Is Religion Just Sado-masochism?

[Ronagon]

Question: Is religion really nothing more than an out-of-control excuse for people to get off on dominance and submission?

I think so.

I think religion started out as a pre-civilizational game of "master and servant", that bored, highly intelligent primitive peoples decided to enshrine permanently and all-pervasively.

I mean, just look at religion. The true appeal of religion lies in having some flimsy excuse to authoritatively bully people, or to get off on being bullied, and bowing and scraping yourself.

It's a kink, that's afraid of acknowledging itself for what it truly is.

Comments? :)

[Fujoubou]

Question: Is religion really nothing more than an out-of-control excuse for people to get off on dominance and submission?

I think so.

Well I have to desagre with you my friend. True religion is about not about dominance and submission, but it's about finding a spiritual way for yourself. But dominance and submission are find in some religions like Scientology Church or Jeova, where you give up evertying you gain in money as well as you freedom to the church, but can you call that a religion. Christianism have some of it but those who are dominate by that religion do not practice it like they have to. So if you feel that religion as dominance and submission, you didn't find your spiritual way yet.

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Ronagon@Dec 22 2003, 10:06 PM
Question: Is religion really nothing more than an out-of-control excuse for people to get off on dominance and submission?

I think so.
Hi Ronagon -

Based on most of it's historical-social 'manifestations', I would agree with you. And I think there are many quite valid and important 'points' to be made by casting/showing 'it' (i.e. 'religion') in that perspective-light.

However, in my view, nothing is 'impure' 'in itself' - it's not the 'cup' being drunk from that is necessarily S/M-'dirty', it what's in the 'drinkers' that 'turns it into' such schlock. What has historically (largely, even 'overwhelmingly') been the case, IMO, is more a reflection of the (generally) 'primitive' level of human social/relational development and not of something 'inherent' in the 'nature' of 'religion' as a 'phenomenon' itself.

'Marriage' may also be 'given' a 'bad' 'name' for similar (generalization-based-on-historical-patterns) reasons, for instance.

As may any and all varieties of 'Politics' or 'Political Philosophy'.

If one looks at and frames this 'condition' as being the result of 'animalistic' (as in wolf packs and primate groups) conditioning and derivative tendencies we have conjointly 'inherited' from the 'past', then the 'way forward' shows itself to be personal (and consequently, societal-group) psychospiritual evolution towards more egalitarian, more mutually respectful and honoring, relationships and 'partnerships'.

Though this isn't something you implied, Ronagon, I just want to add that I think that 'getting rid' of any and all 'institutions' of 'religion', even if it could be accomplished (which I seriously doubt) will not do 'the trick', and more than eliminating the 'institution' of 'marriage' would, in itself, result in people engaging in 'benign' sexual relationships. As one of my friends, with a 'Black American' heritage, is fond of saying, "You can take the pig out of the pen, but you can't take the pig out of the pig." :lol:

As an example of the possibility at least of kinds of egalitarian, mutually respectful and honoring 'religions' actually evolving and becoming, growing and spreading as an organic part of the human social-fabric, let me quote from the Intro of The Soul's Religion by Thomas Moore (who has a large 'following', not in the 'historical' sense of the word, though his religious shitck is quite unoppressive and undogmatic - for those who don't know, he is also the author of Care of the Soul). He says:

Unlike many people I know, I am not antagonistic towards religious institutions. My mother and father have lived graceful lives of good humor and community and are models to me of the spiritual life. Yet they have consistently found their inspiration in the Catholic Church. In recent years I have redfined Catholicism for myself and find unexpected riches there. But I am aware that the official church is largely in a state of retrenchment. It's frustrating to meet people all over the world who are desperately hungry for spirit, while at the higher levels the churches are becmong more defensive and authoritarian, losng the opportunity to feed themselves and the people of the world with the spiritual intelligence both crave.

in this book I write from my former experience as a catholic and former member of a religious order, as a psychotherapist, and as a specialist in religion. My own Catholicism has deepened and widened so much that I don't fit well in an official Catholic setting. I hope ther eader will not find my personal background limiting but more a model of someone on a spiritual odyssey who has not completely abandoned his roots but revisioned them. While I feel an innate and ineradicable Catholicism in me, I also feel a brotherhood with all sorts of spiritual seekers and explorers.

It may be matter of personal taste, however, whether one elects to become-n-be FOR his kind of 'religion', as 'opposed' to becoming-n-being AGAINST the kinds one identifies as S/M 'adulterated' (or both in some 'balanced' combination). Most people at this point seem to be auto-conditioned/inclined towards rubber-neck focusing on and emotionally reacting to the 'bad news' (aversively) more than to the 'good news' (embracingly/lovingly) in this and most if not all other regards.

It's a kink, that's afraid of acknowledging itself for what it truly is.

Yup, 'cuz such 'acknowledgment' would interfere with their 'established' way of getting their ya-yas. "For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved." (John 3:20)
:)

P.S. I realize that Thomas Moore's articulated 'religion' might be 'categorized' as not really being a 'religion' at all, depending on one's de·finite·ion of the concept.

[Lifebright]

Hi Ronagon

For those who are drawn to understand self, and psychology or philosophy fail to either partially or wholly satisfy this longing, religion is needed until the need disappears (this applies to psychology and philosophy as well). It is the clothing we wear until it becomes heavy, hot and itchy. Perhaps the exoteric branches of religions could be compared to winter coats and the esoteric branches to bikini underwear.

It is when the bikini underwear becomes itchy that - B)

[sahyo]

not always, lifebright

[Lifebright]

not always, lifebright

I assume there is more to this thought than this enigmatic 'poke'

[thirst4sun]

I disagree. I beleive religion is the path to enlightenment. Religion is a practice of faith ( a belief in something unseen.

[...]

..if i had faith, i've put my trust in an assumption, hoping that it pays off in the end. How can that practice be a path to enlightenment? Ofcourse it has for some, as such any path can be a path to enlightenment, but for most religion is an affirmation of a comfortzone...

[sahyo]

I assume there is more to this thought than this enigmatic 'poke'


:lol:

[Lifebright]

I disagree. I beleive religion is the path to enlightenment. Religion is a practice of faith ( a belief in something unseen.

In believing, we remain thirsty. Not right or wrong - a choice.

[sahyo]

In believing, we remain thirsty. Not right or wrong - a choice.

no, "believing" is not "choice"

[Lifebright]

no, "believing" is not "choice"

The choice is in the thirsting, not in the believing. We choose thirst, we remain seekers. We let go of thirst, no more thirst.

[sahyo]

The choice is in the thirsting, not in the believing

no "choice is in the thirsting"

can separate thirstingthoughtbelievingthirsting?

[thirst4sun]

It is true there is not an answer but we have a choice to choose the answer which our conscious minds beleive in. I'm sure religion have different meanings to everyone and this is what makes us unique.

[Ronagon]

Well, I understand that religion does give us comfort when we're exhausted from trying to always be mentally and actively self-reliant, when we come to feel all alone and stressed out. It's nice to just fold your arms over and trust in the fundamental benevolence of the universe.

BUT, that's not really what I'm talking about with my issue here, in this post. What I'm saying is that everybody seems to be REINVENTING religion, based on their own wishful thinking, without really looking honestly and objectively at what the religious texts and deities really are all about.

If you look objectively at books like The Bible, you realize that the character of God is little more than an all-purpose dilettante, designed to instill in the masses a delusional admiration for the overall, kinky game of "master and servant" (to borrow a title from that old Depeche Mode song)...

The actual character of God does not seem very admirable to me. He seems to have bipolar disorder, and we're all supposed to get off on boot-licking to his (or her) mercurial whims.

And sadly, it looks like most of us overwhelmingly do... and what's worse, most of us (or actually, YOU, not me), seem to intuit what the whole game is about, and actually and secretly love it for JUST that precise reason. Now, that's grotesque.

Comments?

[Fujoubou]

we're all supposed to get off on boot-licking to his (or her)

Depends on your vision of god.
- Some see god as the creator of everything and the reason why we are living today. But they just live there life to learn about themself and what are surounding them. They don't worship him to the point of doin self sacrifice for him.

- On the other way. Some people would give there life to god and would be please to spit shine his or here shoes.

[DavidS]

What I'm saying is that everybody seems to be REINVENTING religion, based on their own wishful thinking,

That may not be the 'bad' thing you imply it necessarily, Ronagon ... Where do 'thoughts' about whatever it is that's going on (including 'in' 'oneself') come from? IMO, various one's 'pop' (or 'vent') into one's mind-zone and we each 'proceed' on the basis of the one's that make the most 'sense' (to us) at the moment. IMO, we are constantly re·in·vent·ing our own subjective realities, any personal 'religious' notions included. IMO, even folks like you who abjure all 'religious' thought-belief, or even all 'thought', as 'false' or 'sick', are in·vent·ing and prefer-choosing that 'mode' of (or 'basis' for) mentation to pro·ceed from moment-to-moment, think-believing that that is 'best' (I don't think attributing the 'phenomenon' to nothing more than 'wish-fulfillment' does it justice).

without really looking honestly and objectively at what the religious texts and deities really are all about.

How do you 'know' that folks engaged in re·in·vent·ing what 'religious texts' and 'deities' are 'really' about are doing any less honestly and unbiasedly as you, Ronagon? Seems to me that unqualifiedly attributing dishonesty and bias to all who come up with and pro·ceed on the basis of in·vent·ions different from your own, and thinking that one's attributions in this regard are 'objective' (infallibly 'correct') is the 'height' of self-as-currently-constituted-serving ego-pride and relationally dysfunctional bias.

If you look objectively at books like The Bible, you realize that the character of God is little more than an all-purpose dilettante, designed to instill in the masses a delusional admiration for the overall, kinky game of "master and servant" (to borrow a title from that old Depeche Mode song)...

Not if you 'look' at The Bible as a historical document, which 'documents' people's in·vent·ions about the 'character' of God over a period of several millennia, 'sees' them as being 'limited' by the level of people's emotional development and (consequent) 'understanding', and 'understands' that they are part of a 'stream' of 'developing' (expanding?) 'awareness'. Based on your pronouncments, I would hazard the guess (IOW, I would 'bet') that you are not 'looking' at the 'scriptural' writings in The Bible from a 'position' of 'emotional detachment' and that what you consider (your) 'objective' 'conclusions' are accordingly 'biased'.

The actual character of God does not seem very admirable to me. He seems to have bipolar disorder, and we're all supposed to get off on boot-licking to his (or her) mercurial whims.

It would be more 'appropos', I think, to say that people's notions pertaining to the 'character' of 'God' are a 'reflection' of their own 'inner' workings and that a 'majority' of people have historically been and still are 'bipolar' in terms of their aversions and desires, and 'judgments' derving from them, pertaining to any given matter ('sex', 'religion', and 'politics' all included!).

And sadly, it looks like most of us overwhelmingly do... and what's worse, most of us (or actually, YOU, not me), ...

Can you 'see' how self-as-constituted-at-the-moment-serving your viewpoint and derivative assessments are, Ronagon?

seem to intuit what the whole game is about,

Since it is logically impossible for the human mind to 'deduce' everything about everything, IMO, there is no alternative to using in·tuition (related to in·vent·ion) as an 'aid' to playing 'the game' - looks to me like you are just 'projecting' this onto everyone else and 'hiding' the fact that you do so as well from yourself, maybe because this gives you a 'comfortable' sense of 'certainty' that you are 'right' ...

and actually and secretly love it for JUST that precise reason.

Bingo!

Now, that's grotesque.

I don't find it so. Rather I find it a quite understandable and 'forgivable' human 'passion', and am quite appreciative of the 'complexity' of the 'stream' of its historical 'outworkings', the 'surfing' of which I now (I didn't always) find a quite enjoyable game-sport.

Comments?

For whatever they may be worth to you, these are my 'at the moment' in·vent·ions in response to your post. :)

[Ronagon]

David,

You're a subjectivist, clearly... and this colors your take on everything.

As a subjectivist, you refuse to acknowledge that a reality actually exists. The philosophy of subjectivism insidiously preaches that everything is a matter of perception and that all that we need to respect are our whims.

Call it postmodernism, call it deconstructionism, whatever you like... the point is, it's still the philosophy of shortsighted irresponsibility.

To not render moral judgements on things is the worst sort of evil, and yes, evil does exist.

The only "evil" that subjectivists acknowledge, and insincerely at that, is the evil of going against the majority, the mob. When advocates of child molestation, for example, are in the minority, subjectivists will "denounce" them... but as soon as pro-child-molestation advocates become an influential presence in the world, a prominent and coercive majority perhaps, the subjectivist will suddenly pronounce that child molestation is now "right".

The point is, subjectivism is whim-worship, and as such, is patently evil. Contrary to what you wish to insidiously preach here, not every point of view is humane or rational... even though life is a laboratory of constant random trials of new things.

The point of all this random ingenuity of different points of view is that the best one be selected. That means facing the truth of the situation and taking a stand.... some paths are toxic and harmful. And while religion may be a deliciously yummy little kink for many people, it's horribly destructive and poisonous to others who are not in the smug and secure position to merely enjoy such cruelty. For them, it ravages their lives.

[sonrisa]

First of all, Ronagon, let me state that I agree with you when you say there has to be some moral absolutes. Children shouldn't be molested, people shouldn't murder each other, etc.. My question is, how do we determine what these absolutes are? In response to your post in Fundamentalism about Leviticus, I posted a list of out-dated laws, mostly from Leviticus, which today would be considered anywhere from ridiculous to morally abhorrant. Obviously things have changed between then & now. How did slavery become abhorrant? Because a majority of people decided that it was morally wrong to own other people? On the other hand, I believe that murder is morally wrong to the point that I oppose the death penalty. I am in the minority on this position. Don't get me wrong- I think murderers should be punished, the really heinous ones should be locked up & the key thrown away- but to murder the murderer? That makes no moral sense to me. So am I right, even tho I'm in the minority here? Are we as a society (the majority) wrong to condemn slavery, since it is sanctioned in the Bible? Hey, we fought a civil war over this!

Here is another example, from my own family: both my grown nieces have kids, but no husbands. Their brother, my grown nephew, has one on the way, tho he plans to marry his girlfriend. Whenever one of these kids was in the oven, my Mom & Aunts were in an uproar (as they are now) & convinced that these kids (the grown ones) were/are wrecking their lives. Back in their day, you see, you just did not have sex until you got married. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. If you were foolish enough to do so, your life was toast. My generation did indulge in premarital sex, but if you made a baby you got married. Big lifestyle change, & not always for the better. I think it's safe to say that a good number of those shotgun marriages ended in divorce. Now we have my nieces/nephew's generation, where making a baby does not necessarily mean getting married. Nor does it mean wrecking your life. My niece with the 2 kids is in med school. Her sister & brother will be graduating from their respective studies later on this year. The girls take good care of their kids, & I'm sure my nephew will too, he is a very responsible person. When the girls first got pregnant, my sister was upset, but now that she has discovered the joys of being a Grandma, she is pretty laid back about this next grandkid. My own personal opinion has always been, they (the grown kids) are adults, if they think the babies are good news than its good news. As long as they are providing for their kids, taking care of them & not abusing them (& they really are good mothers) then what is the problem?

So what is morally wrong with this picture, if anything? On what basis do we determine if there is something morally wrong? Fifty years ago this situation would of been a scandal, for some it still is, but is it morally wrong? If so, how, & why?

Ya see what I mean?

[DavidS]

Hi Ronagon,

You're a subjectivist, clearly... and this colors your take on everything.

Yes, I am a 'subjectivist', and I agree with that many disingenuously 'use' such a 'philosophy' to simply 'justify' what you call 'whimsiness', which justification and consequent 'acting out' can/may be and often is "toxic and harmful" etc.

However, I don't think such 'use' is the case with all 'subjectivists', any more than it is true that all 'believers' in 'God' are sado-masochistc ''puritans" or the like. I think your 'conclusions' in this regard are the result of 'prejudicial' 'stereotyping'. I submit to you that many 'subjectivists', as is true of 'believers' in 'God' as a 'category' of people, are exquisitely sane, both sanely loving and sanely responsible people, who don't 'qualify' for what amounts to a (your) 'blanket' 'judgment'.

As a subjectivist, you refuse to acknowledge that a reality actually exists.

Its not that I refuse to acknowledge that 'reality' 'exists'. Rather, it is that I 'see' 'reality' as being dynamically quite 'plastic' and prone to 'shape-shifting' such that (any)one's 'subjective' ex·peer·ience (of said 'reality') is 'determined' more (if not totally) by one's 'subjective' process than by some 'independent' 'reality'-stream. For example, Life (or 'reality') may be ex·peer·ienced and therefore 'viewed' as a 'heaven' or 'hell' (or some admixture of the two kinds of 'conditions') - the 'reality' of our situation is that Life, or 'reality', may be either or both; IOW, the true 'nature' of 'reality' is that it is 'fluid' and 'formless', i.e., it is 'indeterminate' (any 'agreed-upon' perception of 'continuance' of 'form' being the result of 'intersubjective' 'collusion' for the duration of such collusion's viability).

The philosophy of subjectivism insidiously preaches that everything is a matter of perception and that all that we need to respect are our whims.

IMO, you are the one 'insidiously' 'coloring' "the philosophy of subjectivism". I have heard similar 'sweepingly' disparaging statements made by dyed-in-the-wool 'Catholics' about 'Protestantism', who regard it as being a 'work' of the 'devil'. Think about the implications of the correspondence.

In my view of 'subjectivism', which of course is much 'nobler' than yours, what 'wise' 'subjectivists' really 'preach' is something more like "Know Thyself" and "Be true to yourself, and thou shalt not be false to any man." Being totally honest with oneself also means recognizing when and if one's thoughts and feelings (i.e., one's 'subjective' 'constellation') are/is 'selfishly' geared. It also means (subjectively!) recognizing one's organic partnership with and interdependence in relation to others as well as the fact that one's (as well as everyone else's) 'subjective' Life derives from the Life in/of 'the Whole'. Conscience is a subjective phenomenon. A 'subjectivist' recognizes and honors the fact that her/his 'conscience' is a 'vital' aspect of her/his 'subjective' (personal) Being, something which s/he may 'deny' (the 'reality' of) but can never 'escape' (the 'reality' of).

Call it postmodernism, call it deconstructionism, whatever you like... the point is, it's still the philosophy of shortsighted irresponsibility.

Not my 'brand' of it, would be balloon-popper. Have you, perchance, taken a look at my book on the web? I would guess not, since it extols personal and conjoint response·ability and definitely ain't 'shortsighted'.

To not render moral judgements on things is the worst sort of evil, and yes, evil does exist.

Though you and I may have different notions pertaining to the specifics of what you call 'evil', but that said, I very much agree with this proclamation and pronouncement. That being said, I remind you that 'conscience' and 'moral judgments' are subjective phenomena. And that this applies to your own 'judgments' of 'subjetivism' as a 'philosphy' AS WELL.

The only "evil" that subjectivists acknowledge, and insincerely at that, is the evil of going against the majority, the mob. When advocates of child molestation, for example, are in the minority, subjectivists will "denounce" them... but as soon as pro-child-molestation advocates become an influential presence in the world, a prominent and coercive majority perhaps, the subjectivist will suddenly pronounce that child molestation is now "right".

I agree with you that 'subjectivism' as a 'philosophy' may be, indeed has been, 'bastardized' in such narrow-minded/short-sighted/immediate-self-interest-serving ways, just as, I would like to point out, every other kind of religion and philosophy (including your 'brand' of the latter) may be/has been. But it is 'wrong' (howzat for a 'moral pronouncement' that rises above 'mere' whimsy?) to 'judge' a 'book' by its 'cover'. Your last sentence in the above para reminds me of statements made by 'fundamentalist' Islamicists in places like the Saudi Press, to the effect that Jews (in general) drink children's blood, etc. Again, consider the implications of the parallels between your own and such kinds of 'arguments' and 'pronouncements'.

Contrary to what you wish to insidiously preach here, not every point of view is humane or rational... even though life is a laboratory of constant random trials of new things.

I am not 'preaching' that every point of view is 'humane' or 'rational'. For instance, in my (subjective) view, your clearly isn't 'humane' or 'rational'. However, I do believe that the 'trials of new things' ultimately does and will continue serve to separate the 'wheat' from the 'chaff' where things like conscience and responsibility are concerned. (Subjective) 'nature' will take 'its' 'course'. Philosophical or religious 'approaches' and 'positions' which are inhumane and not in accord with the 'rationale' of Creativity (a/k/a Life, Intelligence), assuming the 'holders' of them don't 'learn' 'better', will be 'weeded out' by the 'trials of new things'.

The point of all this random ingenuity of different points of view is that the best one be selected. That means facing the truth of the situation and taking a stand....

I am with you 100% on this, and that is exactly what I am 'doing' with what you call my 'philosophy' of 'subjectivism' (which is as good a name as any for it, IMO).

some paths are toxic and harmful. And while religion may be a deliciously yummy little kink for many people, it's horribly destructive and poisonous to others who are not in the smug and secure position to merely enjoy such cruelty. For them, it ravages their lives.

Yes, and not just some 'paths': "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Matthew 7:13-14)

Seriously, Ronagon, I don't see how you could 'rationally' make the kinds of 'attributions' meward (or my·subective·philosophy-ward) that you have. In my view, I have done more than most here to 'call' people ('irresponsible', 'whimsical' 'violators' of soundly creative relational principles) to 'account'. Even Emmanuel's stuff, which may be 'interpreted' 'whimsically', takes a strong stand for being sensitively aware of and conscientiously responsive to the suffering etc. of others.

Sincerely - David