More religion stuff

I had a chance to talk to a couple of pastors, including my own, and I've come to the conclusion that it wasn't God that I wasn't able to believe in. It was the god that was presented in right-wing Christianity. That god is MEAN.

And mean gods suck.

I mean, I have no doubt that God hates EVIL, and punishes evil, and does not want us to harm one another. I'm sure it makes Him very angry when we hurt one another and tries to stop us doing that.

But the god I had been presented with seemed unreasonably preoccupied with what body parts of ourselves we were touching and when and why, or where we put our sexual organs in relation to other people, and none of this seems to have anything to do with actual hatred of evil, but just designed to be mean and capricious. The god I had been presented with tried to tell us that most of the things we do for pleasure are bad, um, because this god doesn't like us to feel good. And that's mean.

The god I was presented with said that having one set of sexual organs (you know, the ones you shouldn't touch in the wrong way or with the wrong person) gives you a position of authority over a person with the other set of sexual organs, for no reason other than that god felt like it. And that's mean.

The better part of what I was presented with as "holiness" or "morality" had to do with how we could pat ourselves on the back for making ourselves feel lousy - not because it did anyone any good, but because the god these people believe in wanted you to do so and in so doing, become closer to him. I don't want to become close to such a god; he sounds icky. This god wants us to foster a self-centered, self-congratulatory, fuck-everyone-else-who-might-need-you ethos.

This god is supposed to have created the human body and then found it so repulsive that we are supposed to intrinsically understand that the only way we can be "decent" is to keep specific bits of it covered up. A god who creates something and then demands it should be hidden out of shame is schizophrenic and histrionic.

This god supposedly created acts of bodily union that raise the spirits to untold states of ecstasy, then made us feel guilty about enjoying it outside of narrowly constricted, regulated, joy-crushing stipulations. And that's mean.

This god, if you don't believe in him, and in the exact correct way, will punish you in ultimate torment for all eternity.

This god is not the True God. This god was created by misogynistic, misanthropic, neurotic, cruel-hearted PEOPLE. The True God cares about how we love one another and demands only that we love Him back.

I believe in the real God, creator of Heaven and Earth, Men and Women, Sex, Joy, Mirth, Happiness... who gives us sadness and punishment only as a reminder that we need to love and care for one another MORE. Whose anger and wrath stem only from how we harm one another, not how well we follow a capricious set of arbitrary, pointless rules.

The Christian ecumenical, creedal God is consistent with this.

I am not an antinomian either. My views are orthodox, and the words of Jesus ring true: love God with your whole mind, body, and soul, and love others as you love yourself. This is the whole of the law.

So I'm going to go on being irreverent, and writing sexy stories, and letting people see my body who don't mind seeing my body, and enjoy being a sensual, sexual, happy human being.

I was raised Lutheran. We did bible study weekly and I enjoyed it. But, silly me, I asked questions about some of it. I questioned original sin, I questioned Jericho, I questioned the writings of Paul a LOT. I found some answers...and some more questions. Ultimately I decided that the Old Testament was allegory, and the first four books of the New Testament had a lot to offer....a bridge from old faiths to something new.

I also decided that the minute people start analyzing, the trouble starts. Words get redefined, reinterpreted, retranslated. It pretty much goes downhill from there. I don't much like organized religion because, well, people organize it!

I think I lean more towards paganism/goddess worship than anything else, but the few groups I've gotten involved with did very little more than reaffirm my skepticism towards the big O. <shrug> I don't think going to a church makes you better/holier. I don't think reading books by people does it either. I think the best chance might, maybe be just thinking about things for and by yourself, and trying to be the best person you can be. When you screw up, which you will, you forgive yourself, learn a new thing or two, and move ahead. Celebrate life, celebrate the world around you, and just do your best. The rest of the dogma is just noise.

IMO.

Bravo, ARW!

That was very well said.

Eloquently stated ARW.

In reality, many persons in many religions have distorted the Holy Words to validate their vision of how the world should be so they could subjugate and intimidate others.

fieryjen said:

That was very well said.

Click to expand...

Hi Jen,

Glad to see you here, and glad to see you in this thread. I've been struggling with agnosticism lately - something I may have alluded to shortly after Chicago, but never really got deeply into. I had actually meant to ask you some questions, because you've mentioned how you feel, and I thought maybe you could help me.

Maybe you could still help me, because I'm by no means in any sort of position of stability or comfort.

Anyway... ahoy there!

AvoidingRealWork said:

Hi Jen,

Glad to see you here, and glad to see you in this thread. I've been struggling with agnosticism lately - something I may have alluded to shortly after Chicago, but never really got deeply into. I had actually meant to ask you some questions, because you've mentioned how you feel, and I thought maybe you could help me.

Maybe you could still help me, because I'm by no means in any sort of position of stability or comfort.

Anyway... ahoy there!

Click to expand...

You are not an agnostic, sweets, you believe in god just as much as you ever did. You are not apostate-- you are not denying the deity you believe in.

What you are doing is breaking away from the crap aspects of a social system that is disguised as a religion. You are trying to get back to the core of your religion, minus the crowd control that so many people inserted into faith for their own ends.

The more I read (and edit) in the Founding Fathers' era, the more I appreciate that they may have had it right with Deism--that there is a God, one that set everything up in balance and all sorts of wonderful possibilities, but not one that controls the day-to-day workings of earth. Made it and left us to do with it would we will. And therefore doesn't take the responsibility, either good or bad, for what we do to ourselves--and to each other.

Stella_Omega said:

You are not an agnostic, sweets, you believe in god just as much as you ever did. You are not apostate-- you are not denying the deity you believe in.

What you are doing is breaking away from the crap aspects of a social system that is disguised as a religion. You are trying to get back to the core of your religion, minus the crowd control that so many people inserted into faith for their own ends.

Click to expand...

I agree, it appears your belief isn't what you're doubting here, but the human-made system around it is. That's how it seems to me, anyway, from what you've said. Feel free to correct me.

I'd still love to talk, if you're up for it I agree with a lot of the sentiments in your first post, they express many of the things I don't like about organized religion, completely independent of my conviction of whether there actually is a higher power or not.

My saviour is Mithras and my God is Ahura-Mazda. Given how much older the Mithraist faith is than Christianity, I think that I am pretty safe putting my soul in the hands of the Persian hero and the Lord of Light.

i think you are on the right track. essentially you've detected inconsistencies in orthodox teachings and practices, and notice xianity's preoccupation with sex.

if i may follow on sir71plt a bit. 'deism', in the style of Jefferson, avoids some pitfalls. god does not intervene. there is no point, therefore, in prayers that ask for something. the universe, so to say, works like a well designed clock, though it's not easy to find out the laws.

one might ask, 'what's the point in having [believing in] a god at all?' IF deism is the case, you can pretty much ignore the God issue, and study science and be kind to other humans, etc. iow, simply, in the manner of some buddhists be atheist or agnostic through LACK of position re God. rather than get entangled in "there is insufficient evidence to show a 'god,' but also insufficient evidence to rule 'him' out,' simply say 'the existence of a god is of no interest to me. i have NO belief one way or the other.'

i'm not saying this is the only way to proceed, but if you reject it, you should be able to say why.

I agree ARW. I believbe it's incredibly important to keep questioning my Faith, to keep looking deeper into it, to work out new things, it's how to keep that faith alive. I believe it's something all Christians need to do more of.

God is perfect but he's working through humans who are not. I think sometimes you have to make your decision based on what you know about God not what other people tell you He means.

Good for you, ARW. The only way you'll get good answers is to ask good questions.

Pre-fab answers are the most dangerous of all.

I too think your words are eloquent, ARW. I think we worship the same God.

My own religious experiences were pretty mediocre during most of my early life. My family raised me Christian, but we went to whatever denomination churches were convienent for us. Catholic, Baptist, Episcopalian, Methodist, I did them all. God was a strange and difficult figure for me to relate to at first- I couldn't understand most of what He was about, so I didn't pay much attention. Then my family found a very eloquent priest whose sermons were about the deeper meanings and hidden metaphors in the Bible. His words opened my eyes, and today I look regularly for the beauty and wisdom in all things God has made. I also remain convinced of God's omnibenevolence despite how many people try to convince me He is otherwise while still calling themselves His followers.

The way Father Albert Haas (my family priest) put it- "Remember, folks, if there's room in the Lord's stable for stinky sheep, stupid donkeys, odd-looking camels, poor lonely shepherds, and mysterious strangers from far away, there is surely also room in there for you."

I try to have compassion for God.

I think it helps for me to really believe that whatever God there is, is as far away from my experience as I am from the ants in my back yard. Sure, I wish them well, but they're kinda dumb and I can't talk to them. They're on their own to a huge extent because of the limitations of their brains and their ability to sense their own surroundings.

Like humans, they're often very focused on the chemical signatures and gesticulations of other creatures just like them. Hard to get through that.

Very often when I discover my deep resentment and hatred of God, it usually boils down to my own helplessness and anger at my own weaknesses and those of the folks who are busy putting out signatures and gesticulations.

It's universally human will and human weakness that bothers me, not God's will or God's weaknesses.

Volcanos and tsunamis and hurricanes and earthquakes are really beautiful. If only they didn't hurt so much.

Yes, hurt sucks. Serious design flaw. But I haven't come up with a better system yet so I'm trying to stay reasonably humble.

I've tried to put blame for things on my shoulders. In a way it looks like a martyr, in another way it just eliminates helplessness.

If I'm tortured by something or someone, I realize it's my own body's nervous system that makes this possible. Yes, the torturer is an asshole, sure, but if I didn't have so many biological loopholes that were easy to exploit, it wouldn't be possible. With the gift of life comes the curse of pain. I haven't figured out one without the other. Not something that would have meaning. Not something that could make me feel I'm doing something of value. There's so much suffering, yes. But that gives me infinite chance to make the world around me a better place. No, I can't fix it all, but I can fix what I can fix, and that's purpose.

God for me is the incomprehensible scale of the volcano and tsunami and the length and breadth of the Universe that I find as hard to imagine as the ants in my back yard trying to understand economics.

I'm limited. I try not to limit God in the same way because that wouldn't be...sporting.

I'm hoping that through the length and breadth of time, it's all worth it. And I'm going to play my part to the best of my ability and do the best I can because...what else is there?

Being bored and depressed is limited in scope.

Enjoy your life, embrace your passion, and invite God to have fun with you. Go you

Pure said:

one might ask, 'what's the point in having [believing in] a god at all?' IF deism is the case, you can pretty much ignore the God issue, and study science and be kind to other humans, etc. iow, simply, in the manner of some buddhists be atheist or agnostic through LACK of position re God. rather than get entangled in "there is insufficient evidence to show a 'god,' but also insufficient evidence to rule 'him' out,' simply say 'the existence of a god is of no interest to me. i have NO belief one way or the other.'

i'm not saying this is the only way to proceed, but if you reject it, you should be able to say why.

Click to expand...

For me, the question with deism would not be a question of belief, because that's really beyond demonstration, but a question of worship and grace. How do you interact with an uninvolved God and how would he manifest in the world? How do you acknowledge holiness? What do you do with those feelings of immanence and transcendence when God's beyond reach?

That's really where modern Christianity seems to fall flat. It provides no means of expression for religious feeling other than through the traditional form of prayer, which is some pretty weak stuff. That's why people turn to Goddess worship and Paganism, religions which allow acknowledgment of holiness in the here and now. Even sex can do that, something that scares the hell out of most religions. They see it as competition and that's why they seek to ban it and control it and hang guilt all over it.

Aside from all that bullshit, I think it's important to remember that god is that thing you're always looking for and always trying to understand, and ultimately you can't.

Anything you can comprehend is, by definition, not God.

Recidiva said:

God for me is the incomprehensible scale of the volcano and tsunami and the length and breadth of the Universe that I find as hard to imagine as the ants in my back yard trying to understand economics.

I'm limited. I try not to limit God in the same way because that wouldn't be...sporting.

Click to expand...

A beautiful post, but I loved this bit the most.

English Lady said:

A beautiful post, but I loved this bit the most.

Click to expand...

Thank you, made me smile

dr_mabeuse said:

That's really where modern Christianity seems to fall flat. It provides no means of expression for religious feeling other than through the traditional form of prayer, which is some pretty weak stuff.

Click to expand...

Can't agree with this. At the base of Christianity is the tension between whether you are "saved" by grace alone (which is where the prayer part fits in) or by good works. Your statement covers prayer but it ignores good works. And we're now in a world in the United States where the government is giving up its responsibilities to take care of its people and increasingly is dumping that off onto the churches--where the churched are churning away "expressing" themselves by taking on that responsibility in their "good works" mode. Neither falling flat nor weak in that expression of their religion.

,

I probably have no business making an offering here, but this is the 'Author's Hangout', which often just turns into a social forum, with personal belief's and such as a topic.

Besides that, I finally have a few moments to myself, to browse and scan and see who is commenting about what.

Morals and ethics, a foundation and key ingredient in the formation of any fictiion, even stroke stories as every word, every thought, expresses a moral viewpoint.

Religion, faith, belief of every color and shade has and does play a major role in all groups and societies as it has and does form a moral foundation for human actions.

If, as the thread starter indicated, one is uncertain as to the proper role of sexual activities in human affairs, then one can surely find answers in any one of a thousand faiths that will 'tell' you what is right and what is wrong.

Since Kings and Popes have always been in bed with each other, it follows that religion and politics are cell mates, so to speak, both imprisoned by faith and belief.

But...that was then...this is now and 'now' is the 21st Century, according to the Xtian or Greek or Roman calendar(an interesting search if you have not done so)

Ole Charles Darwin stuck a dagger in the heart of God, long long ago, Jean Paul Sartre and that Kierkegarde and Camus fellow kinda finished the job of assassinating God.

God is dead.

Man has been struggling for 150 years to find a replacement, with little success. The 'Greater Good' of the Socratic method, reborn by Kant and Hegel, was stillborn in the form of socialism and was buried alongside that bearded God and poor old mankind is left starkly naked and alone.

That said, man still needs a means of determining the correctness of all human actions, that of a moral and ethical nature. Further, man does need to understand from whence he came and where in the hell he is going.

I stopped teaching philosophy many years ago for reasons of my own and do not intend to begin again, however, if the thread starter and others are truly interested in finding absolute, objective answers to moral and ethical questions, including those involving sexual activity, there are means by which you can do that.

However, as I discovered, most would rather cuddle up with a comfortable faith and not be taxed with actually thinking.

Amicus...

grace, good works

good works is some part of every religion, including xianity, including protestant and catholic group and others, e.g. mennonite.

even protestants who say "by grace alone" are frequently intent on acting well towards fellow humans. the new england puritans (calvinists), for example, stressed pursuing one's calling in a godly way--not inconsistent with prospering. charity towards the poor would be another feature of their practice.

lutherans, again, affirm "by grace alone", yet theologians like bonhoeffer stressed 'discipleship,' which gets into how you act, and bonhoeffer himself acted well despite his adherence to 'by grace alone."


what i'm saying is you have to look beyond someone's saying "we are saved by grace alone", in order to determine how they will act towards others, esp the poor or unfortunate.

Pure said:

good works is some part of every religion, including xianity, including protestant and catholic group and others, e.g. mennonite.

even protestants who say "by grace alone" are frequently intent on acting well towards fellow humans. the new england puritans (calvinists), for example, stressed pursuing one's calling in a godly way--not inconsistent with prospering. charity towards the poor would be another feature of their practice.

lutherans, again, affirm "by grace alone", yet theologians like bonhoeffer stressed 'discipleship,' which gets into how you act, and bonhoeffer himself acted well despite his adherence to 'by grace alone."


what i'm saying is you have to look beyond someone's saying "we are saved by grace alone", in order to determine how they will act towards others, esp the poor or unfortunate.

Click to expand...

True enough. My response was specifically to the assertion that there was no expression of feeling available to Christians other than prayer.

That said, there are far more unchurched (regardless of their formally exercised religion) around than churched--regardless of the statistical claims to the contrary. And, although some of these are highly motivated to do good works, many more have nothing but self-gratification motivating them toward doing anything for others. If they are part of society, though, I think their responsibilities to keep the society healthy are no less than those who have formal spiritual doctrine motivating them to do so. And that's where I think the U.S. governing system is now abdicating its responsibility. The existence of homelessness isn't the responsibility of my church--which is the one now trying to take care of the results--it is the responsibility of my community, churched and unchurched alike.

It sounds like the mean god is a god created by man.

sr71plt said:

Can't agree with this. At the base of Christianity is the tension between whether you are "saved" by grace alone (which is where the prayer part fits in) or by good works. Your statement covers prayer but it ignores good works. And we're now in a world in the United States where the government is giving up its responsibilities to take care of its people and increasingly is dumping that off onto the churches--where the churched are churning away "expressing" themselves by taking on that responsibility in their "good works" mode. Neither falling flat nor weak in that expression of their religion.

Click to expand...

Mmmm. I hear you, but I'm talking about a more spontaneous and immediate response to divinity, a kind of direct dialog thing. One of the trends in modern religion seems to be the 'democratization' of religion, the development of religions without priesthoods in which the worshiper can connect to God without intercession and conduct his or her own rituals him or herself. Paganism and Wicca and Goddess worship are very democratized, and so is modern Xtianity. I was wondering how that would work with Deism. Not too well, I'd suppose.

The evolution of religion seems to go from highly intercessionary religions to highly democratized ones -- from a religion in which you can't do squat without a priest to one in which you act as your own priest.

That's what ARW is kind of talking about: rejecting the institutionalized conception of God and developing his own personal version.

dr_mabeuse said:

Mmmm. I hear you, but I'm talking about a more spontaneous and immediate response to divinity, a kind of direct dialog thing. One of the trends in modern religion seems to be the 'democratization' of religion, the development of religions without priesthoods in which the worshiper can connect to God without intercession and conduct his or her own rituals him or herself. Paganism and Wicca and Goddess worship are very democratized, and so is modern Xtianity. I was wondering how that would work with Deism. Not too well, I'd suppose.

The evolution of religion seems to go from highly intercessionary religions to highly democratized ones -- from a religion in which you can't do squat without a priest to one in which you act as your own priest.

That's what ARW is kind of talking about: rejecting the institutionalized conception of God and developing his own personal version.

Click to expand...

Oh, we gave all of that dialogue stuff up in the late 50s.

And from what I've read on Deism as I was editing along, it's quite a democratic concept. (I don't claim expertise in it--like Unitarianism, I don't want to study Deism too hard because this might prompt me to switch religions, and I'm too lazy and old to do that all over again).