Sin - Crime - Immorality > same? similar? different??

[yolland]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

food for thought?

To me his themes are more or less what I was getting at in the 'Abstinence...' thread awhile back, when I commented that, if all I've heard from female friends over the decades is anything to go by, there really doesn't seem to be much correlation (at least for women) between number of partners/level of 'experience' and actual enjoyment of sex. Too many women seem to be preoccupied with being desirable rather than with realizing their own desires, and 'freedom' as conventionally imagined doesn't really address that problem one way or the other. (And note, in saying "one way or the other" I'm also dismissing the idea that mandating premarital abstinence or banning pornography would somehow 'fix' the problem--it wouldn't.)

And y'know, if the 90s were the decade of Catharine MacKinnon and Rape Culture in 'leftist feminism,' they were also the decade of Camille Paglia and Riot Grrrrl, so, lots of absurdly overdrawn nonsense and spinning off into the ether from both ends.

But none of this has anything to do with what sin is, either...

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Nathan posted a statistic that 1 in 6 women in Colorado had either been assaulted or full on raped, implying that it was a result of our culture of sexual objectification.

Oh,yeah I do recall that. Oops.

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by yolland

To me his themes are more or less what I was getting at in the 'Abstinence...' thread awhile back, when I commented that, if all I've heard from female friends over the decades is anything to go by, there really doesn't seem to be much correlation (at least for women) between number of partners/level of 'experience' and actual enjoyment of sex. Too many women seem to be preoccupied with being desirable rather than with realizing their own desires, and 'freedom' as conventionally imagined doesn't really address that problem one way or the other. (And note, in saying "one way or the other" I'm also dismissing the idea that mandating premarital abstinence or banning pornography would somehow 'fix' the problem--it wouldn't.)

And y'know, if the 90s were the decade of Catharine MacKinnon and Rape Culture in 'leftist feminism,' they were also the decade of Camille Paglia and Riot Grrrrl, so, lots of absurdly overdrawn nonsense and spinning off into the ether from both ends.

But none of this has anything to do with what sin is, either...

I find it interesting, though not necessarily surprising that the discussion of sin ended up being a discussion of sex. The religio-political obsession with it notwithstanding, I think that most sexual sins (at least of the consensual adult kind) are probably of lesser concern than others. Certainly less of an issue to God than they are to a lot of His followers. Not that I claim to know the mind of God, but while Jesus touched on sexual issues it wasn't a huge theme in his teaching.

But on the topic of sex, connection, and intimacy, I highly recommend the book Passionate Marriage by therapist Dr. David Schnarch. I found his ideas revolutionary, particularly coming from a secular author. His ideas don't have to be limited to married people but he finds a fascinating intersection between being a fully-realized individual (my phrasing not his) and sexual satisfaction in a long-term relationship. He more or less suggests that really great sexual chemistry can only come with time--a lot of time (like 15-20 years at least). At least that's how I remember it. Really, really good book.

Here's a link to his website: Passionate Marriage | PassionateMarriage (Or at least to the book website).

I gotta run (literally, my running partner is waiting on me) but if people are interested I can dig the book out and elaborate more later.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by anitram

So unless I'm missing something, there was a clear implication that the activity was somehow abnormal or dysfunctional. And given that every reputable psychiatrist and doctor will tell you as much (putting aside people with sex addictions), then the conclusion is that it is something about Nathan's religious orientation that leads him to the above conclusions, and not something that has bearing on us physiologically.

My comment wasn't intended to be a comment on masturbation (like Sean, not a subject I intended to discuss at all), but rather about the use of normal to justify behavior. As someone else pointed out, concepts like "sin" -- or, frankly, "normal" -- have rather elastic definitions depending on your cultural context -- what's considered normal in one culture will get your hands cut off in another. So saying "it's normal!" isn't necessarily an effective rebuttal to the whole "is it sin" question. I'm sorry if anitram thought I was going after her; I wasn't. (Though given that the number of people struggling with sex addiction is apparently on the rise, it's not totally irrelevant.)

I've got JiveTurkey on ignore, so I'm not sure what all the comments are, but my post about national rape statistics (not just CO) was a response to his "everyone walks around logging faces in the spank bank, and we don't live in a rape society" comments. If those statistics are to be believed, there are some uncomfortable questions we might have to ask ourselves. Ones that Irvine's article raises far more eloquently than I ever could.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

I read "looking once is okay, looking twice is a sin" as something that wasn't intended to be taken absolutely literally.

It wasn't.

[cobl04]

I'd argue that repressing those thoughts would be more likely to lead to rape than putting a face in the spank bank.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by cobl04

I'd argue that repressing those thoughts would be more likely to lead to rape than putting a face in the spank bank.

I'm curious -- do you consider self-control to be the same thing as repression?

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

I've got JiveTurkey on ignore

shocking

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

shocking

It's probably because of responses like that so many of us have you on ignore.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by financeguy

It's probably because of responses like that so many of us have you on ignore.

That's why you were able to see the post then? For the record, I couldn't care less if anyone has me on ignore. I'm amused that you guys go out of your way to point it out though, as if it will hurt my feelings or something

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by cobl04

I'd argue that repressing those thoughts would be more likely to lead to rape than putting a face in the spank bank.

I didn't think I was advocating "repressing."

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

shocking

I believe these are the kind of scornful, antagonistic one-liners that yolland was talking about. Seriously, this conversation would be worlds better without them.

[Jive Turkey]

again, I'm not the one who initiated that whole thing.

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Wow. You know, you're absolutely right. Objectifying people for your own personal sexual gratification is absolutely the way to go.

^That's the moment the tone changed

The convo was very civil originally, but I guess we don't have to worry about it anymore

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

Again, a gross oversimplification.

I didn't intend it to sound oversimplified, but I understand looking back it comes off that way, and I apologize for any misunderstanding on my part, both in my response and in reading Nathan's post.

Originally Posted by maycocksean

"Shoot for the moon and you'll land among the stars" blah, blah, blah. . .

Seriously though, the question of perfection is where you really do start to see quite bit of disagreement among people of faith. Probably Nathan and I would disagree on it for example, since we come from different denominational backgrounds.

Beyond whether "perfection" is possible or not though, is really the question of whether "pretty good" is good enough. I think most of us think "Hey, look I'm a pretty good person. I may not be perfect, but I'm basically a good person. . .'don't cheat on my taxes, don't cheat on my girl, I've got values that would make the White House jealous'".

To be honest, I think most people on this world are pretty good. There's a few truly evil types and a few real saints, but most people are basically good. The question is: How is that working out, this world full of pretty good people?

When I look at the world I don't think it's working out so well. Pretty good, somehow, for whatever reason, isn't apparently good enough. And that's where the religious person's discussion of sin begins. IMHO.

Heh, and I'm a bit more optimistic than you are. I generally agree with your overall assessment of people in the world, but I also think that the media overload we have going today makes it seem like things are much worse than they probably are. That's not to diminish the severity and horror of whatever bad things ARE actually happening, which should be dealt with, but I think they're happening in probably roughly the same amount now they always have been, give or take a few spikes or drops here and there throughout history.

I also don't mean to imply we shouldn't strive for better. We should, absolutely. I want to be able to live in as fair and peaceful and helpful and caring a world as possible. And on a personal level, any flaws in my personality or actions that negatively affect myself or people around me, I should definitely take a look at and work to fix.

I just think the way religion frames the debate about sin and ways to remove yourself from sin seems self-defeating and contradictory at times, is all. It's like there's no leeway or "Well, at least you're trying, so that's worth considering" in some denominations' eyes. Add in the fact that religions can't seem to come to an agreement on what constitutes sinful behavior to begin with, and if religious institutions that people look to to help them solve their problems can't agree on how to solve said problems, or what are problems worth solving to begin with, it's going to be harder for people to take them seriously and give their suggestions any weight.

And then of course there's the argument that you don't need to believe in God to begin with to try and lead a good life, but that's another topic in and of itself.

Originally Posted by nathan1977

According to the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault, 1 of 6 U.S. women have experienced an attempted or completed rape.

I don't give a rip about masturbation. I do care about rape.

So do I. Very much so.

I would also point out, however, that some out there argue that rape has less to do with sex and more to do with exerting power over someone. So if you look at it from that perspective, that would put things in a whole new light.

Irvine's article poses some interesting thoughts. I'm going to be mulling that over a bit, share my thoughts when I have a bit more time on me.

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Anybody that says otherwise is either dangerously repressed or a liar

That's actually pretty much where the tone changed for me.

If you want to call out my response to this post for being sarcastic, that's fine. But sarcasm and substance in FYM often go hand-in-hand (you are no stranger to it yourself). In any event, escalating to calling me a "repressed, shamed prude" was entirely your choice.

Onward.

[Kieran McConville]

Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
"Shoot for the moon and you'll land among the stars" blah, blah, blah. . .

Seriously though, the question of perfection is where you really do start to see quite bit of disagreement among people of faith. Probably Nathan and I would disagree on it for example, since we come from different denominational backgrounds.

Beyond whether "perfection" is possible or not though, is really the question of whether "pretty good" is good enough. I think most of us think "Hey, look I'm a pretty good person. I may not be perfect, but I'm basically a good person. . .'don't cheat on my taxes, don't cheat on my girl, I've got values that would make the White House jealous'".

To be honest, I think most people on this world are pretty good. There's a few truly evil types and a few real saints, but most people are basically good. The question is: How is that working out, this world full of pretty good people?

When I look at the world I don't think it's working out so well. Pretty good, somehow, for whatever reason, isn't apparently good enough. And that's where the religious person's discussion of sin begins. IMHO.

Not really a participant in this discussion, but I did read this the first time, and at the time thought that pretty good is about as good as you can expect the great mass of people to ever be.

If that isn't good enough, the problem - problems, whatever, and as if our era is uniquely troubled - is most likely structural and systemic.

It reminds me of when I pretty much parted (active) ways with my (disclosure: catholic) origins; a too-clever-by-half sermon in which the priest, a lovely fellow really, relayed an old story along the lines of: various devils are debating how to get more people into Hell, one says tell them there's no heaven, another says tell them there's no hell, a wiser head up the back says tell them there's no hurry. That always got up my ass the wrong way for some reason.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

again, I'm not the one who initiated that whole thing.

I've never found "he started it" to be a convincing excuse for one's own behavior.

The convo was very civil originally, but I guess we don't have to worry about it anymore

Then why not skip the antagonism and just return to civility? Just because someone responded to you in a way you thought was less than civil doesn't mean you have to respond in kind - and then carry a chip on your shoulder for the rest of the conversation.

[Jive Turkey]

Lets talk about sin. On a scale of normal to dysfunctional, where do you suppose this guy falls?

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Lets talk about sin. On a scale of normal to dysfunctional, where do you suppose this guy falls?

I'm not quite sure what I'm witnessing here, so it's really hard to stay. He seems very. . .intense.

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

I didn't intend it to sound oversimplified, but I understand looking back it comes off that way, and I apologize for any misunderstanding on my part, both in my response and in reading Nathan's post.

No apology necessary. It's fine.

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

Heh, and I'm a bit more optimistic than you are. I generally agree with your overall assessment of people in the world, but I also think that the media overload we have going today makes it seem like things are much worse than they probably are. That's not to diminish the severity and horror of whatever bad things ARE actually happening, which should be dealt with, but I think they're happening in probably roughly the same amount now they always have been, give or take a few spikes or drops here and there throughout history.

I hear what you're saying but I wasn't really referring to the sensationalized true crime stories that the media flogs. I'm actually thinking more of the things that don't get covered, that pretty decent people both near and far don't like to think about. Everything from the wars playing out across the globe to the anonymous crimes of domestic violence, the state of our environment, the state of our economy, not to mention your everyday ass-holism that comes with impatience, selfishness, arrogance and so on. In that sense you're right this is more or less the same as it's always been throughout history. This is also the part where the conversation about sin begins for Christian.

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

I also don't mean to imply we shouldn't strive for better. We should, absolutely. I want to be able to live in as fair and peaceful and helpful and caring a world as possible. And on a personal level, any flaws in my personality or actions that negatively affect myself or people around me, I should definitely take a look at and work to fix.

I just think the way religion frames the debate about sin and ways to remove yourself from sin seems self-defeating and contradictory at times, is all. It's like there's no leeway or "Well, at least you're trying, so that's worth considering" in some denominations' eyes. Add in the fact that religions can't seem to come to an agreement on what constitutes sinful behavior to begin with, and if religious institutions that people look to to help them solve their problems can't agree on how to solve said problems, or what are problems worth solving to begin with, it's going to be harder for people to take them seriously and give their suggestions any weight.

"I am the world and you are the world" (from a song by Live. ..anybody remember that band from the mid-nineties? I hear they remained popular in Australia for awhile after the passed the scene in the states. . .but I digress). I think trying to accept the reality without being overwhelmed by it is an important balance to strike.

I'd like you to unpack "the way religion frames the debate about sin and ways to remove yourself from it." I'm not sure I follow your line of reasoning.

Also, despite some differences on specific activities, I don't think that there is that much disagreement between people of faith on what constitutes sin, at least not to the point that understanding is impossible.

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

And then of course there's the argument that you don't need to believe in God to begin with to try and lead a good life, but that's another topic in and of itself.

I've often said that the Christian faith isn't so much about telling us how to live a good moral life as it is about dealing with when we don't.

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

I would also point out, however, that some out there argue that rape has less to do with sex and more to do with exerting power over someone. So if you look at it from that perspective, that would put things in a whole new light.

I've heard that too, and I suppose there is some truth in it. But sexuality remains the arena in which that power is exerted. Not trying to imply anything by that, just observing.

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

Irvine's article poses some interesting thoughts. I'm going to be mulling that over a bit, share my thoughts when I have a bit more time on me.

Me too.

One more thing I wanted to add. Acknowledgment of sin in the Christian faith often means confronting on our status quo, and requiring us to go outside of our comfort zone. It often means that the "me" I was content with all along might not be so "okay" after all. For many people that reality alone is enough to dismiss the whole notion of sin all together.

But I think there is something to be said for a healthy sense of discontent if you will. It's all a balancing act though, and I'll be the first to concede that religion has often used guilt as a tool to control it's followers. Throughout history opportunistic folks have realized the usefulness of religion as a means of using and controlling others. If you can tap peoples deepest fears and anxieties and convince people you have The Answer, you've got yourself a remarkable amount of power. It's why I think Jesus' harshest criticisms were always of religious people, particularly the powerful ones.

Of course opportunistic folk have found other ways to tap into people's anxieties too--advertising for example, and many a self-help author and motivational speaker.