Figuring Out Religion

[MediumTex]

If you were not a Christian, would you exult in short-term pleasure at the expense of your future? Would you ignore people who were suffering? Would you feel unsettled to not know what was going to happen to you after death? Do you believe that the positive psychological states you point to are unique to practitioners of evangelical Christianity?

As a wishy washy Jesus-ist, I actually feel like a far more moral and ethical person than I ever was when I was a devout Christian.

As a Christian, everything you do is ultimately driven by fear.  Preachers can say all they want about it being a love-centric thing, but as long as you have an eternal pit of fire sitting there reminding you of what happens to the bad people, it makes you want to avoid that at all costs, and that fear cannot be completely eliminated, no matter how often you go to church or how many times you read the Bible or how many times you play your Amy Grant CDs.

Once I shook off that yoke of fear, I found that the whole paradigm of righteousness being what you do in spite of the consequences should actually be described as what you do because of the consequences.  Good acts generate good consequences.  It took me a long time to figure that out, but to be fair it's hard to think clearly when you are standing on a trap door that leads to Hell.

It's also hard to understand that good acts can happen without supernatural coercion when you are bludgeoned every Sunday with different permutations of the following messages:

"You are evil."

"You are fallen."

"You are a disappointment to God."

"God can't even look at you because of your sinful nature."

"You deserve to suffer in Hell for eternity, but Jesus let himself be murdered to save you, even though you didn't deserve it."

"You will always be a sinner.  You were were born into a fallen tribe of sinners."

"Humans have never failed to disappoint God."

"God killed every human on earth except Noah and his family, but they all deserved to die.  One day he will do it again, and it might be soon!"

"Jesus could return at any time, and when he does he's going to destroy the earth and only a few will be saved.  You might be one of the saved, but you might not."

"A lot of people who think they are saved really aren't."

"As evil and sinful as all Christians are, followers of other religions are even worse.  God hates them, but if you convinced them to become Christians God would start loving them, even though he would still hate their sinful nature (just like he hates your sinful nature)."

"God is a loving God, but sometimes he uses tough love, and even though the idea of eternal suffering sounds harsh, believe it or not God only does it because he loves us."

The voice from the pulpit is sort of like the voice of an abusive father with his own emotional baggage speaking to a teenager who is trying to find his way and who has made some mistakes.  Guess how that teenager is going to turn out?  Just like his dad.

If you hear all of that stuff enough times, it can really distort your sense of right and wrong and good and bad, but it works like a charm to induce deep feelings of guilt and self-loathing.  How could a rational person NOT hate himself a little for being such a colossal disappointment to his Creator, especially when the Creator has been so patient in trying to show him the correct path?

And remember that when it comes to God, it's a "Do as I say, not as I do" kind of thing.  If people started emulating the God from the Old Testament the world would be a very dangerous place (when someone made you mad you would just go kill all of their children), and if people started emulating the God from the New Testament they would be pretty crappy parents.  God was basically an absentee father for Jesus's entire childhood, and then when he finally showed up and told him what he wanted him to do it got Jesus killed, and when Jesus was hanging on the cross in the most need of support and encouragement, guess what his father did?  Yep, nothing.  He didn't even answer the phone.  But like a good abusive parent, three days later he apparently decided his son had had enough and brought him back to life.  What kind of parent lets his son sit in a grave rotting for three days after letting him be brutally murdered?  The same kind of parent in the sky that we repeatedly met in the Old Testament--moody, brutal and vindictive, like a cosmic sadistic narcissistic version of Dr. Frankenstein.

Yuck. 

[Mountaineer]

I have a couple of comments/requests:

1. Comment - It seems MT and PS have encountered a "different" brand of Christianity that I'm in.  I'm somewhat intrigued how you got there.

2. Question - there has been a lot of talk about "evangelical Christians" recently.  Could we please define what we mean by:
* Christian
* Evangelical Christian
* Fundamental Christian

It seems we are using those terms without quite having a common understanding of what the terms mean.  Maybe it is just me though.  Main reason I'm asking is the word "evangelical" meant in the past "spread the Gospel or Good News".  Today it has come to mean something else I think from the way PS and MT are using it.  I'm not sure what you mean.

... M

[Pointedstick]

The whole abused parent thing really sticks a chord with me. I feel like I had this kind of conversation a zillion times in college (I went to a hippie school full of artists and rebels who came from terrible family backgrounds). People would describe their totally messed up abusive parents, who would make them do things like wear dog collars, drink their own piss, and beat them bloody, and say, "oh, they weren't so bad," or "you know, they only did those things because they loved me," or any number of other rationalizations for the trauma they endured. As clearly as I could see that they were victims of abuse, they were just as blind to it, and defended the cruelty they endured as "tough love." The idea that it's just or even loving for to God murder wicked people and send their souls to burn in eternal torment just strikes me as very much the same kind of thing: defending the indefensible because you are too close to it to see just how twisted and warped it really is.


Mountaineer: "Evangelical" = the versions of Christianity that you, Desert, and Greg believe. "Non-evangelical" or just "Christian" = a flavor of mainline Protestantism.

[Mountaineer]

The whole abused parent thing really sticks a chord with me. I feel like I had this kind of conversation a zillion times in college (I went to a hippie school full of artists and rebels who came from terrible family backgrounds). People would describe their totally messed up abusive parents, who would make them do things like wear dog collars, drink their own piss, and beat them bloody, and say, "oh, they weren't so bad," or "you know, they only did those things because they loved me," or any number of other rationalizations for the trauma they endured. As clearly as I could see that they were victims of abuse, they were just as blind to it, and defended the cruelty they endured as "tough love." The idea that it's just or even loving for to God murder wicked people and send their souls to burn in eternal torment just strikes me as very much the same kind of thing: defending the indefensible because you are too close to it to see just how twisted and warped it really is.


Mountaineer: "Evangelical" = the versions of Christianity that you, Desert, and Greg believe. "Non-evangelical" or just "Christian" = a flavor of mainline Protestantism.

PS, Thanks for responding. 

Re. abused parent stuff - Oh my, that is terrible - those kids have a lot to overcome.  That is about as unChristian type behavior as I could imagine.  No wonder you have misgivings if you heard all that from the folks you went to school with.

My definition of "evangelical" is those traditions/denominations of Christianity that tend to be very judgmental and "righteous" in behavior and tend toward a literal interpretation of Scripture, many times taken out of context.  I hesitate to name names but it would be more Baptist or Non-Denominational from my perspective but some Non_Denominationals go the very liberal route and only focus on the God is Love thing instead of God being a God of love and justice.  My Lutheran tradition is very nonjudgmental, just proclaims the Word faithfully and administers the Sacraments rightly with a view that Scripture interprets Scripture in context as I've discussed before.  I have been in those other types of Protestant churches; the people in those traditions tend toward ending up either in dispair because they realize they cannot live up to expectations or in pride becasue they think they know it all.  Lutheranism is really different than that - and different from the mainline Protestantism.  It is more of a middle road between Roman Catholicism and the mainline Protestantism.  It has the liturgy (similar to the RCs) but the belief that the Pope is not a representative of God (Protestantism).  It is more like, from what I've studied, earlier Christianity before it became corrupted (heavily but not exclusively in the middle ages).  It is more like Christianity before the Revialism and Decision Theology and Prosperity Gospel and Charasmatic Preachers of the last couple hundred years became prevalent.  The Apostles, Athanasian, and Nicene Creeds are good summaries of Lutheran belief.

I think those who are Christian do their best to love God with their entire being while knowing they will fall short and are forgiven for falling short because of what Christ did for us on the cross, and try to love their neighbor by doing the best job they can in their vocations to help meet their neighbors needs (vocations being: father, mother, spouse, parent, neighbor, friend, worker, boss, etc.). 

Thanks again for your input.

... M

[MediumTex]

I think that where conventional Christianity fails is all the way down at its core tenets, which include the same old behavior control through threat of force that we see in many forms repeatedly through history.

The threat of force in Christianity is in the violence against one's eternal soul for failing to think and behave according to the mandates of the religion.

I always feel like any belief system that relies on coercion to achieve its ends suggests that the beliefs themselves are not strong enough to persuade people to follow them.

Why did Jesus need a miraculous resurrection to validate the truth of his teachings?  Were the teachings alone not impressive enough?

Why do we need the threat of Hell to make people behave as religious leaders would like them to behave?  Are the teachings of the religion not persuasive enough to make people want to follow them on their own?

Why does God need to repeatedly resort to violence when dealing with humans?  Is the truth that he offers us not true enough to be self-evident?

Why does God get upset with us for behaving according to our animal natures when we get angry, frustrated, or desperate when we repeatedly see God behave in exactly the same way toward us when he experiences similar emotions?

In most religions, if you look hard enough you see pettiness around the deity(ies) that more or less tracks human pettiness.  What I find appealing about Jesus is that I don't sense that same pettiness, and I find it inspiring.  I can't say the same for his dad (or stepdad), though.

Seriously.  What kind of dad leaves his son to hang on a cross?  What point was he trying to make?  Whatever the point was, apparently Jesus didn't understand it either.

I think that there can be good and productive religion.  I am not arguing against that.  What I am arguing against is the coercive element.  I also think that the existential guilt trip in Christianity is also a little gratuitous.

It seems to me that real progress in human society lies in purging ALL of our institutions of the coercive element.  If someone has a good idea, make them persuade others of its truth.  Capitalism and democracy show us that it can work beautifully.  I am ready for a religion that comes from the same perspective--i.e., a system that doesn't start off with a series of violent acts against humanity followed by the implicit threat of more attacks for failing to follow the divine will (as determined by church leadership, of course ).

I'm sure that many religious people would say "Oh MediumTex, you poor thing.  You have completely misunderstood what we are about.  We're about love, not coercion.  Didn't you see the statue of Jesus out front?  The only people who go to Hell are the ones who don't go to our church."

I really shouldn't be too harsh in my criticism, though.  There is a strong vein of spiritual masochism that seems to have been with humanity for thousands of years, and it predictably saturates many of our religious beliefs.  In other words, as strange as it may sound I think that religion gives people exactly what they want, even if it might seem like they couldn't possibly want things like the threat of eternal damnation and suffering as the consequence for simply acting according to their natures.  Whether they admit it or not, I think that many people simply enjoy being abused, or at least enjoy being told what to do, and I think that religious leaders picked up on that instinct very early on.

[Pointedstick]

PS, Thanks for responding. 

Re. abused parent stuff - Oh my, that is terrible - those kids have a lot to overcome.  That is about as unChristian type behavior as I could imagine.  No wonder you have misgivings if you heard all that from the folks you went to school with.

They certainly do. I lived with one such person for two years, and it was a heartbreaking, exhausting experience. The deck is so cruelly stacked against them, and you want to help, but you really can't; the hurt is bigger than you. I must also note that the worst abusers were Christians. Some physically abusive, others emotionally so. Another common story at that school was that of the gay child disowned by their parents after being forced to undergo traumatic Christian "gay conversion" therapy or similar things. By contrast, I have never known any atheist or Unitarian parents to inflict the same kind of abuse on their children. To be sure, I've known plenty of bad parents of those flavors, but their problems were always more towards neglect or failing to provide a financially or emotionally stable household--never the outright physical and emotional abuse that some Christian parents seem capable of inflicting on their children.

My Lutheran tradition is very nonjudgmental, just proclaims the Word faithfully and administers the Sacraments rightly with a view that Scripture interprets Scripture in context as I've discussed before.

But the dogma itself is judgmental, regardless of whether you think you or your congregation is nice or mean. You and your fellow congregants can be the nicest people here in the left kingdom, but you still think that my fate in the right kingdom is eternal torture at the hands of a baleful deity who is cosmically displeased with my very nature and existence. I get that your proselytizing is done out of compassion, because you want me to avoid that fate, but your religion allows for that fate in the first place, and buried deep, I suspect that there is something emotionally appealing about its dogma that makes you not only want to stick with it but feel positive being enveloped by its tenets. All these links I've been reading (and I have been reading them) describe very bluntly how we all deserve to be abused and murdered and eternally tortured because we're so flawed, so sinful, so offensive to God, our very creator--and all through no fault of our own! This is such a repulsive message to me that I cannot possibly believe it to be true. It must be different for you and others who believe it. Deep down inside, there must be something in you that feels that you and other people need to be judged, measured, and punished; that you deserve it, even; and that you are in need of a third party to rescue you from yourself. If you did not feel this way, I cannot imagine how you could continue to be content with your very judgmental and fundamentalist brand of Christianity that, as MediumTex so eloquently puts it, has you and everyone else standing on the trapdoor to hell. You would have to rebel against it once its nature became apparent to you and you would have to give up your faith, as so many others have. The very core of Christianity is judgmentalism. There is no way out of it.

[Pointedstick]

It seems to me that real progress in human society lies in purging ALL of our institutions of the coercive element.  If someone has a good idea, make them persuade others of its truth.  Capitalism and democracy show us that it can work beautifully.  I am ready for a religion that comes from the same perspective--i.e., a system that doesn't start off with a series of violent acts against humanity followed by the implicit threat of more attacks for failing to follow the divine will (as determined by church leadership, of course ).

There are a couple of existing religions that lack this kind of metaphysical Damocles Sword that we are objecting to. Buddhism, for example. Taoism would be another one. Many eastern religions, actually. What you see in Jesus, I see in Buddhism, truth be told. I find it to be a very appealing spiritual tradition.

I really shouldn't be too harsh in my criticism, though.  There is a strong vein of spiritual masochism that seems to have been with humanity for thousands of years, and it predictably saturates many of our religious beliefs.  In other words, as strange as it may sound I think that religion gives people exactly what they want, even if it might seem like they couldn't possibly want things like the threat of eternal damnation and suffering as the consequence for simply acting according to their natures.  Whether they admit it or not, I think that many people simply enjoy being abused, or at least enjoy being told what to do, and I think that religious leaders picked up on that instinct very early on.

I think this is absolutely true, and in this respect, religious leaders are not unique. Many governments and corporations have picked up on the same thing. A lot of humans are just gluttons for punishment, largely through their own histories of abuse that inured them to it.

[dualstow]

, God can do whatever he wants because he is God. This is one of the reasons we should fear God because he is so powerful to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. God is justified based on his rules that we broke to send us all to Hell for eternal torment.

This reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode with Anthony, the all-powerful boy. Everyone fears him and has to do what he says or he wishes them into the cornfield after turning them into something terrible.

I could believe in a Creator if it turned out to be a very powerful alien entity that seeded the earth and let evolution take its course. But even then, he wouldn't be omnipotent or omniscient. Just another being subject to the physical laws of the universe with an ant farm called Earth.

If an AI became intelligent and powerful enough, it would surely be God-like. Whether it evolved here on Earth or came from elsewhere, it would most likely supplant the Bible, the Koran, etc. and it would eventually be worshipped by pretty much every human being that practiced worship.

[MediumTex]

My Lutheran tradition is very nonjudgmental, just proclaims the Word faithfully and administers the Sacraments rightly with a view that Scripture interprets Scripture in context as I've discussed before.

But the dogma itself is judgmental, regardless of whether you think you or your congregation is nice or mean. You and your fellow congregants can be the nicest people here in the left kingdom, but you still think that my fate in the right kingdom is eternal torture at the hands of a baleful deity who is cosmically displeased with my very nature and existence. I get that your proselytizing is done out of compassion, because you want me to avoid that fate, but your religion allows for that fate in the first place, and buried deep, I suspect that there is something emotionally appealing about its dogma that makes you not only want to stick with it but feel positive being enveloped by its tenets. All these links I've been reading (and I have been reading them) describe very bluntly how we all deserve to be abused and murdered and eternally tortured because we're so flawed, so sinful, so offensive to God, our very creator--and all through no fault of our own! This is such a repulsive message to me that I cannot possibly believe it to be true. It must be different for you and others who believe it. Deep down inside, there must be something in you that feels that you and other people need to be judged, measured, and punished; that you deserve it, even; and that you are in need of a third party to rescue you from yourself. If you did not feel this way, I cannot imagine how you could continue to be content with your very judgmental and fundamentalist brand of Christianity that, as MediumTex so eloquently puts it, has you and everyone else standing on the trapdoor to hell. You would have to rebel against it once its nature became apparent to you and you would have to give up your faith, as so many others have. The very core of Christianity is judgmentalism. There is no way out of it.

The peculiar thing about Christianity is that it has taken Jesus's message and turned it into an authoritarian system, but nothing Jesus ever said suggests that this was his intent.

Jesus preached tolerance and kindness.  The only people who ever really pissed him off were the religious bureaucrats and financiers, and I actually think there was wisdom in his anger at these two groups, given that financiers and institutional religious leaders can be some of the worst parasitic forces in society--one seeks to loot your savings for profit and the other seeks to loot your soul for profit.  Jesus's outrage was well-placed.

But Jesus never judged.  He hung out with the bad people and encouraged them.  He spoke truth to power and paid the price with courage.  Even though he came up in a tradition that believed in a wrathful and destructive God, he taught to love everyone, including yourself (i.e., he understood the self-loathing that other religious leaders capitalize on and tried to free people from it).  Overall, I find his message to be powerful.  He wasn't the first or last to teach these things, but he did it with a lot of style.

It's a shame that this powerful message that is in every Bible has been so completely eclipsed by a whole lot of supernatural hocus pocus and meaningless minutiae.

Jesus said not to worry about anything, but preachers encourage us to constantly worry about our faith, our salvation, our tithes, etc.

Jesus said to be kind, but preachers constantly present an us/them world where the gays and the Muslims and the Democrats and [fill in the blank] are all accelerating the Rapture through their dastardly designs.

Jesus said to be generous, but preachers talk about tithing as a business opportunity where you give a little to the church and God gives even more back to you.

Jesus said money was meaningless and certainly shouldn't be the center of one's world, but preachers talk endlessly about the next building the church needs to build, the next mission trip the church needs to take, the next multimedia project the church needs to undertake...and all of these efforts require money.  Money, money, money.

Church orthodoxy meant nothing to Jesus.  Preachers use years of education regarding church orthodoxy as a basis for their authority concerning the will of God.

Jesus realized that violence is a downward spiral that feeds on itself.  Preachers speak about the righteousness of the battle the U.S. is waging against radical Islam, and hint around that it may be a prelude to the real violence that will unfold when Jesus returns.

Jesus was humble.  Not all preachers are flashy, but a lot of them are in almost comical ways.  Big cars, big houses, nice clothes.  All enjoyed with no apparent sense of irony.  Every big time preacher I've ever met in person has been arrogant and/or surprisingly egotistical.

It's true that Jesus's message never would have survived this long without the church pushing it along with the rest of their add-on social/political/culture dogmas, but I feel very much like a nice set of teachings and ideas have basically been stolen by the same kind of institutional religious leaders that Jesus railed against during his life.

I don't really know what I would do to try to fix any of this stuff because church leadership attracts the same kind of defective personalities that political leadership does, but I have often sat in church and just marveled at the arrogance and...tackiness of the entire affair.

I don't think that Jesus would be very impressed with Christian churches.  I think that the Catholic church might annoy him especially with the way they basically created an international pedophilia operation and allowed it to continue for years after it was obvious what was going on.  I think that Jesus might look at how lavishly high profile religious leaders live and say "Give me a break."  I'm almost positive that he would find Joel Osteen creepy.

[MediumTex]

It seems to me that real progress in human society lies in purging ALL of our institutions of the coercive element.  If someone has a good idea, make them persuade others of its truth.  Capitalism and democracy show us that it can work beautifully.  I am ready for a religion that comes from the same perspective--i.e., a system that doesn't start off with a series of violent acts against humanity followed by the implicit threat of more attacks for failing to follow the divine will (as determined by church leadership, of course ).

There are a couple of existing religions that lack this kind of metaphysical Damocles Sword that we are objecting to. Buddhism, for example. Taoism would be another one. Many eastern religions, actually. What you see in Jesus, I see in Buddhism, truth be told. I find it to be a very appealing spiritual tradition.

Yes.  I think that Jesus was tapping the same fountain of truth that some eastern religions tapped as well.

The basic message seems to be that if one cultivates a certain kind of mental state and mental outlook, many seemingly important questions become meaningless, including the question of immortality, the need to understand the personality of a deity, and the endless worry over the rules of human conduct.

A calm and peaceful mind is a rare thing, and I don't think it's possible to truly achieve this mental state if you are in the "taking" mode that so many people stay in at all times.  When it comes to religion, I think that people ask the question "What's in it for me?" when they should simply be asking "What's in it?"

With respect to worldly desires especially, Jesus seemed to understand how badly they can interfere with deeper levels of spiritual understanding, and he delivered many subtle insights on this topic in clever and accessible ways.

Jesus = Righteous Dude

[Mountaineer]

My Lutheran tradition is very nonjudgmental, just proclaims the Word faithfully and administers the Sacraments rightly with a view that Scripture interprets Scripture in context as I've discussed before.

But the dogma itself is judgmental, regardless of whether you think you or your congregation is nice or mean. You and your fellow congregants can be the nicest people here in the left kingdom, but you still think that my fate in the right kingdom is eternal torture at the hands of a baleful deity who is cosmically displeased with my very nature and existence. I get that your proselytizing is done out of compassion, because you want me to avoid that fate, but your religion allows for that fate in the first place, and buried deep, I suspect that there is something emotionally appealing about its dogma that makes you not only want to stick with it but feel positive being enveloped by its tenets. All these links I've been reading (and I have been reading them) describe very bluntly how we all deserve to be abused and murdered and eternally tortured because we're so flawed, so sinful, so offensive to God, our very creator--and all through no fault of our own! This is such a repulsive message to me that I cannot possibly believe it to be true. It must be different for you and others who believe it. Deep down inside, there must be something in you that feels that you and other people need to be judged, measured, and punished; that you deserve it, even; and that you are in need of a third party to rescue you from yourself. If you did not feel this way, I cannot imagine how you could continue to be content with your very judgmental and fundamentalist brand of Christianity that, as MediumTex so eloquently puts it, has you and everyone else standing on the trapdoor to hell. You would have to rebel against it once its nature became apparent to you and you would have to give up your faith, as so many others have. The very core of Christianity is judgmentalism. There is no way out of it.

The peculiar thing about Christianity is that it has taken Jesus's message and turned it into an authoritarian system, but nothing Jesus ever said suggests that this was his intent.

Jesus preached tolerance and kindness.  The only people who ever really pissed him off were the religious bureaucrats and financiers, and I actually think there was wisdom in his anger at these two groups, given that financiers and institutional religious leaders can be some of the worst parasitic forces in society--one seeks to loot your savings for profit and the other seeks to loot your soul for profit.  Jesus's outrage was well-placed.

But Jesus never judged.  He hung out with the bad people and encouraged them.  He spoke truth to power and paid the price with courage.  Even though he came up in a tradition that believed in a wrathful and destructive God, he taught to love everyone, including yourself (i.e., he understood the self-loathing that other religious leaders capitalize on and tried to free people from it).  Overall, I find his message to be powerful.  He wasn't the first or last to teach these things, but he did it with a lot of style.

It's a shame that this powerful message that is in every Bible has been so completely eclipsed by a whole lot of supernatural hocus pocus and meaningless minutiae.

Jesus said not to worry about anything, but preachers encourage us to constantly worry about our faith, our salvation, our tithes, etc.

Jesus said to be kind, but preachers constantly present an us/them world where the gays and the Muslims and the Democrats and [fill in the blank] are all accelerating the Rapture through their dastardly designs.

Jesus said to be generous, but preachers talk about tithing as a business opportunity where you give a little to the church and God gives even more back to you.

Jesus said money was meaningless and certainly shouldn't be the center of one's world, but preachers talk endlessly about the next building the church needs to build, the next mission trip the church needs to take, the next multimedia project the church needs to undertake...and all of these efforts require money.  Money, money, money.

Church orthodoxy meant nothing to Jesus.  Preachers use years of education regarding church orthodoxy as a basis for their authority concerning the will of God.

Jesus realized that violence is a downward spiral that feeds on itself.  Preachers speak about the righteousness of the battle the U.S. is waging against radical Islam, and hint around that it may be a prelude to the real violence that will unfold when Jesus returns.

Jesus was humble.  Not all preachers are flashy, but a lot of them are in almost comical ways.  Big cars, big houses, nice clothes.  All enjoyed with no apparent sense of irony.  Every big time preacher I've ever met in person has been arrogant and/or surprisingly egotistical.

It's true that Jesus's message never would have survived this long without the church pushing it along with the rest of their add-on social/political/culture dogmas, but I feel very much like a nice set of teachings and ideas have basically been stolen by the same kind of institutional religious leaders that Jesus railed against during his life.

I don't really know what I would do to try to fix any of this stuff because church leadership attracts the same kind of defective personalities that political leadership does, but I have often sat in church and just marveled at the arrogance and...tackiness of the entire affair.

I don't think that Jesus would be very impressed with Christian churches.  I think that the Catholic church might annoy him especially with the way they basically created an international pedophilia operation and allowed it to continue for years after it was obvious what was going on.  I think that Jesus might look at how lavishly high profile religious leaders live and say "Give me a break."  I'm almost positive that he would find Joel Osteen creepy.

MT

I agree with much of what you say.  After reading this post of yours, I must say that if I went to a church such as you describe, it would be a mighty struggle to stay - I expect I would leave and try to find a congregation where the truth was proclaimed if I wanted to remain faithful to God's Word and not the word of sinful man.  The brand of (perverted so-called Christian?) religion you are describing, I would probably call either very corrupt or bordering on heresy relative to what Christ and his teachings actually proclaim.  You indicate a church of almost all LAW and very little GOSPEL (your sins are forgiven).  YUCK!  Scripture indicates Satan attacks from within - you did a good job of describing the attack and illustrating what sin looks like within the church.  I marvel at how gullible the large numbers of people are that lap up the error filled teachings of the Joel Osteens of the world.  But, by making that statement I'm being judgemental but at least the anchor point for the judging is solid.    The parts I bolded in your post are the ones that caught my attention for being non-Christ like.

... M

[Pointedstick]

MT

I agree with much of what you say.  After reading this post of yours, I must say that if I went to a church such as you describe, it would be a mighty struggle to stay - I expect I would leave and try to find a congregation where the truth was proclaimed if I wanted to remain faithful to God's Word and not the word of sinful man.  The brand of (perverted so-called Christian?) religion you are describing, I would probably call either very corrupt or bordering on heresy relative to what Christ and his teachings actually proclaim.  You indicate a church of almost all LAW and very little GOSPEL (your sins are forgiven).  YUCK!  Scripture indicates Satan attacks from within - you did a good job of describing the attack and illustrating what sin looks like within the church.  I marvel at how gullible the large numbers of people are that lap up the error filled teachings of the Joel Osteens of the world.  But, by making that statement I'm being judgemental but at least the anchor point for the judging is solid.    The parts I bolded in your post are the ones that caught my attention for being non-Christ like.

... M

You know, that reminds me a little of some of the reactions I got when I renounced liberalism. I would say, "this doesn't make sense; that doesn't make sense; this is contradictory; that has a clearly negative real-world outcome," etc. And people I cared about who were still liberals would say, "Oh, that doesn't sound anything like the things that I believe! I just believe in peace and happiness and giving everyone a fair shake and leveling the playing field; nothing like all that stuff you're talking about!"



It seems almost impossible to recognize the flaws in a belief system that is emotionally important to you. You and an outsider can look at the exact same parts of it, but where the outsider may see something incorrect or cruel, it can seem like the most normal and appropriate thing in the world to you. It's simple groupthink, nothing more.

[Professor Disorientation]

The idea of groupthink is probably correct. I was a part of a fundamentalist Baptist church as a teenager in the South and actually went to one of the Southern Baptist seminaries to become a preacher/minister. I did receive a Master of Divinity degree for my effort but did not become a preacher or minister.

At the time, I did not know what religious fundamentalism was. But as an adult, I know clearly what it is. For me, the moment of clarity came when I was reading the Old Testament and realized the gods that Yahweh was fighting did NOT exist. The gods only existed in the mind. The moment was frightening and clarifying. I had always assumed that no true Christian questions the Bible and no true Christian can trust his/her mind because the mind is tainted by sin and rebellion and the Devil is always there leading a good Christian astray. Once you are in, you can never get out-a cult?

A person who believes differently or questions dogma or orthodoxy will not last long in a church or a Bible study group. Don't upset the theological apple cart. You are sowing doubts in their minds and their eternal destiny is too important for you to play with. Better to go with the groupthink.

What really bothered me was Yahweh? impregnating Mary while she was betrothed to Joseph. Yahweh impregnates a woman who legally belongs to another man under Jewish law. This constitutes Yahweh committing adultery. Impregnating a married or betrothed woman IS adultery in Jewish law. Yet groupthink states since there was no penetration, it is was not real sex. Yet impregnation happened and the impregnation violated the sanctity of the Mary-Joseph relationship.

This is one of many parts of the Bible I cannot reconcile theologically or morally. Theology is the invention of limited men and women.

As an adult I am not afraid to question whatever needs to be questioned. That is where progress is made.

Michael

[MediumTex]

What really bothered me was Yahweh? impregnating Mary while she was betrothed to Joseph. Yahweh impregnates a woman who legally belongs to another man under Jewish law. This constitutes Yahweh committing adultery. Impregnating a married or betrothed woman IS adultery in Jewish law. Yet groupthink states since there was no penetration, it is was not real sex. Yet impregnation happened and the impregnation violated the sanctity of the Mary-Joseph relationship.

This is one of many parts of the Bible I cannot reconcile theologically or morally. Theology is the invention of limited men and women.

The thing that I always thought was bizarre about the whole virgin birth story was that one of the gospel writers took the time to trace Joseph's genealogy all the way back to King David.  What possible relevance could that have to Jesus if Jesus and Joseph were not related and as far as Joseph was concerned Jesus was simply a love child from a dalliance Mary had with a supernatural being early in their marriage?

I would love to have been a fly on the wall when Mary told Joseph she was pregnant and explained to him how it happened.

[MediumTex]

I hope that no one takes any of the comments here as any kind of personal attack on them or personal criticism of their beliefs.

After 217 pages, it is clear that people can look at the same set of beliefs and draw very different conclusions, and I think that it's a great discussion. 

I like to think that what we have here is a joint search for truth being conducted by an ensemble cast.

Beliefs are important, but relationships are important too.

[Fred]

What really bothered me was Yahweh? impregnating Mary while she was betrothed to Joseph. Yahweh impregnates a woman who legally belongs to another man under Jewish law. This constitutes Yahweh committing adultery. Impregnating a married or betrothed woman IS adultery in Jewish law. Yet groupthink states since there was no penetration, it is was not real sex. Yet impregnation happened and the impregnation violated the sanctity of the Mary-Joseph relationship.

This is one of many parts of the Bible I cannot reconcile theologically or morally. Theology is the invention of limited men and women.

The thing that I always thought was bizarre about the whole virgin birth story was that one of the gospel writers took the time to trace Joseph's genealogy all the way back to King David.  What possible relevance could that have to Jesus if Jesus and Joseph were not related and as far as Joseph was concerned Jesus was simply a love child from a dalliance Mary had with a supernatural being early in their marriage?

I would love to have been a fly on the wall when Mary told Joseph she was pregnant and explained to him how it happened.

Of all the doctrines of Christianity, the virgin birth might be the one that strikes me most as made up storytelling. It is said that this was the fulfillment of scripture but if you go look up the place in the Old Testament where the New Testament writer actually says it was predicted, you can easily see that it says no such thing unless you have a very active imagination and are willing to read into the scripture what you want to see.

The whole virginity thing gets even weirder if you are Catholic. Joseph can't be the real father of Jesus because he was tainted with original sin so Jesus could not have been born by natural human means (aka sex). But what about Mary's human, i.e., "original sin" nature? Problem solved with the Catholic doctrine of  the "Immaculate Conception". I used to think that was talking about Jesus' conception but it actually claims that Mary herself was miraculously born without original sin.

And then there is the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity even though the Bible clearly talks about Jesus' brothers and sisters. Catholics say it doesn't really mean brothers, but actually cousins, or just any kind of relation.

So what is the whole virginity thing all about any way? Seems to me the implication of these doctrines is that sex is evil.  I don't get it. If I'm God and I want to send my son (myself?) into the world as a human being to live like a human being then why not have him actually be born like a human being instead of all this nonsense?

[MediumTex]

And then there is the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity even though the Bible clearly talks about Jesus' brothers and sisters. Catholics say it doesn't really mean brothers, but actually cousins, or just any kind of relation.

So what is the whole virginity thing all about any way?

I'm not sure what it's all about, but I can tell you that being in a sexless marriage and cuckolded by a deity sucks.

- Joseph (Jesus's stepfather)

[Fred]

I hope that no one takes any of the comments here as any kind of personal attack on them or personal criticism of their beliefs.

After 217 pages, it is clear that people can look at the same set of beliefs and draw very different conclusions, and I think that it's a great discussion. 

I like to think that what we have here is a joint search for truth being conducted by an ensemble cast.

Beliefs are important, but relationships are important too.

I agree but I don't think a person's religious beliefs should be beyond criticism, especially when they are publicly expressed as dogmatic assertions of truth with the accompanying assertion that if you don't agree you are going to hell. I believe in civil discourse but I don't feel we should afford any special respect to that point of view simply because it has the special status of being "religious".

[Greg]

I hope that no one takes any of the comments here as any kind of personal attack on them or personal criticism of their beliefs.

After 217 pages, it is clear that people can look at the same set of beliefs and draw very different conclusions, and I think that it's a great discussion. 

I like to think that what we have here is a joint search for truth being conducted by an ensemble cast.

Beliefs are important, but relationships are important too.

This is obviously biblical but could certainly be applied to many different viewpoints:

1 Peter 3:15 "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect"

I very much respect those that post their viewpoints in this forum, as long as we keep it civil. Especially this thread has helped to challenge me to better understand my own viewpoints so I can't thank those enough for helping me in my own journey.

To MediumTex, I recommend taking this thread and turning it into your next book. I'd call it the "Permanent Pronouncement/Pitch"

[MediumTex]

I hope that no one takes any of the comments here as any kind of personal attack on them or personal criticism of their beliefs.

After 217 pages, it is clear that people can look at the same set of beliefs and draw very different conclusions, and I think that it's a great discussion. 

I like to think that what we have here is a joint search for truth being conducted by an ensemble cast.

Beliefs are important, but relationships are important too.

I agree but I don't think a person's religious beliefs should be beyond criticism, especially when they are publicly expressed as dogmatic assertions of truth with the accompanying assertion that if you don't agree you are going to hell. I believe in civil discourse but I don't feel we should afford any special respect to that point of view simply because it has the special status of being "religious".

Certainly.

I don't think that any point of view is entitled to more automatic respect than any other.

I just wanted to make it clear that none of my posts are intended to ridicule, but rather to just loosen up our thinking.

[Greg]

I read this and liked it:

"Doubt, even though it’s regarded in the Christian faith as a bad thing, makes your faith even stronger because without doubt your faith can’t be tested. You’ll never know how strong your faith is. It’s a weird paradox but it brings me comfort. I doubt and question every day. This is ironic because many really religious people are blindly faithful."

http://www.highexistence.com/topic/has- ... e-offence/

[Fred]

1 Peter 3:15 "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect"

Great advice from the Bible Greg. I can respect the beliefs of any one who follows it.

[Mountaineer]

1 Peter 3:15 "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect"

Great advice from the Bible Greg. I can respect the beliefs of any one who follows it.

Agreed.  Makes me think a discussion of these two topics might be interesting:

1. What is the reason for the hope within you?

2. What is the reason for the doubt within you?

I'll even start with a couple of comments from the 50,000 foot level - maybe we can work down to gritty details as we go if anyone is interested.

1. I know I'm a sinner, I have done and do many things that I wish I had not.  I know I could be kinder and more respectful of those I love and those I don't like quite so much.  I have trouble forgiving those who have treated me and my family poorly.  I believe that Christ covered all my sins for me so that every day is a brand new start and I have a chance to be nicer and more helpful to others today than I was yesterday.  I believe that no matter how much I have done wrong in the past, it is all good because I believe in the promises of Jesus.  I look forward to the "Last Day" and believe I will spend eternity with a pain-free body, with great friends, in a great place with zero evil present, and be very thankful for that.  I also believe even if I'm wrong about these beliefs, my current life is far better that it would be otherwise.  A true win-win regardless of the outcome.  Every day is great (mostly  ).

2. I guess because I'm human and see all the terrible things that happen in the world.  Intellectually, I believe that God is in charge of everything.  I just wish I could understand the good that will come, perhaps after I'm long gone from this world, from all the evil I see.  I guess that is the point of trust.  I really don't understand how light can be waves and particles at the same time depending on the observer (quantum theory) either but I trust that it is so.

... M

[Fred]

I read this and liked it:

"Doubt, even though it’s regarded in the Christian faith as a bad thing, makes your faith even stronger because without doubt your faith can’t be tested. You’ll never know how strong your faith is. It’s a weird paradox but it brings me comfort. I doubt and question every day. This is ironic because many really religious people are blindly faithful."

http://www.highexistence.com/topic/has- ... e-offence/

Doubt is clearly a bad thing in regards to the Christian faith. We need go no farther than the first few chapters of Genesis to realize this. The snake challenges what God said to Eve and she listens to him and this is the downfall of the whole human race. So whatever God says to do, do without question, including "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." as spoken by the prophet Samuel.

I think if you are entertaining doubts about the Bible, good for you. You are probably a servant of satan way ahead of where I was at your age and I commend you.

[Fred]

1. What is the reason for the hope within you?

Didn't the Bible say that YOU were supposed to provide the answer to that question? I don't believe in the Bible so I don't feel any such compulsion. I have no claim to any religious hope of life after death and I'm fine with that. I don't know what will happen when I die. I do feel intuitively that there is probably more to the universe than what meets the naked idea but I also think that it is quite possible that when I die I will simply cease to exist and that will be the end of the story. Time will tell. Spending a life thinking too much about this question strikes me as a pointless waste of energy. The only negative outcome to life after death is asserted by your religion and Islam and I don't see any logical reason to take these ancient, totally unproveable and illogical beliefs seriously.

2. What is the reason for the doubt within you?

When I pray to God, it is no different than when I pray to a rock.