religion and sexuality

[SummerMorning]

Right, hopefully this post will be short(ish) - shouldn't scare anyone off. I'd make it longer, but I need to go exercise before lunch.

It begins in relation to Sweetnpetite's location:

"Sex is the cause of and reason for life. Religion tries to compartmentalize sex into a separate (forbidden) category but it isn't seperate, it's a part of everything we are and everything we do. It is our reason for being."

The thing with religion and sex is, well, complicated - like all interesting things dealing with people. We must note that there is not one religion, there are thousands. Further, each individual interprets religion in their own way, so none of this is holds in all cases.

The religion that the citation most likely refers to is Christianity. Indeed, the study of religions has progressed in quite an interesting way. Till the 19th century, for example, religious studies in the West tended to mean Christian studies, as Christianity was accepted as pretty much the only real and right religion.

In fact, religion is a far broader spectrum of human activity and belief. Religion doesn't require a god, specific rituals, actual worship. My opinion is that the basis of religion is actually an individual need for a system of belief that makes sense of the world, essentially a virtual order that enables the individual to function.

Back to religion and sex. Religions that view sex as "bad", "corrupting", "sinful", etc. are termed sexually pessimistic religions as opposed to sexually optimistic religions. Of the great world religions the most markedly sexually pessimistic are Christianity and Buddhism.

One method that Buddhist monks are taught to prevent their thoughts straying to the carnal involves thinking of women as "pustulent fleshy sacks filled with manure, parasites and disease". Unless you're a coprofiliac, very likely to put you off your morning bunny-imitation.

But to continue with Christianity, which (I'm making a wild guess here) is the religion that most shaped the culture into which most of us forum posters here have been socialized. Christianity's roots are (mostly) Judaism, via Judaism Zoroastrianism, Manicheism, Greek stoic philosophy and probably Buddhism and Hinduism via Zoroastrism and Greek philosophy as well.
Mainstream Judaism around 100 B.C. to 100 A.D. was not particularly sexually pessimistic. Certain branches, however, became nearly monastic - here I mean the Essenes, which some argue have had quite a formative impact on a man called Brian...pardon, Jesus.
The big step for sex-pessimismus was when Saul aka. Paul decided to make Christianity appeal to the gentiles - the Greeks in other words. Now, remember, Christianity back then was just another cult promising salvation and an afterlife. It was similar to the cult of Mithra, for example, stealing some important dates (25th December) and rituals (the Eucharist) among other things. So if it was to succeed it had to accept what was popular around 100 A.D. Now, one Greek bit of philosophy that became quite popular in the Roman Empire was stoicism. Stiff upper lip and all that. Also meaning self-denial and of course singing hymns of praise and joy to virginity.
That's where Mary became a virgin, by the way. The hebrew original, on which the evangelists and Paul based their writings, describes her with a word that can be translated as both "young girl" and "virgin". The Greek translation of the bible, the Septuagint, kept "virgin" - the pretty virgo of the Vulgata.

Now, as the Roman Empire slowly withered away, the idea that the world of the flesh was less important than the world of the spirit held quite a bit of appeal. You lose your land, your home - easier to say that it's your spirit that counts, right? At this time Christianity also faced several competing dualistic cults, for examples Mani's followers (the Manichaeans) - Mani was a Zoroastrian "renegade" more or less, subverting their Avestas to a more pessimistic telling. The Persians eventually had him killed as a heretic.
Mani taught that there were two worlds, essentially. The world of the spirit and the world of the flesh. The spirit was good, the flesh evil. To become good one had to shed the flesh, let it wither away. Very influential with the monks. One early Christian father called Origenes, influenced by this pessimism and the stoic praise of virgnity, castrated himself so he could remain "unsullied" for the Lord. Later on he realised he might have been a bit too literal in his reading of virginity, but no matter.
The Manichaeans were eventually crowded out by Christianity, which nevertheless accepted a significant bit of the flesh is bad doctrine. Celibacy thus became a means of showing how good and humble you were. Dualism popped up again and again as various heresies that the Church worked hard to (brutally and bloodily) supress - the Bogomils, the Cathars, etc.
Virginity and celibacy continued to be preached by the church. Why? Because of control. If you control the sex lives of your worshippers - how often they have sex, with who they have sex, whether their children are legitimate or not (for a while there in the 9th century the church required couples to be at least 7 relatives apart, if the marriage was to be sanctified, later they settled on a more reasonable 4 - so no second cousins! Third yes.).
Now, although our reason for being is quite individual, sex is indeed a part of who and what we are. We are not amoebas, we are sexually reproducing organisms. If you control this (large) part of a person's life, you control a large part of that person.
Take the example of celibacy for priests. Priests had to be controlled even more than the populace, they represented the apparatus (they still do) of the Church. That's why celibacy. It kept priests from passing on their parishes to their sons and centralized the Church - at the cost of an increase in the number of pretty young Church cooks and illegitimate sons called Bonifacius and Pancratius.

The line to protestantism, and especially the fundamentalist variants with their literal reading of the bible is of course quite clear. Certainly you take out the pope and some other things, but if you place as your supreme authority a text so doctored to present a patriarchal, masochistic, sex-pessimistic view of society as the ideal form - obviously you're going to end up somewhat prudish.

 

[SummerMorning]

OK - just got a bit paranoid that the computer might crash and I'd lose 5k characters.

Now for some sexual optimism - if you look in particular at Islam and Hinduism you will find sexually pretty optimistic religions. Islam, in fact, is not all that austere. Rather, it seems to positively approve of the good life - so long as you follow scripture, don't make idols, worship at the right times and so on. Granted, Islam as written is just as patriarchal as Christianity, if not somewhat more so - it takes care to make sure the men are happy, the women are...well...simply assumed as naturally subservient. But it is indeed within Arab Islamic culture that the perfumed gardens and the harems reached their height - and Islam is in favor of them.

Same with Hinduism - although patriarchal, it is nevertheless a religion that produced the kama sutra and practically the only one that posits love making as a way of reaching transcendence - yes, there are yogis who practice sex in order to unite with Brahma and step outside of Samsara, the cosmic cycle of birth and rebirth.

OK... I think I've had enough typing for a bit...

 

[Pure]

it would be handy if you cited your source and/or its url

 

[SummerMorning]

I study this stuff. I'm doing my thesis on a related subject. Books you could read would include "Sex and the Catholic Church" by U.R. Heineman and "No and Amen" by the same author. Further, you could read R.Otto "Holy", M. Eliade's fantastic three volume (sadly died before the fourth) "History of Religious Thought"...need I go on? Oh, look in the bible as well. Several interesting references, St. Paul to the Corinthians for example.

As for what I wrote - there may be unclear parts - I wrote it "live" so to speak, without reference materials at hand.

 

[English Lady]

*pops up her hand*


Ok....even though I am no doubt going to look completely stupid..


..what was the point of that? Was there a question hidden in there that i missed or was there not meant to be a question and it's one of them threads you shouldn't respond too?


I am terribly confused!(nothing new there)

But for my 2p worth Sex and religion might be at odds but as far as I know God doesn't have anything against sex...just the lying,cheating and general nastiness that can go on around sex(adultry for example)

I have no idea if thats relevent or not though*L*

 

[SummerMorning]

No...it was just interesting. Sweetnpetite asked me to elaborate on my comment on her location, so I did.

As to sex and religion - they are not at odds, they very much go together.

 

[pop_54]

Ha!!

Hmm interesting, many and varied religions a large number advocating 'no nooky' soon fucking die out if everone stuck to that idiom wouldn't they, dippy prick's. Or should I say not allowed to dippy prick's

I see the Catholic, (pass me another choir boy this one's split), priesthood got a mention, shame they don't practice what the preach, shame also that they condemn millions to death by aids in the third world by not allowing them to use condoms, fucking supercilious twats.

Just stick with our loose religion I think, C of E Protestant, we can fuck like bunnies and wear condoms if we want, even our vicar's been humping a local whore.

 

[Uther_Pendragon]

An interesting post. Some insights, some confusion of
terms, and some misunderstandings mixed in.
I'd point out one thing, the Septuagint, the Greek translation
of Hebrew holy books (not of "the Bible") was made several
generations before Christ. At the time it was made, Jews
holy bookS (really, scrolls); they had no single holy book.
The Septuagint became the accepted text among Jews
throughout the diaspora -- it made no appreciable impact
in the Jewish homeland. When Christianity spread, they
adopted Greek, which was the "lingua franca" of the time.
They used the Septuagint. Soon thereafter, at the
destruction of the Temple by the Romans, a group of Rabiis
decided that the community would be scattered and needed
a list of what books were definitive. They settled on the
one used by Jews (and Protestants) today. Despite being
several centuries after the translation of the Septuagint
the selection left out several books and sections of books
in the Septuagint. (As a consequence, Jews celebrate the
Feast of Lights, but can't read about it in their Bible;
Catholics can read about it in their Bible, but don't celebrate it.)

 

[Dirty Slut]

Whoa!

For one thing, Christianity is not a religion. RELIGION by its very nature dictates that if you are good enough, and follow all of their rules you will get to heaven, or heaven's equal. Catholisism is such a religion, as is Judeaism, Buddisim, and so on including Islam. Christianity in its rawest form states that we can never earn our way to heaven, that only one could, and he died on a cross to pay for all of mankinds sins. That if you believe, in effect taking a leap of faith, in him then you are a Christian. Are there christians who are members of the Catholic church, the Lutherens, Methodists, etc. add infinitem? Yes. Are all who belong to these associations christians? No. Why? Because it takes that leap of faith to believe that God came down here in the guise, and took on the flesh of a man, with the name of Jesus to save all of mankind from their own sins. Sound to simple to be true? That's why we call it faith. Sex isn't an aberration, after all God said to be fruitfull, and multiply. In saying that he made sex feel really good. It is the mind that condemns, and 98% of sex is in our minds.

Trying to catagorize, franchise, disenfranchise, departmentalise sex has always been a part of the various religions, and their precepts. For instance we say a woman is a whore when she exchanges sex for money. And yet it was God who said to the crowd; "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." By that he knew that in each mind those people ready to stone the woman they perceived as a whore had already condemned themselves for wanting to be with her, or be like her in their minds. This woman became one of his most faithful followers. Her name was Marry Magdeline. Christ even went so far on his sermon on the hill to explain that thinking of sin was just as bad as actually doing the sin, and only added one additional commandment to the original Ten: "Love thy neighbor as thy self."

And so it isn't sex that is evil, it is the mind that perceives it according to religious quantifiers. God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, but it was the people who insisted on him writing up the rest of Mosaic law, and thus creating Juedaism. In truth much of the Mosaic Law comes from good old fashioned horse sense concerning the environment that mankind lived in at that time. And least we forget, back in those days men could have more than one wife, but women couldn't have more than one husband. Of course there were rules for how to make this work fairly and equitably amongst the wives and concubines, but human nature being what it is, most men screwed that up just as much anything else that they did. And eventually monogamy took over. Oh, and the Ten Commandments says one shouldn't covet thy Neighbor's wife, it didn't say you couldn't have sex with her if the husband didn't mind. And that's one of the reasons the people forced Moses to expand, and quantify that commandment with more rules, and guidelines thus creating the Mosaic Laws. God only gave Ten Commandments, the Hebrews added a lot more of their own beliefs to make life back then a little more structured, and accountable. BTW it isn't Thou shalt not kill as inturpreted by King James, it is Thou shalt not Murder when properly translated from the original transcript writen in God's own hand, twice.

DS

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Summer,

You missed a long and exhaustive (or maybe "exhausting" is a better description) discussion of sex and religion in a thread called "Christian BDSM" a couple of months ago. One of the things discussed was: just when did sex become such a religiuous obsession? In my view, once you get outside of Paulist doctrine, the real obsession with sex seemed to come from the general atmosphere of Northern European hysteria during the reformation.

As for SNP's quote, I just assumed that SNP came from a Southern Baptist/evangelical background. Perhaps that's unfair, but most of the people I know who are still concerned with the "sinful" nature of sex come from that tradition, which seems to place a bigger emphasis on sin and hell in general than most other religions.

---dr.M

 

[Dirty Slut]

Originally posted by dr_mabeuse
Summer,

You missed a long and exhaustive (or maybe "exhausting" is a better description) discussion of sex and religion in a thread called "Christian BDSM" a couple of months ago. One of the things discussed was: just when did sex become such a religiuous obsession? In my view, once you get outside of Paulist doctrine, the real obsession with sex seemed to come from the general atmosphere of Northern European hysteria during the reformation.

As for SNP's quote, I just assumed that SNP came from a Southern Baptist/evangelical background. Perhaps that's unfair, but most of the people I know who are still concerned with the "sinful" nature of sex come from that tradition, which seems to place a bigger emphasis on sin and hell in general than most other religions.

---dr.M

There is a warning at the very end of the Holy Bible that basically says that none of the words therein should be added to, or taken away from. And thus when people do they create a religion.

DS

 

[SummerMorning]

An interesting post. Some insights, some confusion of
terms, and some misunderstandings mixed in.
I'd point out one thing, the Septuagint, the Greek translation
of Hebrew holy books (not of "the Bible") was made several
generations before Christ. At the time it was made, Jews
holy bookS (really, scrolls); they had no single holy book.

Yes - I quite agree. The septuagint or translation of seventy - reportedly seventy translators getting the same translation being proof of the books of the old testament being directly from god. I agree, I did not clarify that.

I also wanted to point out primarily point out that the mother of the messiah ("our" virgin Mary) turned from a "young girl" to a "virgin" in the translation.

 

[SummerMorning]

All...I'd love to reply right now, but have to run.

Dear DS - religion can be defined in different ways. I define it as a more or less coherent system of beliefs that people use to give meaning to the world around them and their position within it.

No mention of god.

As to christianity - christianity is in fact several thousand religions, characterized by their belief in someone called Christ getting crucified. The same goes for the other religions - there are islams, there are hinduisms, there are buddhisms. There are no monolithic religions.

As to god - I approach the subject from a religiologist's point of view. It is irrelevent whether there is a god or not for the matter under discussion, what is relevant is how and what people believe.

Please do not take this in any way as an assault upon your beliefs. Personally, however, I believe that all holy texts are written by people. Flesh and blood mortals with superstitions and fears like all of us.

OK - have to run...

good wintering all!

 

[Dirty Slut]

Originally posted by SummerMorning
All...I'd love to reply right now, but have to run.

Dear DS - religion can be defined in different ways. I define it as a more or less coherent system of beliefs that people use to give meaning to the world around them and their position within it.

No mention of god.

As to christianity - christianity is in fact several thousand religions, characterized by their belief in someone called Christ getting crucified. The same goes for the other religions - there are islams, there are hinduisms, there are buddhisms. There are no monolithic religions.

As to god - I approach the subject from a religiologist's point of view. It is irrelevent whether there is a god or not for the matter under discussion, what is relevant is how and what people believe.

Please do not take this in any way as an assault upon your beliefs. Personally, however, I believe that all holy texts are written by people. Flesh and blood mortals with superstitions and fears like all of us.

OK - have to run...

good wintering all!

I expected this reply, and it obviously comes from a non-christian. As for who writes all of the holy texts, that is a matter of opinion. If I am moved to write fiction, then we call it a muse. But what is a muse? You can't see them, or touch them, you can only listen with the inner ear. So whose to say that the muse for those holy texts that you speak of isn't, wasn't, or won't be God? In the end, it is a matter of faith, or the lack of it, and not doctrine/religion that focuses each of our beliefs.

I've heard many people say that Christianity is made up of Thousands of religions, and they state it as if it were a foregone conclusion, or fact when it is not. Religion persay is a view point, and nothing more. For one, there are not thousands of approaches to christianity, there is only one. And that is a matter of faith for every individual to take up with themself, and not the thought processes of the group of people they gather together with which is called a church. BTW, The true meaning of church is the people, not the building that they gather together in. And it isn't because Jesus was crusified on a cross until he died, a lot of people died on crosses. But that Jesus was God incarnent, arose, and conquered death, and all sin, and my absolute belief that he did so that makes me a christian, and nothing more.

DS

 

[SummerMorning]

Well good, DS! Then we agree perfectly! I will follow my creed and you yours and we shall get along, how grand!

But I was very unclear on Christianity, I see now. Something to do with English not being my native tongue, obviously. What I meant to say is that there is not one Christianity - there are thousands of Christianities (hehe, nearly typo'd Christianititties).

My point with the topic was, that although there are religions which are antagonistic and dismissive of sexuality, this is not a necessary conclusion. There are numerous religions which do see sexuality as a vital and important part of a human being. One that cannot be bypassed, ignored or treated as somehow vile and base.

The fact remains, however, that our entire Western school of thought, our occidental culture if you will, is based on a system of belief (aka. a religion) that has systematically and continously repressed human sexuality to a degree that is truly awesome. It is little wonder that we have become so "developed" and "rich" when so much sublimation has been forced upon our entire culture!

 

[Gary Chambers]

Aesthteics of prime importance

Summer Morning, thank you for taking the time to précis the vast volume of data linking our sexual politic with religion.

I can’t say for certain, but it’s possible that Sweetnpetite may have asked you to do that after I remarked on another thread that her sig line sums up my reason for writing erotica. Admittedly, when you point out the difference between sexually pessimistic and optimistic religions, perhaps her sig line needs some tweaking to ring as true as she intended it to be, and as I read it.

My reference to Sweetnpetite’s signature line was really a way of summing up my justification for writing erotica without creating a more lengthy diatribe. Since the subject has been expanded considerably, I think I should now offer a more complete explanation. In brief, I believe the highest calling I can aspire to is to encourage appreciation of life's aesthetic quality.

My first erotic writings of any note were created about twenty years ago strictly for profit. The stories I’m currently posting one by one on Literotica were written just a few years ago, but for the same reason. Unlike their earlier counterparts they have not earned me any money and I no longer expect them to. I’m happy to share them with a reading audience, and that’s all. What’s more interesting, however, is why I have reached the point where erotica has become my main interest as a writer. To explain it in full detail I would need to submit it in installments as a body of work, but I’ll try to précis it as you did with the religion-sex relationship.

Within the last year I became more acutely aware of something I’ve known for years, but have taken for granted: the fact that North American society is tainted with puritanical ideals. Since I was never a supporter of those ideals I lived for about forty years in North America without realising how profoundly they were effecting my life. I’m a politically radical person; a Marxist who endorses some forms of socialism merely because they are more socially acceptable than anarchy. I’m angry over the fact that right wing religious extremists have, in my view, completely hijacked the economic and cultural life of the entire continent, and I was looking for a way to fight back.

Since the control exerted by the right wingers includes a strangle hold on the media, there seemed little point in writing essays of social criticism, because they would never be published. It occurred to me, however, that the only reason others tolerate bullying by rightist leaders is because they, the people, have low expectations from life. They are convinced they don’t deserve better quality homes; more nutritious food; a night at the proverbial opera etc. Puritanical austerity has been made next to Godliness in their lives. So whenever people ask for something, whether it’s better road maintenance or more facilities to express themselves creatively, they are simply told that the economy won’t stand it, as though the economics of merchant capitalism are on a par with God’s laws and are always above question. I decided from there, that the most subversive thing I could do to fight back would be to write things that celebrate a more opulent lifestyle for everyone, in which the appreciation of the material world is more irrevocably linked to our spiritual fulfillment.

I’m not naive enough to think that sexy stories on Literotica are going to defeat domination by right wing extremists, or make people question the validity of libertine capitalism. The more people learn to appreciate erotica, however, the more likely they are to question the puritanism that is used to control them. I have other projects underway that go beyond erotica into subject areas such as fashion, fine art, politics, sport, gastronomy, music, drama, dance and so forth. I see erotica as working in tandem with these other projects, which include some publishing enterprises. As these enterprises gear up I hope to provide links to Literotica.

I was especially struck by your statement that we are sexually reproducing organisms, and if you control our sexuality then you control a large part of our lives. The control that corrupt leaders exert over people begins with control over their sexuality. By convincing people that their sexuality makes them evil and dirty, those leaders place themselves in the position of offering salvation. Make yourself clean and pious again by devoting yourself to the higher causes of this multinational corporation or that quasi political church group. Freeing people from that kind of control begins by freeing them to enjoy and appreciate themselves and each other sexually without shame. I’m fairly convinced of that, and that’s why Sweetnpetite’s signature line strikes a chord in me. After reading your post, however, I admit that I’d be inclined to say puritanism rather than religion seeks to compartmentalise sex. Apart from that I still think she did a good job of succinctly stating a case for erotica and sexual freedom in general.

 

[gauchecritic]

I have so many things to say about this thread, but am dumbfounded because I am not a learned religious person although I do admire how much information people can contain in their minds and speak to the subject in hand so eloquently.

To confound almost everyone who imagines they have a handle on me I'll use an oft said phrase in the less 'serious' answers to many topics.

Gary Chambers I think I love you. It's to do with your political ideas which concur so smoothly with my own and which coincidentally lead me to my question;

Isn't religion just politics? (Make of that what you will)

I really cannot stress this next point enough. Every single person that has contributed to this thread should really, really read a book called The Science Of Discworld II; The Globe by Terry Pratchett and Ian Stewart & Jack Cohen.

Why? Because it tells of 'Pan Narrans' the story telling ape, which it claims is what Homo Sapiens really is.

It covers religion (stories) and mankind's need for same, from forecasting the likely actions, and therefore outcome, of a lioness stalking prey, up to why religion, apart from it's political usefullness, is a dying form.

It touches on many anthropological themes, such as the apparent necessity to pass on memes (ideas required to ensure the survival of Pan Narrans) to the 'build a human kit' (how much nurture is involved in maintaining society as we know it).

Personally I think summermorning is splitting hairs in his/her review of SnP's location. But then, I'm like my Dad (Pops) religion is exactly like politics, as long as it doesn't get too much in the way of daily living, do what you like.

Gauche

 

[shereads]

One method that Buddhist monks are taught to prevent their thoughts straying to the carnal involves thinking of women as "pustulent fleshy sacks filled with manure, parasites and disease".

Fleshy? Who's fleshy?

Certain branches, however, became nearly monastic - here I mean the Essenes, which some argue have had quite a formative impact on a man called Brian...pardon, Jesus.

"He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy!"

The hebrew original, on which the evangelists and Paul based their writings, describes her {Mary}with a word that can be translated as both "young girl" and "virgin". The Greek translation of the bible, the Septuagint, kept "virgin" - the pretty virgo of the Vulgata.

Whoa. Now, that's interesting. If the original writer really did intend to say "a young girl," he'd be a bit frazzled to see that a slight misinterpretation resulted in a cult of the Virgin that has irrevocably altered that way Christ and his humanity are perceived, and that has also cursed the New Testament with some credibility issues that it might not deserve.

Can you recommend a good layperson resource that gives some non-"faith-based" background on the Old and New Testaments? I've always been curious about how accurately the King James Bible reflected the collection of translated and re-translated writings upon which it was based...And who decided which books were "apocryphal" and shouldn't be included? Did King James get the final word on whether Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, or was that already decided?

One early Christian father called Origenes, influenced by this pessimism and the stoic praise of virgnity, castrated himself so he could remain "unsullied" for the Lord.

If there is a God, that's got to be one of the thousands of times a day when he puts his head in his hands and goes, "No, no, no, no...What is it with you people and your genitalia, anyway? I thought you'd like those parts."

 

[shereads]

Re: Aesthteics of prime importance

I’m angry over the fact that right wing religious extremists have, in my view, completely hijacked the economic and cultural life of the entire continent, and I was looking for a way to fight back.

I was about to say, "Amen."

But it seems inappropriate.

 

[SadieRose]

Interesting this one...

I'm with Gary and Gauche on the grounds that all religion is political, even though not all politics are religious. Two thousand years ago and even up to three hundred years ago in Europe and America at least, the Church (representing Catholicism and the nascent branches of Christianity) controlled much of the wealth and lands and therefore the mores of the people who lived upon them.

These people on the whole (in Britain, at least) were pagan peoples who celebrated a faith based around fertility (both agricultural and procreational) their worship (such as it was) centred around the protection and nurture of their crops and families. Christian faith expanded across the lands when the early Priesthood saw a way of accumulating wealth and power by convincing these simple people of their ignorance.

The people in turn generally ignored what the priests had to say about their ways of worship being evil and sinful and carried on doing them anyway, but paid lip service to the God-Botherers in order to be left to their own devices. The Church in the meantime noted that no-one seemed to own all the land these people lived on and so they laid claim to it. They then used this 'ownership' to exact tithes and fealty from the populace.

When they realised that the people would just go on believing what they always had done, they had to come up with a new form of control so they began to point the finger of blame for disaster at the Shamans and the Cunning Men and Women, accusing them of consorting with the Devil (not a difficult connection for the newly Anglicised Christians to make, confronted with a Nature God, Cernunnos, who was often depicted as a naked man with horns and celebrated in wild, orgies of sexual excess designed to encourage the fertility of the land and the people in times when the population was sparse and hunger a constant threat).

And so the Church dreamed up the wonderful concept of Sin, especially Original Sin, to keep the proles under their thumb. Sex was power and pleasure and so it had to be regulated just the same as everything else. The Christian Church turned us from liberated and grounded individuals into sheep, constantly reminded of how low and dirty we are in comparison with the glory of their one True God. Because if we actually dared to believe that there was another way, a better way than the Christian way, then Heaven forbid it, but we might actually begin to think for ourselves! And then we might see how we had been duped and the poor Priests might have to actually work for a living.

And so they condemned the 'heretics' who stuck to their faith as witches and burned them until no one dared to question their authority. The Church is no longer allowed to torch unbelievers, thankfully, but it still sees fit to interfere in the ways of life and death of millions every day. The Christians shun anyone who dares to fuck outside of wedlock and sneers at same-sex partnerships. The Catholics deny us contraception and safe sexual practices, condemning countless followers of its faith to excessive families or slow death from HIV/AIDS.

No one here needs to be told to open their eyes to the fact that sex is power. For thousands of years, across the globe, people have known this and celebrated their delightfully variant sexualities joyfully and openly, without fear of persecution. They should not be afraid to live in love and trust and without ignorance born of fear, but that is - sadly - what most organised religions desire.


S.R.Bermingham (aetheist)

 

[The_old_man]

Since my great grandfather was educated as a Catholic Priest, My religious belief is somewhat slued from the norm.

I was raised to regard religion as my personal relationship with MY god. Church is no more than a social construct to help those who can/will not come to terms with them selfs.

 

[SadieRose]

It would be an interesting exercise to discover just how many posters here at LE were raised under a strict faith, and how many still observe that faith, no matter how much their sexual habits and other beliefs might contradict those teachings.

I'm not asking you to justify your belief, it's just an intriguing theory, that's all.

 

[shereads]

Raised a Southern Baptist, but they didn't get to me in time for it to fully "take." My dad was in the military, so until age 10 or so I attended non-denominational Sunday School services and learned that Jesus was a nice bearded man who was kind to sheep, and that if you memorized a certain Bible verse each week you could take home his picture.

It wasn't until we settled in the Bible Belt and returned to the family's religious roots that I learned the theory that God is a bad-tempered high school principal who, having finished creating the universe, has nothing better to do than set up rules and threaten his children with eternal torment if we break the rules.

I didn't buy it, but it left a legacy of guilt that I'm not sure anyone ever gets over.

My conservative brother-in-law, whose political beliefs are conveniently supported by his religious faith (God fights on the side of his college football team and his country's army) called me a "godless liberal" recently.

I explained to him that I have a God but no religion, and that there's a difference that at least to me is entirely clear. I consider myself an agnostic.

I know there are things that I won't know until I'm outside of this life, if then.

I don't doubt that the sexually repressive teachings of my religion, and the scarcely-concealed contempt for women and our role in society, had two significant effects on my adult life: made me nearly obsessed with being independent, a feminist, in defiance of my church's condescending attitude toward women - our fragility (physical, emotional, and implicity mental) and our need to accept a subserviant role and find pleasure in being wives and mothers; my inability to experience really fulfilling sex until I found ways to free myself from the nagging feeling that it was inappropriate to enjoy the sex act or to do it for any reason except to become pregnant.

Thank you, Baptist Church, for helping me find D/s. It's been a long time coming, but worth the trip.

 

[Megster]

Thank you for this thread. I need to learn or rather unlearn some of the ideas I was taught as facts.

 

[SummerMorning]

First off - I am very much of the belief that religion is a vital part of what makes us human, but also a vitally individual thing. A person's relation to the transcendent should be their own personal and individual affair. This, however, requires an independent, critically thinking, whole and mature human being - something I believe is completely at odds with modern society, which is based on consumerism and the mantra: "I want! I want!", which is very much characteristic of little children - it is in short infantile.

Infantility, however, is not something new. One of the best ways of maintaining social order is by keeping people infantile, incapable of thinking independently and critically. I am not saying there is a caste of "rulers" keeping the "proles" in their place - we, the people, are doing this to ourselves.

In the same vein, Marx is often misquoted as saying that "Religion is opium for the masses", when the actual reference is "Religion is opium OF the masses". An important difference. Everything we do, we do to each other. The fact that a group of people end up better off is coincidental - often they are just as blinkered and infantile (if not more so) than the less-well-off majority.

I have a slightly different view from Marx, I do not feel that religion will die off - we will always need our little myths and our little superstitions - but I hope that religion as control will die off (much as I wish the possibility of the dying off of the state were possible) - on this I also base my critique of realsocialism. I subscribe to the view that realsocialsim (the "communism" of the CCCP) was actually state capitalism and nothing else. But that's another topic.

Gary,

I agree - the pursuit of the aesthetic is one of the highest and most noble pursuits. And yes, her location does succintly point out the importance of erotica.

Gauche,

Religion is not exactly like politics. Granted, both base in human society and both are social constructs and often they intermingle to a significant degree. However, religion "should" be concerned with the transcendant, while politics "should" be concerned with the temporal. The fact that numerous proponents of this statement do not do what they preach simply shows us how imperfect our little world can be.

Inasmuch as religion is an individual affair it is not politics. Any religion that gets into politics, however, is in my opinion not worth a dog turd's attention.

SadieRose,

Although your rendering of the pre-christian era may be somewhat idealistic - I do agree with you on the way Christianity set itself up as the ultimate instance of political power through the control of peoples' sexuality among other things.

Nevertheless, I am not sure whether organized religions actually desire anything. They are institutions and here we come once again upon the structure-agency debate. Essentially, I think people desire things while institutions shape the direction of those desires. I will not go into it - the point is just this: people raised to be puritan intolerant prudes are the ones with desires, the institutions are just "things".

To all who want to read a bit about Catholicism's love affair with sex I recommend Uta Ranke-Heinemman, her book "No and Amen" is also wonderful, dealing with the Church and scripture. Very entertaining.

As to my religious orientation - I'm a secularist through and through. Individualistic. But, of course, secularism is a religion all on its own as well