Originally posted by Ford Prefect
I'm saying that religion expects the impossible of the human being. Saying that extramarital sexual fantasies are expressly chosen is a major leap of faith, considering what we've observed about behavioral patterns in sexuality, (the Coolidge Effect, etc.), which tells us that humans, (especially males), are more sexually attracted to strangers than to people with whom they are familiar. (This is why we naturally avoid incest.) So unless there's a religion that says, "Go ahead and fantasize about other women/men", they're all telling people to suppress something very, very powerful.
Being attracted to people is one thing, engaging in fantasies is another. I can quite easily choose what I think about. I do it all the time. This includes when I notice that a woman is attractive, start thinking about that, and then say to myself "...but, anyway,..." and start thinking about something else. It's really quite easy.
The situation is similar to being angry at someone, for example. I have an emotional response, and that is fine. There's nothing sinful about anger. Jesus got quite pissed off at people sometimes. The issue is what you do with your feelings, not how you feel. There are right ways and wrong ways to deal with them. It's the same with attraction. Maybe some concrete examples will help you see the sistinction I am drawing.
A 16-year-old boy really likes some girl. His heart beats faster and he even gets a bit aroused every time she is near. In his head, he is thinking "Wow, she is so fantastic!" (or possibly just going "Buh, buh, buh..." because he has little ability to think at all when around her). So far, all is great. God has a little smile on, because this is the way he made things to be and he likes it. Eventually, the boy gets his thoughts together and decides to ask her out, because in his head he is thinking "Wow, I just want to be around her, she is so great!" So he does, and she agrees. They go out a few times, and really enjoy each other's company, and the boy continually finds her really attractive and still often finds himself aroused by her presence. All is great. One day the desire to be near her and bask in her wonder starts to change in him, and (perhaps subtly at first) becomes a desire to possess her. He begins not just to find her attractive, but starts visuallising scenarios where he manages to get into her pants. He doesn't necessarily think things will work out the way he imagines, but he is still hoping that something like one of these scenarios will. Now he has moved from attraction to lust: he may never actually try anything, but now he has half-assed plans about what he'll do if the opportunity arises. If he decides to repent and throw off this possessiveness and the schemes it produces, he has moved away from lust back into right relationship with the girl. If not, then he remains in sin.
Another scenario, this time with a married man. He has met, dated, and married the girl he liked (probably falling into lust a few times along the way). He is now in the situation where it is appropriate for him to get into his wife's pants on a regular basis, and he does so. But he still sees other women and is attracted to them. Again, he is not lusting at that point. If he starts imagining himself sleeping with those other women, then he is lusting. But if, instead of putting the energy aroused by seeing those other women into fantasies about them, he decides to use that energy to go home and make love to his wife, he is not lusting.
Did that help clarify?
Oh, and as far as religion asking the impossible goes: Christianity, at least, specifically says that on our own it is completely impossible for us to free ourselves from sin. Sin is, stricly speaking, an underlying condition of not being like God made us to be. Individual actions that violate particular commands are symptoms of the underlying problem. Even if we kept all the commands, we'd still be in need of help, because we are part of an entire world that is broken and needs to be fixed, and we can't make ourselves whole. It will only be when the whole world is restored that we will be entirely set free. In the meantime, we already have some measure (a downpayment, if you will) of the power of God that will accomplish this one day in the future, which allows us a certain amount of freedom and healing from our brokenness in the present. It is this power that allows us to grow in strength to be more like Jesus, and thereby to violate God's intended order less.
Yes, but "good" is teleological, and what is the ultimate goal of doing good on this earth? Isn't it spiritual transcendence? That makes the physical world significant, but still the rung on a ladder to higher places. Now, by the same token, while Buddhism views Enlightenment as the ultimate goal, there is a path that all people must follow in order to reach it. (We tend only to regard things as worthy if we have to work for them.) That path to Enlightenment is through the physical world. So Enlightenment is superior to physical existence, but still depends on the corporeal in order to be seen as beautiful and worthy of attainment. So in both these religions, the physical world is a means to an end, but still an obstruction in the sense that it is a trial that the individual must face.
From the Christian perspective, the telos of doing good is not spiritual transcendence. It is seeing this world made good again. If you read Romans chapter 8, for example, you'll read that all the created world is going to be "released from its bondage to decay," which also includes us human beings getting our physical bodies back so that we can live forever in this repaired world. This world is the one God cares about and is ultimately going to fix entirely, and therefore is the one Christians are to care about and with God's help, make better as much as we can today. In my part of Vancouver, there are a lot of people trapped in poverty and drug abuse. Christians here run shelters and rehab centres, and feed the hungry on an regular, ongoing basis because we want to see their lives better than they are now. We consider that an intrinic good in itself, even if no one decides to follwo Christ. And if people do decide to become followers of Jesus, that is great because it means that they are stepping into the path of life that will ulitmately lead to endless abundant life in the future when God restores the world, and that already provides fuller life in the present while we await the complete repair of the world that is to come.
But I wasn't just talking about celibacy. I described a general lifestyle associated with people fully devoted to their religion, and celibacy wasn't the only thing I mentioned. That's probably my fault for poorly writing the paragraph. Anyway, do any religions associate opulence with their most devoted followers? It strikes me that holding in great esteem those who give up a comfortable way of life in pursuit of deeper faith is quite universal. It sounds like a "duh" argument, but it does illustrate a shared view of religion's purpose, (even if the ideal is rarely in sync with the practice.)
I assumed celibacy was what you had in mind based on the context. Apparently you mean asceticism in general. Anyway, there is a spectrum of responses to be found in this regard, both across religions and within any one of them. Christianity and Buddhism both aim in general at moderation (though for very different reasons), Shinto leans towards opulence, while many (but not all) of the Hindu religions tend towards asceticism.
Within Christianity, devotion to God is what is important, and the form that takes will vary depending on circumstances. Generosity is the primary concern as far as relating to comfortable living goes, and loving generosity is what we Christians especially esteem as holiness. In pursuit of generous love, some people may need to take a more ascetic stance regarding money, comfort, food, etc. in their own lives in order to counter their paticular imbalances. Other people have different issues and need to take just the opposite stance. (So for example, my wife has to impose a bit of asceticism on herself in regard to going to the mall: she denies herself trips to the mall because she is always tempted to spend money on stuff she doesn't need and would never have thought of getting at all if she weren't there, instead of using it for better purposes. I, on the other hand, tend to be a miser, and have to learn to be more free with money, because I find that when I am unwilling to spend on myself, I am unwilling to spend on others.) But in either case, generosity is the goal. A more extreme ascetic might be admired simply for his strength of will, but not because asceticism is holy.
