Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula

[Glaswegian]

Why are so many unmarried women drawn to the Christian religion? There are, of course, various reasons why these women are drawn to it. For example, the Christian religion provides unmarried women with a sense that their life has meaning and value of a spiritual kind; it provides them with a sense of social respectability as Christian believers; it provides them with a sense of belonging to a community (the Church)...and so on.

However, given the fact that there is a noted loss of enthusiasm for religious interests on the part of happily married women, we should suspect that a major reason why the Christian religion holds a strong appeal for unmarried women is because it satisfies certain needs of theirs which cannot be fulfilled within the context of marriage or a similar kind of relationship - specifically, the need to love a significant other and the need to be loved by this other in return.

So how does the Christian religion satisfy both of these needs? Well, it does this by providing unmarried women with the perfect object onto which their love needs can be projected and reciprocated: namely, Jesus. It is not too difficult to see why Jesus is such an alluring figure for many unmarried women. After all, think of all the women whose experience at the hands of men has been hurtful or damaging in some way. For example, think of the women who have been rejected or humiliated or disillusioned or oppressed or abused by men. I'm sure you'll agree that the number of women who have been given good cause for turning away from men is very large. This being so, is it any wonder that many of these women turn to Jesus as a substitute for real men? To this One in whom gentleness, compassion and love are epitomised....

But there is a further reason why Jesus serves as the perfect object for many unmarried women to re-direct their love needs onto. He is able to function so successfully in this role because he possesses an enormous advantage over men of the flesh and blood variety. And the advantage which Jesus possesses is this: since he is a fantasy-figure who only exists in the minds of Christans he is immune from all contact with reality. That is, unlike the empirical man, Jesus runs no risk of exposure to the vicissitudes of reality in any way. Since he is never tested by reality he runs no risk of failing in the face of it, of being 'brought down to earth' by it, of being unmasked by it, of being provoked by it, of being de-humanised by it...of being made brute-like by it.

This is why Jesus can be all things to the unmarried woman: for example, saviour, friend, confidante, lover of her 'soul'...her staff in this life, as she might put it. As a fantasy-figure, Jesus is forever safe from reality, forever beyond its reach, forever untouched by 'the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune'. Accordingly, he will never disappoint the unmarried woman who idolises him. How could he?

It is not only unmarried women who use Jesus as a vehicle for satisfying their love needs. No, it is not only the Eleanor Rigbys of this world who use him in this way. Many women who are unhappily married do so as well. And it is easy to see why. I mean, imagine a woman who has had the misfortune to marry a man who is a useless article, a man who has proven to be a complete disappointment in love and in lots of other ways, a man, say, who is violent or who wants nothing more from this life than to lie under his bedcovers and sniff his own farts. Imagine a woman who is trapped in such a marriage through fear of divorce or by physical threats. We should hardly be surprised if a woman in this position sought some kind of respite from her unhappiness in the love of a perfect, fantasised object like Jesus.

Regards

James

 

[Sunstone]

James, do you have any hard evidence for the alleged fact "that there is a noted loss of enthusiasm for religious interests on the part of happily married women"? Or, is this "fact" actually a bit of wild speculation on your part?

 

[Booko]

James, do you have any hard evidence for the alleged fact "that there is a noted loss of enthusiasm for religious interests on the part of happily married women"? Or, is this "fact" actually a bit of wild speculation on your part?

My "evidence" on this is all anecdotal (which means it isn't evidence, really), but it's been that happily married women, esp. when they have children, are more enthusiastic about religion. And they usually manage to bring their husbands along at some point.

If it's true that unmarried women are more likely to be found in a church, maybe it's because it's one of the few decent places to find a decent guy these days. Beats a bar hands down anytime.

Not to mention, you get an instant social life.

I also question the veracity that unmarried women would be more drawn to the Christian religion over any other one, other than the fact that it's a dominant religion here in this culture.

Maybe in Thailand they're drawn to the sangha just as much.

 

[Elvendon]

James, do you have any hard evidence for the alleged fact "that there is a noted loss of enthusiasm for religious interests on the part of happily married women"? Or, is this "fact" actually a bit of wild speculation on your part?

What he said... this seems to be a rather hefty lump of rhetoric for so late in the evening :areyoucra

 

[Elvendon]

Not to mention, you get an instant social life.

Now how is that for an advertising slogan?

"Christianity; Now with instant social life! Just add bread and wine!"

 

[Booko]

Now how is that for an advertising slogan?

"Christianity; Now with instant social life! Just add bread and wine!"

Hey that's really good! Shall I be looking for it in a sig line here soon?

btw...Frubals!

 

[Elvendon]

Hey that's really good! Shall I be looking for it in a sig line here soon?

btw...Frubals!

Hey thanks ^^

Maybe I will... but I like Julien too much to remove her just yet hehe

*huggles Julien*

Why isn't she a saint already!

 

[retrorich]

Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula

Because He is a polygamist?

 

[Glaswegian]

Psychologists have long recognised that religion is inextricably bound up with the sex instinct and they provide numerous examples of the complex and subtle ways in which religious behaviour and experience are shaped and informed by it. But it is not only psychologists who have discerned the connection between religion and the sex instinct. Many religionists have known about it as well - at least at an implicit level. After all, why do you think that religions have been so concerned with the sex instinct throughout the ages? Why do you think that some of them have been obsessed with it? Why do you think that Christianity, for example, has been so anxious to suppress the sex instinct in its followers? Is it not because this religion's policy-makers (e.g., the apostle Paul) have understood, albeit in a dim, rudimentary way, that when the sex instinct is allowed to express itself naturally - say, in a good healthy shag - the sublimation of this instinct into religious feeling and sentiment is less likely to occur?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Psychologists have long recognised that religion is inextricably bound up with the sex instinct and they provide numerous examples of the complex and subtle ways in which religious behaviour and experience are shaped and informed by it. But it is not only psychologists who have discerned the connection between religion and the sex instinct. Many religionists have known about it as well - at least at an implicit level. After all, why do you think that religions have been so concerned with the sex instinct throughout the ages? Why do you think that some of them have been obsessed with it? Why do you think that Christianity, for example, has been so anxious to suppress the sex instinct in its followers? Is it not because this religion's policy-makers (e.g., the apostle Paul) have understood, albeit in a dim, rudimentary way, that when the sex instinct is allowed to express itself naturally - say, in a good healthy shag - the sublimation of this instinct into religious feeling and sentiment is less likely to occur?

Which ones?

In your wrecklessness to criticise Christianity before doing any research or reflection on that which you set out to criticize (believe me, you're not the first on this forum or in the real world), you've completely ignored the fact that Christianity is the product of and has thrived in a predominately patristic Western society, in which women were property and sexual relations, at least within the context of marriage, were largely regulated.

The western philosopers in the Stoic and Socratic tradition taught that people should live according to reason and not according to the desires of their bodies. Had you made yourself aware at all with the context of early Christian writings, you would know that these writers preserved the tradition of Jesus as congruent to these philosophers, and the church fathers continued this tradition. A teacher in Hellenistic times, which was dominated by Stoicism, was one who lived according to reason and not according to boldily desires - when religion is added to the mix, the supression of bodily desires is justified by myth rather than strictly philosophical tenants.

footnotes - I've collected some evidence of this in ancient sources.

The Church and Sex
The Greco-Roman concept of original sin
Socrates and Jesus on Lust
The Philosophers Saved Humanity
Aristotle and Romans 7
Cicero on justice
Commited Same-Sex Relationships in Plato

EDIT: One element in a patristic society is the need to preserve one's place in society with legitimate heirs, making pre-marital sex, homosexuality, and other forms of extra-marital sex illegitimate social behaviors, and one is seen as acting like an animal when one follow's one's desires and not something purposed by reason or religion.

===

BTW, I hope that you've seen these threads:

You know my soul but you don't do the dishes
Man's Best Friend

 

[Elvendon]

Psychologists have long recognised that religion is inextricably bound up with the sex instinct and they provide numerous examples of the complex and subtle ways in which religious behaviour and experience are shaped and informed by it. But it is not only psychologists who have discerned the connection between religion and the sex instinct. Many religionists have known about it as well - at least at an implicit level. After all, why do you think that religions have been so concerned with the sex instinct throughout the ages? Why do you think that some of them have been obsessed with it? Why do you think that Christianity, for example, has been so anxious to suppress the sex instinct in its followers? Is it not because this religion's policy-makers (e.g., the apostle Paul) have understood, albeit in a dim, rudimentary way, that when the sex instinct is allowed to express itself naturally - say, in a good healthy $%^! - the sublimation of this instinct into religious feeling and sentiment is less likely to occur?

A number of things

1) Something is missing from your pretty little speech. Evidence. If you don't provide us with some links, you won't have a chance of convincing us. So far, this just seems like the kind of rhetoric that creationists use to bolster their views - "But... but... some scientists don't believe in evolution!" "Which ones?"

2) You can't say the s word on these forums I don't think, it's against the terms of use.

3) I think you are quite right about the fact that sex distracts from religious practice, or it can do (trantric Buddhists would disagree with you I think.) However, you appear to be asserting that religion provides a substitute for sex, which again is an assertion without any evidence whatsoever. In my mind at least they appear to be thoroughly different sensations.

4) In your first post you appear to be saying that unmarried women seek Jesus out more than married women because Jesus is the ideal man - who will love you unconditionally and accept you for who you are. Now, though the link between sex and romantic love is undoubtable, for your theory about the competition of religion and sexual desire will only apply to romantic love if romantic love, or the love which unmarried women supposedly feel for Jesus, is completely dependent upon sexual attraction. From my experience, love between two partners is considerably more than just lust (otherwise, how do you explain people remaining together after they cease sexual relations?) and so there really isn't any connection that I can see between the argument of your first post (single women being more drawn to Christ due to his being the perfect man-figure and thus they love him) and the argument of your second post (sex and religion compete.) I suspect you have confused yourself somewhere.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

Psychologists have long recognised that religion is inextricably bound up with the sex instinct and they provide numerous examples of the complex and subtle ways in which religious behaviour and experience are shaped and informed by it. But it is not only psychologists who have discerned the connection between religion and the sex instinct. Many religionists have known about it as well - at least at an implicit level. After all, why do you think that religions have been so concerned with the sex instinct throughout the ages? Why do you think that some of them have been obsessed with it? Why do you think that Christianity, for example, has been so anxious to suppress the sex instinct in its followers? Is it not because this religion's policy-makers (e.g., the apostle Paul) have understood, albeit in a dim, rudimentary way, that when the sex instinct is allowed to express itself naturally - say, in a good healthy shag - the sublimation of this instinct into religious feeling and sentiment is less likely to occur?

(sarcasm)If this person states that Psychologists claim this to be true then it must be true(end sarcasm)

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[angellous_evangellous]

(sarcasm)If this person states that Psychologists claim this to be true then it must be true(end sarcasm)

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

I'd be very impressed if a psychologist understood both the anthopology of all of the world religions and gathered enough information from all of them to conclude that religion is inextricably tied to sexuality. Such an ubermensch I'd say most likely has the moral capacity of a dog.

Sigh.

In any event, I'd email such a person to be sure and get their opinion on everything.

 

[Peace4all]

Mabey Jesus has more brides than Dracula because he's prettier Hey just a thought...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Mabey Jesus has more brides than Dracula because he's prettier Hey just a thought...

Or perhaps because he's been around longer. :clap :beach: :clap

 

[Elvendon]

Mabey Jesus has more brides than Dracula because he's prettier Hey just a thought...

Oh you bet... Jesus is quite the dish. I mean look:

Our Lord:
http://www.hasilvestre.org.br/advir/imagens/GoldSat1/images/Jesus%20Christ.jpg

Nosferatu:
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/images/nosferatu.jpg

It's a no brainer really

 

[Glaswegian]

Since it first appeared on the earth - and throughout its long and deplorable history - the Christian religion has been the mother of sexual insanity. The mental asylums of the world have been filled with individuals beyond number (a number which is replenished daily) who drove themselves mad, or were driven mad, as a result of Christianity's morbid and unnatural teachings about sex. Human beings owe more to Kinsey than they do to Christ or his Church for the more enlightened view about sex which now exists in the Western world.

 

[Elvendon]

Since it first appeared on the earth - and throughout its long and deplorable history - the Christian religion has been the mother of sexual insanity. The mental asylums of the world have been filled with individuals beyond number (a number which is replenished daily) who drove themselves mad, or were driven mad, as a result of Christianity's morbid and unnatural teachings about sex. Human beings owe more to Kinsey than they do to Christ or his Church for the more enlightened view about sex which now exists in the Western world.

Glaswegian... I am going to say this once more, and if you don't pay attention I will henceforth ignore you and write you off as someone who can't argue... okay? Are you looking?

PROVE IT!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Since it first appeared on the earth - and throughout its long and deplorable history - the Christian religion has been the mother of sexual insanity. The mental asylums of the world have been filled with individuals beyond number (a number which is replenished daily) who drove themselves mad, or were driven mad, as a result of Christianity's morbid and unnatural teachings about sex. Human beings owe more to Kinsey than they do to Christ or his Church for the more enlightened view about sex which now exists in the Western world.

Willful ignorance is criminal.

Unfortunately, since you have completely ignored all historical evidence that could inform your baseless claims, you are not reviewing the actual, historical Christian Church, but the morbid institution that exists only in your uninformed mind.

The following quote is from Socrates and Jesus on Lust.

From Xenophon, Memorabilia book 1.3 - a teaching of Socrates

Of sensual passion he would say: “Avoid it resolutely: it is not easy to control yourself once you meddle with that sort of thing.”

Thus, on hearing that Critobulus had kissed Alcibiades' pretty boy, he put this question to Xenophon before Critobulus: [9] “Tell me, Xenophon, did you not suppose Critobulus to be a sober person, and by no means rash; prudent, and not thoughtless or adventurous?”

“Certainly,” said Xenophon.

“Then you are to look on him henceforth as utterly hot-headed and reckless: the man would do a somersault into a ring of knives; he would jump into fire.”
[10] “What on earth has he done to make you think so badly of him?” asked Xenophon.

“What has the man done? He dared to kiss Alcibiades' son, and the boy is very good-looking and attractive.”

“Oh, if that is the sort of adventure you mean, I think I might make that venture myself.”

“Poor fellow! [11] What do you think will happen to you through kissing a pretty face? Won't you lose your liberty in a trice and become a slave, begin spending large sums on harmful pleasures, have no time to give to anything fit for a gentleman, be forced to concern yourself with things that no madman even would care about?”

[12] “Heracles! what alarming power in a kiss!” cried Xenophon.

“What? Does that surprise you?” continued Socrates. “Don't you know that the scorpion, though smaller than a farthing, if it but fasten on the tongue, inflicts excruciating and maddening pain?”

“Yes, to be sure; for the scorpion injects something by its bite.”

[13] “And do you think, you foolish fellow, that the fair inject nothing when they kiss, just because you don't see it? Don't you know that this creature called ‘fair and young’ is more dangerous than the scorpion, seeing that it need not even come in contact, like the insect, but at any distance can inject a maddening poison into anyone who only looks at it?

“Maybe, too, the loves are called archers for this reason, that the fair can wound even at a distance.

“Nay, I advise you, Xenophon, as soon as you see a pretty face to take to your heels and fly: and you, Critobulus, I advise to spend a year abroad. It will certainly take you at least as long as that to recover from the bite.”
[14] Thus in the matter of carnal appetite, he held that those whose passions were not under complete control should limit themselves to such indulgence as the soul would reject unless the need of the body were pressing, and such as would do no harm when the need was there. As for his own conduct in this matter, it was evident that he had trained himself to avoid the fairest and most attractive more easily than others avoid the ugliest and most repulsive. [15] Concerning eating and drinking then and carnal indulgence such were his views, and he thought that a due portion of pleasure would be no more lacking to him than to those who give themselves much to these, and that much less trouble would fall to his lot.

===

Compare to Jesus' teaching in Matthew 5.27-8 (ESV)

27"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' 28But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Since it first appeared on the earth - and throughout its long and deplorable history - the Christian religion has been the mother of sexual insanity. The mental asylums of the world have been filled with individuals beyond number (a number which is replenished daily) who drove themselves mad, or were driven mad, as a result of Christianity's morbid and unnatural teachings about sex. Human beings owe more to Kinsey than they do to Christ or his Church for the more enlightened view about sex which now exists in the Western world.

Now that is an interesting fantasy. It is insulting that you should expect any of your readers here to uncritically accept this incredible claim, which is nothing short of propaganda that has no contact with reality whatsoever.