Christianity and the War Against Pleasure...

[Cassius23]

Before I go on I should state now that Christianity as a religion is big.

Very, very big.

It is big enough that there is a gospel out there that states Jesus was gay(which may or may not be true), or married and had children(ditto). It is big enough that there were and are all sorts of weird and crazy things done in the name of God and Jesus.

I remind people of this so that it can and will be noted that a religion that can't agree on if a piece of bread and bit of wine is or is not changed into the body of God will most certainly have people who don't follow what I'm talking about.

Now, with that said.

There is a very large thread of Christianity that is against pleasure. Not just sex, or homosexuality, or rock and roll music, but pleasure.

This thread runs all the way back to early Christianity and can be laid at the feet of St Augustine(a quote from him goes “The more you give up, the closer you get to God.”). This goes back to two ideas. First, that the body and the spirit are two different things. Once one believes this it is only logical to say that the body is inferior to the spirit, as the spirit is immortal while the body dies.

This thread continued in 396AD during the refutation of the Epicureans(written by Ambrose of Milan), ""But Holy Scripture refutes this, for it teaches us that pleasure was suggested to Adam and Eve by the craft and enticements of the serpent. "

I've got an ongoing research project in regards to the anti-pleasure thread in Christianity and will post more later.

Thank you for your time

[Avalux]

1. Pleasure of the common people -

Christianity has been used as a tool all throughout history to oppress and control the masses - those in charge, those wielding power are excluded from Christianity's 'rules'. I think it's important to make that differentiation. :hi:

[Cassius23]

5. You are right and not quite right.

Over time Christanity went into an Imperial phase, primarily after it became endorsed by Rome. The anti-pleasure thread predates that by a wide margin(however, in the upper eshelon people just ignore that part, it is still there, though).

[porphyrian]

2. Blame the fucking Puritans.

Every other country had the resources and foresight (and religious intolerance, sadly) to kick their asses out.

[greenman3610]

3. puritans = taliban

having gone to Catholic school,
it took me a hell of a long to time to
get their vile, poisonous anti life
conditioning out of my head.

[Critters2]

7. The Puritans were Protestant

They didn't teach history at your Catholic school?

[The Stranger]

11. Protestant Taliban.

[Critters2]

13. Right

any Christian you don't like is a Puritan. I get it.

[Critters2]

6. Who kicked 'em out?

England made their leader "Lord Protector". Even after he muffed that up, Puritans weren't kicked out. Their descendants are still there, most in Devonshire, many members of the United Reformed Church, the Puritan's religious descendants in England. In SCotland, the Puritans were leaders of the Church of Scotland. Again, never kicked out, and their church is the state church to this day.

No one kicked 'em out. And their descendant church in the US, the United Church of Christ, is the most liberal Trinitarian church in the US. Unlike many, they learned and grew from their mistakes and excesses. Their descendants were the first to ordain women (Antoinette Brown, 1853), the first to ordain gays (Bill Johnson, 1972), and a whole lot of other firsts. Take a look...www.stillspeaking.com

Pastor Critters
proud of her religious heritage, which includes the Puritans

[porphyrian]

8. Well, that was the way my Florida public school education put it. - n/t

[Critters2]

12. Public education is a mess,

and NCLB ain't helping.

[Proud_Democratt]

26. Good point, except that the Puritans..

do not account for the large numbers of Christians now. Roman Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Assemblies of God and non-denominationals are the majority now, I blame them.

[nemo137]

31. And most Catholics, Baptists, Methodists and Lutherans don't hate pleasure

I'm willing to bet that most AoG don't either, despite my dim view of them.

[Bruce McAuley]

4. So maybe the serpent taught them fo copulate, also?

But then one could argue they were BUILT for copulation as well as pleasure by God, so who's fault is it?
Ambrose, as an early apologist for his sect of christianity, was espousing that which would fill up the church, IMO.
Hey, you people! Stop pleasuring yourselves! God told you to!
You get 'em believing this, you GOT 'em! Any car salesman(camel salesman) would tell you the same, I think!
LOL

Bruce

[lvx35]

9. So Christianity makes people miserable?

must by why it was wiped out in the second century AD and replaced by the Dionysian orgy cults so many Americans go to every sunday morning. :)

[Critters2]

10. Yep,

that would explain it

[unblock]

14. i think it's more that some people use religion as an excuse/rationale

i think there are some miserable people out there who need to hate and some of them find in religion an excuse for that hatred.

of course, there are also good people who care and are kind to everybody, and some of them find in religion a rationale for this.


the point being that it's not christianity that's out to deny people pleasure; it's just some mean, rotten, bitter assholes who want everyone else to be as miserable as them. they just use christianity to cloak their evil.

[genie_weenie]

15. Oh come on. This isn't a Christian only thing.

This is a power/control thing.

Many thinkers have been anti-pleasure and many have been outside the Christian perview. Augustine didn't just invent the ideas. It seems to me you are suffering from the Observer Bias being, most likely, most familiar with Christianity and post-Western Roman thinkers.

[HonorTheConstitution]

16. Puritanism

I have to agree with porphyrian: A major problem in this country is that many people struggle with their roots and unconscious have the basics of puritanism in their blood: Why would otherwise the telepreachers every Sunday mislead millions (including many low income churchgoers) and steal their money and tell them the only way to heaven is to work 12 hours a day and be quiet?

Why are they able to preach revenge and are not objecting against a war killing innocents? Check the philosophy of Calvinism and Puritanism. Even Luther with his commandments went into this direction (although the European can be grateful for him).

Don't get me wrong: There are many religions who do excellent charity work and without them our world would be even worse.

[Critters2]

17. Here's a church with roots in CAlvin and the Puritans

indeed, the direct descendants of the Puritans in New England: www.stillspeaking.com

[niyad]

18. as opposed to "the charge of the goddess", which states that "all acts

of joy and pleasure ARE My ritual"

[godhatesrepublicans]

19. Don't forget the Gnostics re: hating the World and it's creation.

For those curious, I found an on-line source that seems accurate from my own research into the Gnostics. Key points; they predate Christianity, they influenced a lot of religious thinking in that art of the world, and they view everything in the material world as an evil to be renounced. Tim LaHaye and his Left Behind followers are modern examples IMHO.

http://www.catholicherald.com/saunders/03ws/ws031023.htm

The origins of Gnosticism are unclear. The first traces of Gnosticism arise centuries before Christianity and are rooted in the ancient religions of Syria, Babylonia, Phoenicia and Persia, and in the Greek Platonic schools of philosophy. Gnostic communities existed throughout the Roman Empire, and because of the religious apathy toward traditional religion and the fascination with mystery cults, they caused some curiosity. In a sense, they were like the "new-agers" of today’s society. With the founding of our Church and the spread of Christianity, the Gnostics incorporated elements of Christianity into their beliefs. Keep in mind that each Gnostic leader supplied his own nuances to the Gnosticism. Nevertheless, the basic points are as follows:

— Gnosticism is a dualistic theological system. God is all good and the source of all goodness. Everything spiritual is of God and therefore good. Light too is of God and therefore good.

— Equal to God but diametrically opposed is the devil who is evil and the source of all evil. Everything material is of the devil and therefore evil. Darkness too is of the devil and therefore evil.

— Regarding creation, the Gnostics rejected Christian teaching. Instead, they posited that a series of aeons emanate from God in descending order. These aeons are paired, being called "syzygies," in almost a male-female sense: so the aeons depth and silence produce mind and truth, which produce reason and life, which produce man and state. All together they form the "pleroma."

— As these aeons recede from God, they become less perfect. The last aeon, the Demiurge, creates the material world due to some flaw, sin or passion. Man is created, but because of some primordial fault, his soul has fallen to this world and is imprisoned in the physical body. While his physical being is corrupt, his spiritual soul is good. In a sense, the good soul is the prisoner of the evil body; therefore, redemption is to release the soul from its bodily prison. To release the soul necessitates awakening the "gnosis," (the wisdom) within, a gnosis which "has fallen asleep" in physical matter.

[Critters2]

20. Thanks for posting this

I don't understand this popular notion of the Gnostics as a more valid form of Christianity that was suppressed by "the Church". I have a friend, a member of the Unity School, who believes this. I don't get it. Gnosticism denies that creation is good in any way. The Judaeo-Christian tradition, otoh, says God made Creation, "and declared it good".

Seems fairly clear to me.

[bloom]

25. Tim LaHaye and his Left Behind followers are nothing like the Gnostics.

Seem like they are opposites to me.

And I wouldn't expect the Catholic resource to be all that favorable to them either - since Gnostics generally rejected authority and the whole direction/hierarchy that ended up being the Catholic Church that we know today.


"They yearned to become spiritually "mature", to go beyond such elementary instruction toward higher levels of understanding. And this awareness they called gnosis, which means "knowledge" or "insight". To achieve gnosis, these Christians said, they no longer need the bishop or the clergy."

-Elaine Pagels - Adam, Eve, and the Serpent

They believed in immediate experience - not orthodoxy - not even organized religion. Of course this was around the time that Christianity was getting organized and people didn't take the organization for granted like they do now.

[godhatesrepublicans]

29. I like Elaine, but she over romanticized the Gnostics IMHO.

I stand by my statement. The Rapture movement is just disguised Gnostic hatred of the material world and the societies in it. But please, read and decide yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gnostics.html

[bloom]

32. The Wikipedia link illuminates just how many different forms

of Gnsoticism there were. Some were hedonistic.

Exs.

Early Gnosticism

Carpocrates

"Of the practices of the sect, Irenaeus says that they practised various magical arts as well as leading a licentious life. ..."

Carpocrates according to Clement

"Carpocrates is also mentioned by Clement of Alexandria in his Stromateis <2>. Clement quotes extensively from On Righteousness which he says was written by Epiphanes, Carpocrates' son. No copy outside of Clement's citation exists but the writing is of a strongly antinomian bent. It claims that differences in class and the ownership of property are unnatural and argues for property and women to be held in common. Clement also affirms the licentiousness of the Carpocratians, claiming that at their Agape (in the sense of an early Christian gathering) they "have intercourse where they will and with whom they will".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpocrates

---
And the stuff about the Borborites sound like something one's enemies would make up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borborites

---
I found the part on the Ophites interesting - I had read elsewhere about the serpent being a positive symbol - that the Christians sought to undermine.

Ophites

"The Ophites is a blanket term for numerous gnostic sects in Syria and Egypt about 100 A.D. The common trait was that these sects would give great importance to the serpent of the biblical tale of Adam and Eve, connecting the Tree of Knowledge (of Good and Evil) to gnosis. In contrast to Christian interpretations of the Serpent as Satan, Ophites viewed the serpent as the hero, and regarded the figure that the Bible identifies as God instead as being the evil demiurge.

As the Bible doesn't actually identify the serpent more than being a serpent, the Ophites felt perfectly justified in their position, pointing to the serpent's trying to cause Adam and Eve to gain knowledge, and the forbidding of this knowledge by the figure which Christianity and Judaism identify as God. Christians supporting the church orthodoxy viewed Gnosticism as their arch enemy, and took particular offence at the Ophites turning their view of the serpent on its head, eventually persecuting them out of existence.

Due to the church orthodoxy destroying (in the 4th century) the Ophite's own manuscripts and texts, most information about the ophitic sects must be gleaned from what their enemies said of them: Hippolytus (Philosoph. v.), Irenaeus (Against Heresies. i), Origen (Contra Celsum vi. 25 seq.) and Epiphanius of Salamis (Panarion. xxvi.). A few ophite texts have been recovered from discoveries such as the Nag Hammadi find."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophites

---------------

I wouldn't give LaHaye or his followers that much credit in being seriously spiritual. They may hate the world, though.

[bloom]

21. Asceticism

I have heard that the ascetic aspect of Christianity was inspired by Buddha ("most modern scholars have him living between approximately 563 BCE and 483 BCE").

----------

"Asceticism is most commonly associated with monks, yogis or priests, however any individual may choose to lead an ascetic life. Lao Zi, Gautama Buddha, Mahavir Swami, Saint Anthony, Francis of Assisi, Mahatma Gandhi and David Augustine Baker can all be considered ascetics. Many of these men left their families, possessions, and homes to live a mendicant life, and in the eyes of their followers demonstrated great spiritual attainment, or enlightenment...."

The historical Gautama Buddha adopted an extreme ascetic life after leaving his father's palace, where he once lived in extreme luxury. But later the Buddha rejected extreme asceticism as an impediment to ultimate freedom from suffering (nibbana), choosing instead a path that met the needs of the body without crossing over into luxury and indulgence. After abandoning extreme asceticism he was able to achieve enlightenment. This position became known as the Middle Path or Middle Way, and became one of the central organizing principles of Buddhist philosophy.
The degree of moderation suggested by this middle path varies depending on the interpretation of Buddhism at hand. Some traditions emphasize ascetic life more than other....

Asceticism is utterly rejected by Judaism; it is considered contrary to God's wishes for the world. God intended for the world to be enjoyed, in a permitted context of course <1>. The Talmud says that "if a person has the opportunity to taste a new fruit and refuses to do so, he will have to account for that in the next world"...

The Arabic word for asceticism is zuhd.
The Prophet Muhammad is quoted to have said, "What have I to do with worldly things? My connection with the world is like that of a traveler resting for a while underneath the shade of a tree and then moving on." He advised the people to live simple lives and himself practiced great austerities. Even when he had become the virtual king of arabia, he lived an austere life bordering on privation....

Sufism evolved not as a mystical but as an ascetic movement, as even the name suggests; Sufi refers to a rough woollen robe of the ascetic. A natural bridge from asceticism to mysticism has often been crossed by Muslim ascetics. Through meditation on the Qur'an and praying to Allah, the Muslim ascetic believes that he draws near to Allah, and by leading an ascetic life paves the way for absorption in Allah, the Sufi way to salvation....

Examples of secular asceticism:
A "Starving Artist" is someone who minimizes their living expenses in order to spend more time and effort on their art.
Eccentric inventors sometimes live similar lives in pursuit of technical rather than artistic goals.
"Hackers" often consider their programming projects to be more important than personal wealth or comfort...
Various individuals have attempted an ascetic lifestyle to free themselves from modern day addictions, such as alcohol, tobacco, drugs, fast food, gambling and sex.
Many professional athletes abstain from sex, rich foods, and other pleasures before major competitions in order to mentally prepare themselves for the upcoming contest.

More @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascetic

[Critters2]

22. There are ascetic traditions on all of the world religions

which makes them all closet Puritans, I guess

:sarcasm:

[varkam]

23. Not to sound like a broken record

I know my past few posts have been about Harris' The End of Faith, and this one will too (I don't have an original thought in my head at the moment).

Harris has a nice discussion on this very topic. He refers mainly to the drug laws in the country - specifically laws that prohibit the use of marijuana. I, myself, am neither an advocate for it's legalization nor am a user, but it is pretty ridiculous that it's illegal. There's a good deal of evidence to support it's medical benefits, and the evidence that shows long-term harm (the tar contained in the smoke aside) is sparse at best and non-existent at worst. It's not really about protecting ourselves from danger (as cigarettes and alcohol are legal), but it's about the prohibition of pleasure. To paraphrase Harris: If a drug were developed tomorrow that showed no risk of addiction, dependence, withdrawal, or psycho-physiological harm but produced a transient state of spiritual bliss in 100% of it's users, it would be illegal in this country.

To me, it makes a lot more sense to look at our drug laws in that fashion (a prohibition against pleasure as opposed to keeping citizens safe).

Welcome to DU! :toast:

[ozone_man]

28. He was right on the mark.

There is no valid reason that alcohol should be legal and pot illegal. By most measures that I know of alcohol is much more dangerous. Why is premarital sex a sin? Why is contraception a sin? As Harris suggests, and I agree, if there was a drug that produced geat pleasure with absolutely no side affects, it would almost certainly be made illegal.

"The Christian churches were offered two things: the spirit of Jesus and the idiotic morality of Paul, and they rejected the higher inspiration... Following Paul, we have turned the goodness of love into a fiend and degraded the crowning impulse of our being into a capital sin."
- Frank Harris

[TreasonousBastard]

24. Against pleasure or excess? Most...

religions, and many secular philosphies, have had places for ascetics and considered monkhood and such to be, if not mecessarily a superior choice, a necessary one for some. It's not that that is the ultimate lifestyle, but there is a place for that life if one chooses it.

Admonitions to build up "treasures in heaven" and avoid earthly diversions have been corrupted in some brands Christianity to mean that we should run around with the sackcloth and ash bucket. More to the point are the traditions that we should not live to excess. Pleasure itself is not the problem-- it is what gives us pleasure that could be the problem.

Defining "good" and "bad" pleasures is always a problem, and too many have gone that route. More to the point would be the much more difficult way of looking into ourselves for our own motivations in seeking, or accepting, pleasure.

And, what the hell is "pleasure," exactly?

On edit...

I just came across this little tidbit:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/05/17/the_war_on_sex.php

and it appears that the war on sex from some quarters is heating up. These quarters are regressing to the old war on Margaret Sanger when they complained that contraception would lead to an explosion of "immoral behavior" without the "fear" of pregnancy.

Same old shit, new day.

[bloom]

27. If there have always been

people with Asperger's - I can see where people with Asperger's would feel drawn or "called" into something like a monastery or nunnery (could be of the Christian sort or Zen or some other thing).


They/we tend to not "fit" into what is considered to be the norms of society - which may include it's self-indulgent, hedonistic, shallow, typically accepted way of being. People with Asperger's may also be a little obsessive - and can naturally be ascetic as one of the character traits.

That computer programmers can be thought of as ascetic (mentioned in the wikipedia article) does not surprise me as some of those people tend to be people with Asperger's. Same with artists.

It's a matter of getting pleasure from alternate sources. Art, intellectual pursuits, theological concerns, whatever. I don't think it's a bad thing.

-------

Of course the nonsense against birth control is ridiculous. Those people are whack. Plus it's a difference when it is something that one chooses for ones self - and something that people are trying to impose on everyone else.

[godhatesrepublicans]

33. Good point. For that matter I can only think of two philosophies that ...

..pushed for moderation and considered deprivation as bad as excess. There's the Buddhists obviously, and one of the minor Greek philosophers whose name eludes me. It seems odd that a reasonable position is the least popular one, or maybe it explains a lot about human nature.

[nemo137]

30. Check out the Book of Margery Kempe

It's a 14th (I think) century manuscript*, dictated by a female mystic from East Anglia, about her devotion to Jesus Christ. It's all about askesis and the via positiva and reaching God by giving up all physical pleasures. My medieval lit professor made the point that we've transferred askesis to looking our physical best, rather than pleasing god.

*Don't make the mistake I did and get the version edited by Lynn Staley instead of the version translated by Staley. You'll get through the Middle English, but it's a chore.