A View Askew

A few days ago I was having a conversation with some students and they strongly advocated that in order to fully experience something, you need to experience the opposite.  So in order to be faithful, you need to have a time of infidelity.  To understand loyalty, you need to betray.  In order to love, you have to despise.  In order to be righteous, you have to sin.

The last one creates conflict for me.  I find it difficult to think that living a "good" life requires living recklessly first.  Why do I need to exist selfishly before I can live selflessly?  

As I wrestle this concept, it strikes me as explicitly humanist.  It feels like experience becomes the savior and that one can do anything once one has done everything.  Is there any intersection with this worldview and Christ?  

This worldview seems to believe we can only know we need a savior by living without one.  While this might feel true, how do we come to an understanding of needing a savior if one doesn't already exist.  It seems completely necessary that the Savior is already there and available.  (And He is.)

One other thought that leads to the conclusion of humanism:  is the opposite construction of this worldview true?  Does living with a Savior (or religion) lead to an understanding that one doesn't need any?  My real fear is that this is the trap of believing this way; eventually, we are good on our own and don't need any help.

I believe the beauty of the Gospel is that any/all of our experiences are void unless we are living in Christ.  My experience might inform me, but the freedom of "real" living comes with experiencing something beyond the world as I (or my experiences) limit it.