"Intimacy " with a deity
There are some expressions that really make me cringe, a form of the "Yuck response" I am willing to defend (unlike Leon's Kass's, by contrast).
I find occasion for the semantic yuck response when I hear a man talk about his "intimacy" with Jesus or a god, not so much because of the deity part (though that does offend me as well, for reasons I'll outline later), but more because of the "intimacy" part.
First of all, real men generally don't go around talking about "intimacy," except perhaps to mock it. It's a women's term, and one they use as a euphemism for sex, apparently because so many women are afraid to talk about the business of plugging together in plain English. (Ads for lubricants to enhance "intimacy" show the dishonesty involved.)
Secondly, even if such a religiously brainwashed and presumably heterosexual man thought he had a "relationship" with a deity (which is not unlike a 10-year-old talking about Harry Potter as if he were his real best friend), what is going on in his brain that short-circuits the homophobic "yuck response" he would probably feel if he started thinking about "intimacy" with a living man?
I suppose the religionist could counter that he is using "intimacy" in an emotional or psychological sense (though christians often employ the confusing anti-concept "spiritual" to describe those aspects of our subjective experiences), but psychological research and common sense suggest that when a word has two or more meanings, we can't always consciously separate the two. So do men who mouth off about their "intimacy" with a god reveal repressed homoerotic feelings?
Speaking personally, I have drifted towards Atheism, Secular Humanism and Transhumanism in part because I don't have many of the sorts of emotional responses to ordinary cultural phenomena displayed by others. For example, I'm not merely signed up for cryonic suspension (a minor "yuck" in our society), but I have chosen the neurosuspension option (a major "yuck"), and I really don't care what others think about my choices.
Regarding my emotional responses to religious constructs, which incorporate largely arbitrary beliefs, as far as I can tell, I have never understood the appeal of Jesus as a personality, much less a reason why I'm supposed to want to worship him (assuming he even existed historically) or his alleged father as deities -- apart from the conjectured prudential one that they will zap me if I don't, for which I see absolutely no evidence. Even as a child I remember feeling uncomfortable around displays of religious behavior, including pictures of it in books. Ironically religionists themselves acknowledge that religiosity is weird and creepy, when they see it displayed by other religionists in ways they find disturbing, even within the same religious tradition. (For an especially psychotic example from Islam, look up the Shia Muslim holiday of Ashura.)
Any way, I'm trying to get at the point that when christians tell me that I need a "relationship" with Jesus, whatever that means, I feel like responding with, "Why would I want that? I don't value relationships with people all that much!" And in addition to the lack of emotional chemistry, I have intellectual problems with the idea that if a deity exists, I would need to find out how to contact it, interact with it and obey its commands. I do not see how that follows from the existence premise.
In short, christianity, especially, makes assumptions about human psychology that I find don't apply completely to me. I'm largely emotionally independent and have warm but fairly arm's-length relationships with my parents and sister. Not surprisingly I'm still single at age 44. Many women have told me that I'm "cold," whatever that means, though that impression may result less from my habitual flat affect than from my declining estimation of female value with age and experience, which women can probably pick up on. If I don't need a female companion to make my life worthwhile, why would I need a deity's "love"?
I find occasion for the semantic yuck response when I hear a man talk about his "intimacy" with Jesus or a god, not so much because of the deity part (though that does offend me as well, for reasons I'll outline later), but more because of the "intimacy" part.
First of all, real men generally don't go around talking about "intimacy," except perhaps to mock it. It's a women's term, and one they use as a euphemism for sex, apparently because so many women are afraid to talk about the business of plugging together in plain English. (Ads for lubricants to enhance "intimacy" show the dishonesty involved.)
Secondly, even if such a religiously brainwashed and presumably heterosexual man thought he had a "relationship" with a deity (which is not unlike a 10-year-old talking about Harry Potter as if he were his real best friend), what is going on in his brain that short-circuits the homophobic "yuck response" he would probably feel if he started thinking about "intimacy" with a living man?
I suppose the religionist could counter that he is using "intimacy" in an emotional or psychological sense (though christians often employ the confusing anti-concept "spiritual" to describe those aspects of our subjective experiences), but psychological research and common sense suggest that when a word has two or more meanings, we can't always consciously separate the two. So do men who mouth off about their "intimacy" with a god reveal repressed homoerotic feelings?
Speaking personally, I have drifted towards Atheism, Secular Humanism and Transhumanism in part because I don't have many of the sorts of emotional responses to ordinary cultural phenomena displayed by others. For example, I'm not merely signed up for cryonic suspension (a minor "yuck" in our society), but I have chosen the neurosuspension option (a major "yuck"), and I really don't care what others think about my choices.
Regarding my emotional responses to religious constructs, which incorporate largely arbitrary beliefs, as far as I can tell, I have never understood the appeal of Jesus as a personality, much less a reason why I'm supposed to want to worship him (assuming he even existed historically) or his alleged father as deities -- apart from the conjectured prudential one that they will zap me if I don't, for which I see absolutely no evidence. Even as a child I remember feeling uncomfortable around displays of religious behavior, including pictures of it in books. Ironically religionists themselves acknowledge that religiosity is weird and creepy, when they see it displayed by other religionists in ways they find disturbing, even within the same religious tradition. (For an especially psychotic example from Islam, look up the Shia Muslim holiday of Ashura.)
Any way, I'm trying to get at the point that when christians tell me that I need a "relationship" with Jesus, whatever that means, I feel like responding with, "Why would I want that? I don't value relationships with people all that much!" And in addition to the lack of emotional chemistry, I have intellectual problems with the idea that if a deity exists, I would need to find out how to contact it, interact with it and obey its commands. I do not see how that follows from the existence premise.
In short, christianity, especially, makes assumptions about human psychology that I find don't apply completely to me. I'm largely emotionally independent and have warm but fairly arm's-length relationships with my parents and sister. Not surprisingly I'm still single at age 44. Many women have told me that I'm "cold," whatever that means, though that impression may result less from my habitual flat affect than from my declining estimation of female value with age and experience, which women can probably pick up on. If I don't need a female companion to make my life worthwhile, why would I need a deity's "love"?
posted by Mark Plus at 8:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home