Why Would Anyone Say This?

[R. S. Martin]

It was written a hundred years ago but I can hear fundies say the exact same thing today.

 

He quotes Ps. 18:7-13 then asks the comment below.

 

"Then the earth shook and quaked; And the foundations of the mountains trembled and shook, Because He was wroth.

There went up a smoke out of His nostrils, And fire out of His mouth devoured: Coals burned forth from it.

And He bowed the heavens and came down; And darkness was under His feet.

And He rode upon a cherub, and did fly; Yea, he flew fast upon the wings of the wind.

He made darkness His secret place; His tent round about Him: Darkness of waters, thick clouds of the skies.

From the brightness before Him His thick cloud passed forth

Hail and coals of fire.

And Jehovah thundered in the heavens, And the Most High uttered His voice; Hail and coals of fire." (Psalm 18:7-13)

 

Sublime picture, is it not?

 

(FROM: Arno. C. Gaebelein. THE HARMONY OF THE PROPHETIC WORD: A KEY TO OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECY CONCERNING THINGS TO COME, 1907.)

 

The title of the book should tell you all. He gloats over all these prophecies in the Old and New Testaments as though he's onto some treasured truth. As I'm sure all of you know, what he does is pick and choose passages from Genesis to Revelation and paste them into a perfect collage (patch upon patch) to build a story that he then passes off as eternal truth. And he provides NOT support whatsoever for his blanket statements. It's maddening.

 

The only reason I read it is because I am determined to get at the root of fundamentalist thought--I want to know WHY they think like this. Reading some of the early writers seems like a decent way into the mystery of their minds. So I think.

 

What I don't get is that he lives on this beautiful planet and has to dig up some sinister passages and then labels them sublime.

 

I looked up the word "sublime."

 

sub·lime adjective.

 

1. Characterized by nobility; majestic.

2.

a. Of high spiritual, moral, or intellectual worth.

b. Not to be excelled; supreme.

 

3. Inspiring awe; impressive.

4. Archaic. Raised aloft; set high.

5. Obsolete. Of lofty appearance or bearing; haughty: "not terrible,/That I should fear . . . /But solemn and sublime" (John Milton).

 

It seems to me like there must be something psychopathic when a person needs to do this. Just had to get that out of my system.

[Grandpa Harley]

It's not an unusual late 19th Century view...

[Mankey]

I do not feel that I know anything...like really know anything....when it comes to religion....

 

What seems to make sense to me is that even a bigoted person might feel deep down inside that they might need to rationally justify certain feelings or convictions. Even while they hold them.

 

....but...if...they have such a powerful artifact from God ( the bible )....which makes many truth claims....then they need not say anything except this is truth from God. They have faith.

 

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for....evidence of things not seen .

 

The idea that we "know" God and what his plan is, as well as what he expects is dangerous as far as I can sense.

 

The bible is a big book and cherry picking is real easy. I feel that it is the idea that a Mankee can "know" God is dangerous.

 

I dunno..

[Ro-bear]

No doubt about it; the fundies love their scary god. This classic piece by Jonathan Edwards finds close echoes in today's apologists, at least the ones that haven't tried to sft-pedal the hell doctrine.

 

http://members.aol.com/wnichint/Justice.pdf

 

Even the minutest sins appears infinite to a perfect god, hence eternal torture is justifiable, and God should delight in administering it.

[Mankey]

No doubt about it; the fundies love their scary god. This classic piece by Jonathan Edwards finds close echoes in today's apologists, at least the ones that haven't tried to sft-pedal the hell doctrine.

 

http://members.aol.com/wnichint/Justice.pdf

 

Even the minutest sins appears infinite to a perfect god, hence eternal torture is justifiable, and God should delight in administering it.

Thank you kindly for bringing this up Ro-bear.

 

It has been a while since I really read the bible....I sometimes wonder if what I think I know is not exactly right. I have a strong bias against the bible and theology.

 

I am a very compulsive person and I feel that I must start all over again. Re-read scripture....

[Mankey]

I do know that the bible is definitely a mixed bag. I hate it.

[mwc]

I would have to say if I actually saw something like that it would be an impressive sight (sublime). I watch movies on very large screens and I find their effects sublime. I realize that this isn't quite the same thing but as a image it is. We are to be in awe of this god's ability. But other god's can do equally impressive feats but people no longer think those things will come into the real world is all. Movies are, IMHO, taking some of the "awe" out of old god. I can see better on the big screen. The 20 minutes of Harry Potter in IMAX 3D was quite interesting and out did awesome god in the Psalms.

 

As for why someone would revel in the idea of such destruction? It means their "turn" is coming soon. God is the perfect form of government and they will be a part of that ruling class. Soon everyone will know just how right they were and how they'll delight in knowing that no matter how much those people grovel it will be too late to join the ruling clan. Such a sense of self-satisfaction that must offer to such small men. The ability to select ones self out for greatness has a certain attraction don't you think?

 

mwc

[Fweethawt]

I really don't think that the reasons for someone writing this stuff is too hard to figure out.

 

RECIPE FOR A FUCKED UP STORY -

 

Take one (1) half-starved individual with

one (1) half-sun-baked delusional brain

give him a pencil and piece of paper.

 

Let sit for a couple of hours, and the end

result is Christian Theology™

 

 

[Mankey]

I really don't think that the reasons for someone writing this stuff is too hard to figure out.

 

RECIPE FOR A FUCKED UP STORY -

 

Take one (1) half-starved individual with

one (1) half-sun-baked delusional brain

give him a pencil and piece of paper.

 

Let sit for a couple of hours, and the end

result is Christian Theology™

 

 

Yes. That is how I view things.

 

I don't know, its kinda confusing.

 

I guess I could say that you can't use the bible to justify anything cause the bible is inconsistent. Its impossible to be a Christian. Yet...folks think they know what they are doing when they have ideas of what the bible says.

[Mankey]

I don't know jack about theology. I am just trying to make sense of things.

 

I can only share my feelings on it.

[Eccles]

The problem as I see it is that there are still too many people who have been brainwashed into Christianity from birth and kept within the confines of Christianity. I should know. It happened to me. My parents were devout Roman Catholics, however I hated learning religion at school, but was forced to. I could never swallow that stuff. My interest in science lead me quickly to see through all the bible bullshit. Fortunately my parents never stopped me from learning science and from forming my own views.

 

The other problem is that Christians are told from the start that the bible is true. Some claim it is the inerrant "Word of God". How can it be as there was no "god" that wrote it, no "god" that inspired it. The bible is full of inconsistencies and contradictions. Even the Synoptic Gospels do not agree in their stories about Jesus, the Nazarene. So how can this book be taken seriously? I just read some of Deuteronomy. What a terrible example of a compassionate loving "god". The bible should be on the restricted list rated 18+, or better still - banned. It is unsuitable reading for children.

[R. S. Martin]

No doubt about it; the fundies love their scary god. This classic piece by Jonathan Edwards finds close echoes in today's apologists, at least the ones that haven't tried to sft-pedal the hell doctrine.

 

http://members.aol.com/wnichint/Justice.pdf

 

Even the minutest sins appears infinite to a perfect god, hence eternal torture is justifiable, and God should delight in administering it.

 

Thanks for this link. I'm reading it. I've never been exposed to Jonathan Edwards. If this is the teaching on which most of you were raised--it's just plain stupid/horrible! I'm beginning to see why scholars say horse and buggy Mennonites are not true fundamentalists. I think the level of mind control is much higher in fundamentalism than I experienced. There was no ban on reading material. Not even an effort to control reading, except a casual eye on the school library. Where real effort was exerted was to protect us from the influence of the churches around us. It was said that these churches were so slippery that they could get you entangled up in them without knowing exactly what happened. I am beginning to realize that the churches they tried to protect us from were the real fundamentalists.

 

Our lives were severely circumscribed in what we were allowed to have material wise. But what we were allowed to have (clothing styles, means of transportation, homes and technology) was pretty much upper class Victorian style life with a strong dash of twentieth century technology such as gas and electric motors and other technology. In other words, it was the life of the wealthy a century earlier and by no means unpleasant for human existence. The perceived problem was "coveting/lusting after the things of the world," which first and foremost included the automobile and telephone (when I was growing up; in 1989 the telephone was admitted in my community), cut hair and pants on women, female leadership in public, fancy names for babies, fancy homes, clothing, and vehicles; large tractors and other farm machinery, and much more.

 

But when it came to "right thought" there wasn't all that much to go on. A humble attitude, humility in thought and deed, appearance and lifestyle and in communication with each other esp. authority figures--those were the things that were valued and judged. I would say there were very few role models for such a life because most authority figures were so busy ensuring that everybody paid them due respect. You can be sure that rebellion in whatever mode of expression was labeled evil. This put some people at a very serious disadvantage. Birth control was despised if not forbidden. This made for very large families. In a community where automobile transportation was suppposed to be wrong that made for problems.

 

The size of the community increased by leaps and bounds. It was impossible to keep the community small enough for people to travel to each other's homes by horse and buggy travel; it was too long a trip for a horse to get there and back in between morning and evening milking. Also, two hours or more of travel in an open buggy in all seasons became dangerous in terms of keeping alive; in severe cold humans were threatened by frost bite or worse and in extreme heat (summer) horses were liable to suffer from becoming over-heated. And then there was the humane society ever on the watch for over-worked and abused horses.

 

Various ways have been used to address the problem, all of which were considered by some to violate humility. One way was to hire vans for travel to distant areas--seen by some as lust of the world for fast, easy, and extensive travel; not content with one's lot as appointed by god (the church). Another was to get high-tech milking equipment--seen by some as pride in possessions. Building and using closed vehicles was another approach. Closed vehicles called for windows. Large windows made it look like a stage-coach. Stage coaches were wordly. The church rules were completely reactive; no rules were made until someone was deemed to have taken things too far.

 

"Good" Christians lived happily within the normal traditions inherited from former generations. It was the young generation that suffered. Having no money and no resources, they were forced to settle on cheap farms far from the churches, and thus obligated to go for modern conveniences. Being young, they lacked voice in the community unless they happened to have a prominent father or grandfather who would advocate for them. Occassionally, prominent church leaders were known to make accommodations for their off-spring without consulting anyone.

 

My guess is that with so much energy exerted and focused on outward appearance and observable life style, there was none left for mind control. If one managed to assume the proper humble attitude and to escape judgment by abiding by church rules, there was great freedom of personal thought. At times I wondered what the church would do if people knew the kinds of reading material I was bringing home from the public library. In a desperate effort to dig my way out of chronic unhappiness I devoured everything I could lay hands on regarding self-esteem and self-improvement. I also read many books on Myers-Briggs. That combination is what saved my sanity.

 

In a community where the individual was sacrificed for the good of the whole, individual identity is not valued AT ALL. Yet what I needed almost more than food was an identity. These books helped me find one. Yes, I did end up leaving the church. Not because I wanted to but because my needs were considered totally invalid. It was a matter of life and death. I was often deeply saddened around funerals of individuals who were looked down upon. At the funeral, and in the days leading up to it, the community and leadership blamed itself, but by the time the funeral was over and done with, nothing was done to improve life for other marginalized individuals. The attitude was: If they want to be so different they've got to look out for themselves. As though we choose who we are. Well, I knew that is what would happen if I killed myself. The only person who would benefit was me. In the end I did what I had to do. I enrolled in a university course. It was what I needed so I went for more. Eventually people found out and then I had to make a decision. I could not live with such overt disapproval so I left. Of course, I was accused of "forsaking godly teachings to follow my own lusts and desires."

 

That my own needs might have been rejected by anyone was not an acceptable thought. My thoughts, however, were my own, so long as I did not express them in any way or means. Whether or not I was right with god was never questioned; I lived in strict obedience to the church so everyone knew that I was okay in that respect. They didn't like me but no one questioned my relationship with God. They hated my questions and I couldn't live underground forever. That, however, was seen as malcontentment and rebellion against my god-ordained lot.

 

From my perspective, my lot was ordained by the powers that be. And the powers the be looked and acted extra-ordinarly much like self-interested prejudiced human beings. I am syre they were "led of the Spirit" to treat me as they did. It is, however, convenient if we don't analyze the spirit too closely--whether it was human or divine. I never doubted that it was human, if not from the devil, but definitely not divine. Divine insight taught me that I was supposed to be a teacher but humans didn't like me so they wouldn't hire me. I waited around twenty years but that wasn't long enough for them. And when I left one of my little sisters told me righteously that I cannot expect ever to be hired now.

 

I wanted to bash her face in. As though I had not given MUCH thought to that. As though I had not spent many a sleepless night evaluating the risks, the losses and benefits, as though I had the least desire whatsoever to bring upon myself the condemnation that leaving the church inevitably brought to anyone who dared leave. And I didn't just leave our church for the next one up the ladder; no, I decided to do things right the first time around--I didn't want to have to change churches every year. And I knew I wanted a church with no dress code (I didn't want to change my dress and I had heard that some of the in-between churches made people change their dress) and I wanted permission to get all the education I wanted. That forced me outside any relatively plain church right into "the world."

 

Once I was in "the world" I had to figure out how to identify as a sinner in need of Jesus' shed blood if I wanted to be accepted into the church. (This is one of the churches I mentioned above that my people tried to shelter and protect us from.) Finally I figured out that my strong desire for human approval was my sin. So I got accepted. Today I have concluded that this need for approval, i.e. acceptance by family and others is natural and a human need. Fortunately I did not know it at the time and thereby gained entrance to a faith community.

 

For people here, the only way I could go through the transition was to belong to a faith community. Too many things were changing in my life and being part of a faith community was a psychological necessity at the time. That is the way it appears in retrospect. A few years later I was strong enough to stand up for my beliefs and no longer buy acceptance with lies. Were it not for increasingly more liberal faith communities (all of them Mennonite) I would not have been able to make it.

 

By their very liberalness they did not stress church-attendance and no one came to see me when I failed to show up in church. I could come to church for Christmas and Easter, or not, and no one would ask questions. Needless to say, the strong and lavish approval that was expressed when I did show up spoke for itself. However, it was easier to deal with than sharp disapproval.

 

Incidentally, the two modern Mennonite churches I called home, each in its own turn, were started by my own generation a good decade earlier. These people knew all about familial disapproval. Even though they remained within the mother denomination, they did start their own churches with the aim to do meet a need they perceived as not being met with the older congregations. This is stuff I only realize in retrospect as I learn more about this kind of church from people on this forum.

 

Oops, this is waaayyyyy off-topic but it's my own thread so maybe I don't have to apologize. Writing it out has been therapeutic in figuring out how some parts of my Self fit together. Thanks for listening (if indeed you did).

[junkpoet]

QUOTE

"Then the earth shook and quaked; And the foundations of the mountains trembled and shook, Because He was wroth.

There went up a smoke out of His nostrils, And fire out of His mouth devoured: Coals burned forth from it.

And He bowed the heavens and came down; And darkness was under His feet.

And He rode upon a cherub, and did fly; Yea, he flew fast upon the wings of the wind.

He made darkness His secret place; His tent round about Him: Darkness of waters, thick clouds of the skies.

From the brightness before Him His thick cloud passed forth

Hail and coals of fire.

And Jehovah thundered in the heavens, And the Most High uttered His voice; Hail and coals of fire." (Psalm 18:7-13)

 

okay, i have something for you. Jehovah was one of many mythological dieties worshiped by the hebrew tribes and thier neighbors. Baal was his brother, he also had a sister, cant remember her name right now. anyway, jehovah was a volcano god of the mount sinia. if you go back and read exodos, it kind of makes sense. the escaping hebrew slaves were following a pillar of smoke by day and a pilliar of fire by night. they were leaving egypt and walking towards the active valcanoe. now do you get the poetry? the earth shook and the smoke from his nostrils and the fire and coals and such?

anyway, moses was a pretty bright guy. raised with egyptian education, he did not really set out to free the hebrews so much as to steal the egypitians slaves. dna evidence shows that the priestly leaders of the jews were kept apart from the common tribesmen, they were basically a nobel ruling class. all the tithing and animal sacrifices were just the money and food given to the ruling nobels. Moses created this "one god" thing to keep a monopoly on the animal sacrifices and to keep the commonors in line. He actually fabricated a religion, likely even fabricated the word isreal from the Egyptian goddess Issa, god Ra, and the generic god prefix “El” as in elshaddi or elohim. And I am wandering and could go on for 40 years so ill just

[Lycorth]

A violent god depicted by the violent people who needed him to justify their miserable lives.

 

Ol' time religion at its finest

[R. S. Martin]

Now I remember what got me started on my rant in Post 12. I'm back to reading that article and I come across the same stupidity.

 

According to Edwards, the very existence of the law proves god's reality. Because if we weren't depraved then there would be no need for the law, etc. As though a law were needed in the first place. This is worse than bullshit! I never knew anyone thought THAT!

 

From Page 6:

 

It is unreasonable to suppose, that God should be obliged, if he make a reasonable creature capable of knowing his will, and receiving a law from him, and being subject to his moral government, at the same time to make it impossible for him to sin, or break his law. For if God be obliged to this, it destroys all use of any commandments, laws, promises, or threatenings, and the very notion of any moral government of God over those reasonable creatures.

 

I get the impression that someone was saying to Edwards, "Hey look, man, if God doesn't like us the way he made us it's his (god's) own fault! He could have made us so it's impossible for us to sin."

 

So Edwards says, "Sorry you got that backwards. If God made us--reasonable creatures that we are--so that we couldn't sin, of what use were all the laws and commandments and promises or threatenings? Give it some thought, dude! Look at all the wasted laws and commandments if we were made incapable of sin. Just think about it. Now wouldn't that be crazy!?!?!"

 

ME: So god got a headache making up a batch of laws that might not get used? I think it was the other way around. God got a headache because his creatures were messing up his farm in the sandbox. To solve that problem he made the laws, etc.

 

No, honestly, I don't think it happened that way at all but it would make a great deal more sense. I believe a moral code developed based on survival, and that eventually this moral code got codified. That's what happens in most human organizations these days. A new church or club or what-have-you starts up. Maybe they draw up a code of ethics on their first meeting but probably not. When problems start cropping up rules are made for more harmonious cooperation. At first the rules are casual but as time goes on, the group gets bigger so that the zeal of the first generation wears off, and new people join who weren't around at first, and eventually some issue comes up where no one really knows what to do about it.

 

Numerous and various meetings are held and no conclusion can be reached mainly because no two members agree on exactly what the rules mean. So when at long length some kind of consensus is reached they write it out in detail to prevent this from happening ever again.

 

Put another way: Two males are moving their harems to a spot where food is more plentiful. By some freak accident one of the young gets killed by a member of the other man's harem. The one who lost a member gets mad and kills one of the other guy's young in return. Eventually they realize that all they are doing is reducing the size of their respective tribes and this is not doing anyone any good because they need people to acquire food and to protect themselves against enemies. So Rule #1: Thou shalt not kill.

 

Hmmm. That must have happened a very, very long, long time ago because all humans have that rule. Killing one of your own (obviously the two harems belonged together in some way) is simply bad logic. And to this very day humans (a disturbingly large number at least) believe it is okay killing the enemy no matter how guilty or innocent the individual who actually dies. But killing your own is never okay.

 

So we've got a rule in place for the most abhorrent crime, namely killing one of your own. But problems don't go away. The women keep sneaking off with roots one of the other ladies dug up for supper. The bickering around this gets so bad that male intervention is required. The kids are fighting each other and there are serious problems inside the harem. Rule #2: Thou shalt not steal.

 

Great! Now life should be calm and peaceful. After all, nobody's killing anyone and no one is stealing anyone else's food. But there are other things to steal. Junior can't keep his hands of his dad's youngest concubine, who in turn is more attracted to him than to the old guy. When he is finally given his own woman he soon loses interest in her and finds he'd rather have his brother's. Rule #3: Thou shalt not covet.

 

But covet is something that happens to you. You can't help liking something else better than what you've got right now. Or, as also happens sometimes, you might like to keep your own but you also want the other thing that your neighbour has. And you can't help wanting it! It's just the way you're made! Time to get people interested in abstract values rather than carnal lusts and desires. Rule #4: Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy.

 

What they do is learn about this Fate or God who provides all good things. It's not just happenstance; there is rhyme and reason to the randomness of life. There is Purpose. Rule #5: I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.

 

With all these rules life gets rather complicated. It's hard to always do these things that go so hard against normal human tendencies, such as being satisfied with your own supper when the next person over has a bigger potato or tastier morsel of meat. It's really very easy to just happen to pick it up when nobody's looking, to get that large root mixed in with your own as you gather what you've just dug up. And when you get caught you can always say you dug it yourself and that the other woman is lying. Rule #6: Thou shalt not bear false witness/lie.

 

And so the rules pile up. I'm sure it didn't happen this way but I'm also sure it happened as human problems made it necessary. I am very sure that God did not create the rules and then make evil people with free will for no other reason than to get some use out of his dusty old rules.

[Ro-bear]

In a community where the individual was sacrificed for the good of the whole, individual identity is not valued AT ALL. Yet what I needed almost more than food was an identity.

 

This, for me, is the most poignant part of your comment. One of the things I despise most about religion happens to be a thing religion is designed for: loss of self. It is as if individuality is considered a manifestation of sin, since the self is manifestly sinful. This, I think, is an overly negative view of humanity. It's hard to focus on improving humanity when one thinks redemption is only possible via a deus ex machina.

 

Although Jonathan Edwards was an eighteenth-century theologian (he is perhaps best known for his "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" sermon), I'm afraid his influence has continued unabated to the present day. Sadly, the self-loathing that he sought so vigorously to imbue has somehow transformed and/or expanded into a loathing of others. One of the things that led me away from Christianity was my inability to view myself as an evil thing. I have always been aware of my imperfection, but I always viewed my goodness relatively (to others) instead of absolutely. That seems to me a more practical way of looking at it, since no one is perfect. That's probably why Paul chose to portray Jesus as the human incarnation of God; it establishes a standard no one can meet and emphasizes the need for salvation. Religion always seeks ways to head off reason at every pass.

[R. S. Martin]

In a community where the individual was sacrificed for the good of the whole, individual identity is not valued AT ALL. Yet what I needed almost more than food was an identity.

 

This, for me, is the most poignant part of your comment. One of the things I despise most about religion happens to be a thing religion is designed for: loss of self. It is as if individuality is considered a manifestation of sin, since the self is manifestly sinful. This, I think, is an overly negative view of humanity. It's hard to focus on improving humanity when one thinks redemption is only possible via a deus ex machina.

 

 

Yes, the human being in and of itself is inherently bad/evil. So I was taught--it's pride. I heard about all the evil things humans did. As I grew older, maybe 12-14, I had a really serious problem. I knew according to all the sermons and the Bible that I was supposed to be a sinner. (I had to be a sinner in order to be saved, right? And I had to be saved in order to be a Christian.) However, what was sin? Doing something we know we shouldn't do. But I never did that! I prayed as hard as I could to be shown my sin and I was never shown my sin. I went along with the religious rules and life because I had no other choice.

 

When I learned about self-esteem and when I experienced how it made me a better person, I had no choice but to dump that belief. I was sure my people just didn't really understand things and I was going to tell them the good news when the time was right. But it was never right. As stated in one of my posts in this thread, eventually I was able to stand up for my beliefs and no longer buy acceptance with lies.

 

Also, I had in the meantime had time and opportunity to search things out in minute detail. In addition, given my earnest seeking and the promises of the Bible I knew sometime after age 40 that there was no answer; God had had enough time to show it to me if there was an answer. Not even the Israelites had to be in the wilderness more than forty years. I had been in the wilderness forty years and counting.

 

It is definitely an unrealistically negative view of humanity. It was the Big Lie that ended up deconverting me. If they didn't want me to deconvert they should not have tried selling me a lie that was so easy to prove. Oh sure, they will point to things like the on-going war and the headlines in the newspaper to prove that "the world," i.e. humanity, is evil. Being such a distinct community with very definite boundaries re who is in and who is out, this is especially effective. I didn't have to guess who was saved and who wasn't; all I had to do was look what kind of clothes a person wore, re which church they belonged to, and interact with people outside our church. And they weren't evil at all. They were just as sincere about their beliefs as my own mother. And she was my super-model when it came to religion.

 

In the books I read about self-esteem I read what makes us messed up in the first place. I concluded that there were psychological reasons for every "evil" committed by humans. For example, if everyone was well-balanced and felt secure in themselves and their fellow humans, there would be no war. There would have been no attack. [Right about this point in my argument Christians will switch tracks and say, "But that's just the way humans are. We are evil and inclined to fight." Rational discussion is impossible with that mindset.]

 

Although Jonathan Edwards was an eighteenth-century theologian (he is perhaps best known for his "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" sermon), I'm afraid his influence has continued unabated to the present day. Sadly, the self-loathing that he sought so vigorously to imbue has somehow transformed and/or expanded into a loathing of others. One of the things that led me away from Christianity was my inability to view myself as an evil thing. I have always been aware of my imperfection, but I always viewed my goodness relatively (to others) instead of absolutely. That seems to me a more practical way of looking at it, since no one is perfect. That's probably why Paul chose to portray Jesus as the human incarnation of God; it establishes a standard no one can meet and emphasizes the need for salvation. Religion always seeks ways to head off reason at every pass.

 

Self-laothing and the loathing of other--both were rampant where I came from. Loathing for others, I believe, comes out of loathing for self. Loathing for self keeps us from ever claiming our right to happiness. It allows preachers to speak long and loud about their failings. UGH!!!!

 

I have wanted to shout out and tell them to just change their lives if they are doing all those horrible things--but by all means to STOP BRAGGING! People like Jonathan Edwards legitimize this boasting. As also does Paul. Jonathan Edwards was not part of our religion. Never heard of him till sometime after I left. But we read and preached Paul. Paul was forever boasting about his sins and failings. Boasting about one's sins was supposedly debasing oneself, claiming no glory for self but giving God all the glory for "saving a sinner such as I." Given that salvation is impossible so long as there is nothing to be saved from, boasting about one's sinfulness is in effect boasting about one's self. It says: Hey! look at me! I am this horrible terrible person! I do this and this and this and that is only the tip of the iceburg. If you knew me the way my wife knows me.........See what a terrible person I am, what a great sinner! Jesus died even for the likes of ME!!!!

 

That is following Paul to the letter. It is boasting BIG TIME. It is drawing attention to oneself in the most effective--and legitimate--means possible. The funny thing is, when one person is bragging about his sinfulness, others feel a need to boast of even greater sins. By that time it's just plain bragging, pure and simple. No humility in that pie no matter which way you cut it.

 

[i think I hear some christian or other screaming in horror at my statement. Sorry folks, make it untrue and I will stop accusing you...

 

And now I hear their response: It's not that you are accusing us. It's--it's that you are lying! We are not bragging! We are confessing our sins!]

[Grandpa Harley]

sort of Augustine run amok really...

[R. S. Martin]

I tried emailing the person who posted it but it didn't go through so I'll post it here:

 

I have just now completed reading The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners. (See PDF Document) Jonathan Edwards thinks he is speaking to people like me but he does not even address the problems many of us have with Christianity. I am sure I would have had the same problem two centuries ago when he was speaking in the flesh.

 

Christians today talk exactly like Edwards talked back then. Like him, they assume they know all the problems "sinners" have with the faith and they preach long and loud regarding those problems. When I tell what my real problem is they just spit it in my face that I have to take things on faith.

 

I will no longer lie. I will no longer profess to believe something that makes no sense in my brain. When I say "I believe" I mean it makes sense in my brain. That is what most people mean by "I believe." But Christians forego logic when it comes to the faith. Jesus condemned the man who buried his talent. Yet Christians will dig deeper and ever deeper to bury their intellectual talents. The one goal is to hold onto something that makes no sense. They call it faith.

 

I would rather be rejected of humanity than lie about holy matters. If you think I am lying you kid no one but yourself. If you listen with open ears to the many people who have deconverted for the sake of personal integrity you cannot help but realize we are for real. If you reject our testimonies (as Christians normally do) you prove that you hate the truth because we are telling the truth about our own personal lives.

 

If you go to exChristian.net you can read the Testimonies of Former Christians.

[Mankey]

You are not only a smart person RubySara...you are a good person in my opinion.

[Eccles]

[

 

okay, i have something for you. Jehovah was one of many mythological dieties worshiped by the hebrew tribes and thier neighbors. Baal was his brother, he also had a sister, cant remember her name right now. anyway, jehovah was a volcano god of the mount sinia. if you go back and read exodos, it kind of makes sense. the escaping hebrew slaves were following a pillar of smoke by day and a pilliar of fire by night. they were leaving egypt and walking towards the active valcanoe. now do you get the poetry? the earth shook and the smoke from his nostrils and the fire and coals and such?

anyway, moses was a pretty bright guy. raised with egyptian education, he did not really set out to free the hebrews so much as to steal the egypitians slaves. dna evidence shows that the priestly leaders of the jews were kept apart from the common tribesmen, they were basically a nobel ruling class. all the tithing and animal sacrifices were just the money and food given to the ruling nobels. Moses created this "one god" thing to keep a monopoly on the animal sacrifices and to keep the commonors in line. He actually fabricated a religion, likely even fabricated the word isreal from the Egyptian goddess Issa, god Ra, and the generic god prefix “El” as in elshaddi or elohim. And I am wandering and could go on for 40 years so ill just

 

ANATH

Goddess of love and war, revered in West Semitic religions, especially in Canaanite and Phoenician religions.

Anat was according to information from the ancient Syrian town Ugarit the most active of the goddesses. She is called "Queen of Heaven, Lady of the Gods". In Ugarit she is also referred to as a virgin, even if she sometimes is described as sexually active.

Anath is usually described as a young girl, and a most vigorous goddess and aggressive against her enemies. When she is depicted, it is with a helmet, a battle axe and a spear.

Anath was the sister and helper of Baal. Her main role in myths is in helping her brother from death and resurrect him from the netherworld. Her acts resemble much those of the Egyptian goddess Isis, searching for her husband Osiris.

Anath became the favoured goddess of the Egyptian Pharaoh, Ramses 2. In Egyptian context, Anath is represented nude, often standing on top of a lion with flowers in her hands.

In a Hellenistic context, Anath merged with Astarte to form one deity, Atargatis.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hence the tale of Mary being a "virgin", except in that case it is a mis-translation of the Hebrew word "Almah" meaning "young woman". To make things more interesting Jesus the Nazarene was born out of wedlock.

 

About Moses. There is some thought that he might have been the 1st Pharoah of the 18th Dynasty Ahmose I. I have doubts about that. If you want to read the uncanny similiarity between Egyptology and Judeo/Christianity go to "Biblical Origins in Ancient Egypt:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/calum/egypt.html

[dr_funkenstein]

As for why someone would revel in the idea of such destruction? It means their "turn" is coming soon. God is the perfect form of government and they will be a part of that ruling class. Soon everyone will know just how right they were and how they'll delight in knowing that no matter how much those people grovel it will be too late to join the ruling clan. Such a sense of self-satisfaction that must offer to such small men. The ability to select ones self out for greatness has a certain attraction don't you think?

 

mwc

You know, this idea was one that I discovered very late in my xian life. My dad, who was a pastor, gave vague hints and intimations that the final purpose for xians was not simply to be in heaven with god, but that there was a grander purpose involved. It was a doctrine not routinely taught in churches or bible studies but the further up I got in the church hierarchy the more I realised that it was at the core of what the church leaders believed.

 

I still don't really have a complete grasp on it, and I doubt even they did either, but I know that they believed that xians were destined to be some sort of ruling class, and that within the church some would have higher positions than others. They used parables like the one that talks about "storing up treasures in heaven", about the houses that were tested by fire, etc that showed that those individuals who had lived their lives most obediently to god's will would be the ones who gained his favour most and would therefore have a larger "crown" in the afterlife.

 

Another spin on this was the concept that as the bride of christ, the church would eventually (once it was made pure and holy) serve in a ruling capacity as well, as the queen to god's king.

 

I can understand now why such ideas were only revealed to those in the upper echelons of the church - it wouldn't exactly be seen as too popular if it got out that xians believed they had a divine right to rule over the rest of the world.

 

Of course, they're attempting to set up theocracies again all over the world so hey... maybe they've stopped caring!

[mwc]

I can understand now why such ideas were only revealed to those in the upper echelons of the church - it wouldn't exactly be seen as too popular if it got out that xians believed they had a divine right to rule over the rest of the world.

There was one point where one person (long ago) laid out his idea of a social order to me based on this very concept. God and jesus ruling at the top of course and then down through the ranks all the way down to the literal grounds keepers (I think that was the lowest "rank" he mentioned...mowing heavenly lawns, trimming trees and so on) and whatnot in heaven based on what you "laid up" while here on earth. Those who were "better" (not his word) would be higher up in the order and have more (a bigger mansion, more things...just like now only "heavenly") and be "rulers" in heaven. This way the "lazy" xians get into heaven but they are on the bottom of the pile while the "real" xians are the ruling class (but unlike now they rule absolutely). The bible does support the concept (although more so on the earthly kingdom). Equality is not really something these people want but they talk the good talk to their sheep.

 

mwc