I've been thinking the last few days about self-control. I notice a severe lack of it in many people around me. Not just kids, though they have a higher ratio, but in adults also. It has gone so far, that, like Sodom, a lack of self-control is lauded and praised. People are complimented on how well they have 'shaken off the shackles' of self-control. After getting mad, and being disgusted, as is my custom, I finally decided to take a logical look at self-control and determine its worth. After all, if I am right, will logic not prove me so?

I began by looking at the origin of self-control. We define it as forcing yourself to follow the rules you have set for yourself. However, since anyone can change the rules they set to fit their own strengths and weaknesses, this idea of self-regulation is unreliable. So people defined self-control as based on social standards; what others around you see as acceptable, that you must conform to. Like self-regulation, however, a society can and will manipulate what they see as 'good' to fit the general desires of the culture. To give an example, sexual promiscuity is something our bodies want. The American society saw that as wrong a few decades ago, but after the 60's it became more normal until today, as I said, it is lauded. Finally, there are those who use an outside set of standards to determine right and wrong, and therefore self-controlled: they are the religious.

The most prominent, common thread in all of these ideas of self-control was based on what is right and wrong. Personal right and wrong has a very limited impact on a large group of people. However, if an entire group decided something was right, then it is possible that a societal norm may cause a change is a culture? It follows that if a society decides that a destructive behavior is okay, then that culture will suffer for it.

If a culture is not filled with people who are self-controlled, then that culture will collapse due to the self-destructive nature of our Id. Self-control, however, does not save a culture if their definition of it is either defined personally or by the society. In either case, the groups of people will turn to their self-destructive ways and pull the society down with it. The only type of self-control that can prevent a culture from suffering from the effects of human nature is a religious standard. Religious standards are immobile. They are often hundreds, if not thousands, of years old and not based on cultural standards, personal ideas or boundaries. Instead, they are based on what is best for humankind (in theory). So it is not simply self-control that is important for any society to succeed, but only a religious self-control can truly win out over time.

That is not the end of the answer, though. This is based on the assumption that the religious standard is what is best for people. Before we can choose a standard to base our self-control on, we must choose one that has the best interest of our (or any) culture. Can I do that? Unfortunately, I can not. However, if looking back on history, we should be able to prove what has worked and failed, and therefore base our assumptions on that. My intentions here are to prove that the Christian laws serve mankind best by showing their logical background. Of course, many, if not most, major world religions have the same basic rules of conduct. This being the case, I cannot show you how Christianity differs from the rest in this vein. Instead, read the paper 'The Dividing Line'.