|
Post by sargassosea on Nov 4, 2009 14:23:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by xara on Nov 4, 2009 14:49:50 GMT -5
A strong heartfelt post. I am glad you are finding what works for you.
|
|
|
Post by km on Nov 4, 2009 15:00:41 GMT -5
You know, this makes so much sense to me and is pretty much where I am too. The story of Jesus provoked *really unhealthy* behavior for me, at least. Having to be willing to die for your faith... That's not a small task.
So, I have a question then... Why still take the kids to the Salvation Army church? They're a pretty...evangelical church, as far as I know. Was this part of a legal agreement? I'm just curious... You don't have to answer if you can't, but I've been wondering... Is this something you have to do? Is it because your kids mostly enjoy the community there? I'm just asking because.... I've been wondering why you'd stay in a theologically conservative church when this is where you are now?
|
|
|
Post by MoonlitNight on Nov 4, 2009 16:18:29 GMT -5
And you are perfectly right to feel the way you do. Don't let anyone try to tell you otherwise. You earned every jot of your disillusionment with patriarchy, and with the sacrificial ideal of Christianity.
And you're earning every inch of whatever it is that you replace it with, because anyone with eyes to see can tell that you're not throwing away the idea of loving and serving others...you're just claiming the right to be someone who is loved and served in return, and you're claiming the right and responsibility to love and serve yourself so that you will be there for the people you love!
|
|
|
Post by redheadedskeptic on Nov 4, 2009 17:00:52 GMT -5
Christianity is the ultimate abusive relationship. We screw up, God throws us in hell for all eternity. It's okay, because we deserve it. If we hadn't told a lie, gotten mad at our husbands, been more submissive (ahem), he wouldn't have to do such horrible things to us. But he's so nice to give us a way out. Isn't he wonderful? They say it's a "relationship" built on "love." No, it's not! It's a group of people begging God to listen as they pray to empty space with no answer, and continuing to follow the ideas because the alternative is eternal punishment. For the conservative denominations, anyways. I know some of the more liberal ones don't even believe in hell at all. In which case, I have decided I will know God when I get to heaven, and why bother killing myself to try to find him now? (Of course, added with some other things, I don't really believe in God at all, anymore, but if he does exist in liberal Christian form, I will be quite happy to get to know him in the future! I am just not betting on it!) This is why I get aggravated when people prescribe more God to me as a way to fix the problems God created in my life in the first place. ((Okay, getting off my soapbox before I write an entire blog post worth of stuff right here!)) Good for you finding what works for you. It doesn't matter what other people think. I used to be so afraid of what would happen when people found out I no longer identified as a Christian. And then I remembered, oh, yeah, those were the people who left me for dead when I left my husband. Screw them!
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on Nov 4, 2009 17:58:04 GMT -5
Oh boy, Christians are going to find this really insulting. That's not my intent. This is just my own opinion.
Christianity is pretty horrible if you sit down and think about it. Hell? Martyrdom? Original sin? Bloody sacrifice of Jesus - why was this even necessary? It makes a lot more sense if you look at it as a form of mind control.
I was raised Catholic, but didn't take any of it too seriously. After I got married we attended a fundie-leaning church that supposedly preached straight from the Bible. So I sat down and read the Bible. And I thought, what a bunch of crap! So I read the Bible again, thinking I must have read it wrong. Nope, still crap! That was it for me. My DH is still pretty disappointed. But you can't put the genie back in the bottle. And you can't believe what you don't believe.
At the end of the day, you've got to go with what works for you. I've got to say, after reading the stories here, I'm glad my non-belief switch was so sensitive. I've really got to hand it to Vyckie and all the ladies, you are tough, strong and inspirational. Congratulations on what you've overcome.
|
|
jtn
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by jtn on Nov 4, 2009 18:18:50 GMT -5
I find alot of comfort in the beliefs of Social Gospel. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Gospel I grew up in a church heavily influenced by SG and when I was in my teens, my parents moved to a fundie non-demoninational place that I hated. I didn't understand as a child or even as a teen what it the term SG even was, but I have always found comfort in the belief system. For me, Christianity within a SG view of the world isn't just about 'creating warriors for Christ' or adherence to a strict line of thought... rather, its helping us live better lives through compassion and understanding. It's our job on this planet to leave it a little better than we left it... not just scare the crap out of everyone in a culture war of ideologies.
|
|
torgo
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by torgo on Nov 4, 2009 22:09:10 GMT -5
On an intellectual level, I like the idea of God becoming flesh and “trying out” mortality for awhile (Hebrews 2:14-15); that he was tempted (Matthew 4:1-11, Mark 1:12-13, and Luke 4:1-13), disappointed (e.g., by the denials of Peter), afraid (Mark 14:32-42); that at some point after having let slip the supernatural power that could save him, Jesus the man felt abandoned and terrified (Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34) – that he became like us at last, a mortal that finally understood how people could fail so badly so often. The hardships and pitfalls of mortality were so many that even God, who created us, had a hard time facing them as a man. And he died, like so many other non-citizens under Roman rule, on a torture device designed to affect slow asphyxiation. In doing so, he left a legacy of grace for all people, everywhere. Amy Jill Levine, a Conservative Jew and professor of New Testament studies at Vanderbilt University, made an interesting observation about this when she gave a talk on Jewish-Christian relations: www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGOobQiRAa8Pay special attention to the story Levine starts telling at 51:40. It sums up my own beliefs beautifully.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 5, 2009 0:11:03 GMT -5
Welll. . .
Jesus did say his yoke was easy and his burden was light. It was the Pharisees who tied up heavy burdens and put them on people's backs-- and Jesus didn't approve of that one bit.
|
|
em
Full Member
Posts: 176
|
Post by em on Nov 5, 2009 0:18:57 GMT -5
I always thought Jesus had to make such a huge sacrifice and endure so much for us. I don't recall any verse making it sound like we were supposed to live up to his example, to always refuse temptation like him, to keep faith no matter what, so sacrifice everything. Just listen to his teachings about God and try to learn from his example of how to love others and God. I never got the impression that we were expected to be able to be just like him.
Not that I can blame you for your aversion to such self-sacrifice though. I bet I wouldn't like Jesus's story either in your shoes.
|
|
|
Post by journey on Nov 5, 2009 1:32:22 GMT -5
As someone who left "biblical patriarchy" while remaining a follower of Christ, I do so because I believe that the version of Christianity I was taught was a sick and twisted one. The emerging church, the liberal church, etc, they have a whole different thing going....and when I discovered them, I felt like I was coming home. I love the idea of God coming in human form. I love the idea of Christ giving of Himself (and *refusing* to give of Himself to all those who tried to hurt Him, until *He* chose to do so, until He deemed it to be the right time). That's the concept of boundaries for me, right there. I applaud anyone who leaves the twisted version of Christianity. It is not okay. It is not healthy. It is an abusive system. For those who leave and never look back at other versions of how Christianity is supposed to look, well, who could blame you? Not me. I fully understand how someone could leave and never look back. There is something so terribly destructive about being abused and allowing it all in the name of a heart-felt spiritual belief. It is a betrayal of the worst kind, to discover that it was all built on a lie....a betrayal that attacks the very core of a person. In my opinion, it is God who is the most angry about all of this. For me, it was God (I believe) who helped me slowly, painfully, see the insanity that was going on and get free. In the process, I began learning that this God was so much different than what I'd thought. So I love this God. I hate the fact that the twisted Christianity uses the same name for Him, often the same words....he came to set the captives free, and yet they use him to enslave, to make more captives than there were before. It is so wrong. They do so much harm in His name. In the meantime, I applaud all of you for finding the strength to see, to escape, to learn, to grow, to demand that change would happen, even when you were at your weakest.
|
|
|
Post by barbaraw on Nov 5, 2009 9:19:48 GMT -5
On an intellectual level, I like the idea of God becoming flesh and “trying out” mortality for awhile (Hebrews 2:14-15); that he was tempted (Matthew 4:1-11, Mark 1:12-13, and Luke 4:1-13), disappointed (e.g., by the denials of Peter), afraid (Mark 14:32-42); Yes. This. Also that he had to face the knowledge of his own mortality. That's sort of a get-out-of-jail-free card for me on the theory that Jesus didn't actually die on the cross, that he grew old and possibly even had children (or grandchildren!). The manner of his death is immaterial. It's the fact of his death that's significant.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 7, 2009 14:52:16 GMT -5
I had a thought this morning about Jesus and his teaching of self-sacrificial living. I was thinking about his specific interactions with women-- what did he teach them about self-sacrifice? Women, in that culture, rarely had much opportunity for self-actualization. Did he give them the same self-sacrifice message he gave the crowds in general?
I thought of Mary and Martha. Martha was running around doing all the things a woman was supposed to do when a guest arrives-- preparing a meal, setting the table, serving, serving, serving, even though there is no record Jesus had asked for, or expected, a meal to be served. Mary, on the other hand, went and sat at his feet with the guys, listening to his teachings. Martha came and asked Jesus to rebuke Mary for her selfishness. He refused.
Who was it who was being an example of self-sacrifice?
Martha.
If self-sacrifice was what Jesus' message was all about, don't you think he would have commended her? Instead, he gave Mary his commendation, for "choosing the good part, which will not be taken away from her." He did not appear to think that refusing self-sacrificial serving and acting like she had a place with the men, was either presumptious or selfish on her part. Instead, he told Martha not to be so worried and bothered, because "only a few things are necessary, really only one." And that one thing was being with Jesus and learning from him.
"Come to me, all you who are weary and heavy-laden," he said in another place, "and learn of me. . . and you will find rest for your souls."
Would Jesus be commending the Quiverfull teaching that has women self-sacrificially serving from morning to night? I don't think so. I don't think self-sacrifice was really what his message was about. I think it was about living in love.
|
|
|
Post by jadehawk on Nov 7, 2009 15:45:50 GMT -5
Also that he had to face the knowledge of his own mortality. That's sort of a get-out-of-jail-free card for me on the theory that Jesus didn't actually die on the cross, that he grew old and possibly even had children (or grandchildren!). The manner of his death is immaterial. It's the fact of his death that's significant. hmm.... I don't know. wouldn't that only work if he forgot everything about his existence prior to being born? I wouldn't find death particularly bad or scary if I knew for a fact that death isn't the end because I had seen the "afterlife" and could remember it. It would be about as bad as dying in WoW.
|
|
Ella
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by Ella on Nov 7, 2009 15:59:49 GMT -5
hmm.... I don't know. wouldn't that only work if he forgot everything about his existence prior to being born? I wouldn't find death particularly bad or scary if I knew for a fact that death isn't the end because I had seen the "afterlife" and could remember it. It would be about as bad as dying in WoW. Except in WoW you only go through a virtual death. As humans, even if we were completely assured of what the afterlife is, we'd still have to go through the process of dying, which can often times be a very painful process.
|
|
|
Post by jadehawk on Nov 7, 2009 16:48:20 GMT -5
hmm.... I don't know. wouldn't that only work if he forgot everything about his existence prior to being born? I wouldn't find death particularly bad or scary if I knew for a fact that death isn't the end because I had seen the "afterlife" and could remember it. It would be about as bad as dying in WoW. Except in WoW you only go through a virtual death. As humans, even if we were completely assured of what the afterlife is, we'd still have to go through the process of dying, which can often times be a very painful process. but Jesus wasn't just human, he was also part of god. he wasn't "completely assured". he knew in a very empirical and undeniable way. kind of like angels not having "faith" because they know god exists. for a divine being, human existence wouldn't be any more real than WoW or is for humans. It's literally the creator playing a character in his created world. Maybe it would be more like having your Unique Character killed off in EverQuest, but in any case, it wouldn't have the same effect as on a human who can't know what will happen to them after death no matter how strongly they believe in the existence of heaven etc. , and who only really knows this world. as for the pain part, that's a different conversation, and that wasn't barbara's point.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Nov 7, 2009 17:50:53 GMT -5
I had a thought this morning about Jesus and his teaching of self-sacrificial living. I was thinking about his specific interactions with women-- what did he teach them about self-sacrifice? Women, in that culture, rarely had much opportunity for self-actualization. Did he give them the same self-sacrifice message he gave the crowds in general? I thought of Mary and Martha. Martha was running around doing all the things a woman was supposed to do when a guest arrives-- preparing a meal, setting the table, serving, serving, serving, even though there is no record Jesus had asked for, or expected, a meal to be served. Mary, on the other hand, went and sat at his feet with the guys, listening to his teachings. Martha came and asked Jesus to rebuke Mary for her selfishness. He refused. Who was it who was being an example of self-sacrifice? Martha. If self-sacrifice was what Jesus' message was all about, don't you think he would have commended her? Instead, he gave Mary his commendation, for "choosing the good part, which will not be taken away from her." He did not appear to think that refusing self-sacrificial serving and acting like she had a place with the men, was either presumptious or selfish on her part. Instead, he told Martha not to be so worried and bothered, because "only a few things are necessary, really only one." And that one thing was being with Jesus and learning from him. "Come to me, all you who are weary and heavy-laden," he said in another place, "and learn of me. . . and you will find rest for your souls." Would Jesus be commending the Quiverfull teaching that has women self-sacrificially serving from morning to night? I don't think so. I don't think self-sacrifice was really what his message was about. I think it was about living in love. Yes KR the truth is Jesus's treatment of women was completely radical, as was his treatment of everyone that was despised or lower in the social order than the religious male hierarchy. But it needs explanation because you would never get it just reading the stories since the culture was so different. It also needs APPLICATION.. what does it mean today to not see people as part of a hierarchy of value and importance? Your self sacrifice point is very good--and makes me think that the dying to self parables might not actually be about endless drudgery but about sometime else entirely.
|
|
|
Post by jadehawk on Nov 7, 2009 18:38:11 GMT -5
Except in WoW you only go through a virtual death. As humans, even if we were completely assured of what the afterlife is, we'd still have to go through the process of dying, which can often times be a very painful process. but Jesus wasn't just human, he was also part of god. he wasn't "completely assured". he knew in a very empirical and undeniable way. kind of like angels not having "faith" because they know god exists. for a divine being, human existence wouldn't be any more real than WoW or is for humans. It's literally the creator playing a character in his created world. Maybe it would be more like having your Unique Character killed off in EverQuest, but in any case, it wouldn't have the same effect as on a human who can't know what will happen to them after death no matter how strongly they believe in the existence of heaven etc. , and who only really knows this world. as for the pain part, that's a different conversation, and that wasn't barbara's point. bah. I re-read what I wrote, and it doesn't get my point across as clearly as I'd like, so I'll try again: what I think Barbaraw was saying was that the sacrifice wasn't about HOW Jesus died, but THAT he died. That it didn't really matter whether he died on the cross or as an old man in his sleep. My response was that I didn't think that quite worked if Jesus remembered his pre-human existence. Death per-se causes psychological suffering (anxiety, fear, etc.) because it is literally "the end of the world as we know it"; even the most religious person with the strongest faith in the afterlife doesn't really know what the afterlife will be like, because they haven't experienced it & have no knowledge/memories of it. Death is still a leap into the unknown. But for a Jesus who experienced and remembered the untold eons of his pre-human existence, death wouldn't be a leap into the unknown or the end of the world as he knew it; it would be more like a reversion to the mean. OTOH, if Jesus DIDN'T remember his pre-human existence, if his human life is all that he could remember, then even if he were absolutely certain that what he believed and taught were true, he would have to have faith in it being so, because he wouldn't remember experiencing this for himself. and then, he would really have died like a human, because death would be the end of the only kind of life he could remember. That was the only point I was trying to make. That remembering would make it impossible to experience a real human death. That some kinds of deaths are painful is talking about HOW Jesus died, at which point it would make a difference whether he died on the cross or as an old man in his sleep, which is not what barbaraw was saying, if I understood her correctly. So that's not what I was responding to.
|
|
Ella
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by Ella on Nov 7, 2009 22:26:31 GMT -5
Ah, yes. I see what you mean.
|
|
em
Full Member
Posts: 176
|
Post by em on Nov 7, 2009 23:32:47 GMT -5
Jesus did struggle with his death (he was in the garden (Gethsemanie? I think?) and sent the disciples away because he wanted to be alone and pray just before Judas betrayed him and he knew he'd die not too long after), so I think it's safe to assume it wasn't just nothing. It was painful and a struggle.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Nov 7, 2009 23:51:33 GMT -5
G.K. Chesterton, early 20th-century Catholic essayist, once said Christianity is a religion that adds courage to the virtues of the Creator-- because the only courage worth being called courage is when the soul reaches a breaking point, but does not break. A God that has not suffered cannot be said to have courage, or to truly understand suffering.
|
|
|
Post by ashmeadskernal on Nov 8, 2009 9:11:27 GMT -5
Ah, but that's the fun part about being a Universalist (one who believes EVERYBODY goes to heaven no matter what). There just isn't anything to be afraid of in regards to death. Obtaining the prize is not based upon obediance or sacrifice in any way shape or form, it is actually "unconditional" in the strictest sense of the word.
My biggest problems with Christianity came from Paul, not Jesus. "Be ye therefore perfect." But the pursuit of perfection always costs your life, and never creates the abundant happy life promised, because you are never perfect, never good enough.
It is the love and acceptance of non-perfection that gives me the greatest joy. Like... having a child in Boy Scouts who never makes it past Second Class, for years and years. Just enjoying hanging out with friends and camping. What!?! No EAGLE SCOUT? Nope. This letting go of the need to be right, the need to be "better than" is crucial. So, therefore, there is no my interpretation of this book is "better than" your interpretation, and indeed, there is no book of myths that is "better than" any other book of myths called history.
And no more eating crappy pizza in order to be morally "better than" the others by sacrificing your hard earned income just to become like the poor woman who gave both denarii to the temple instead of the rich Pharisees who only gave what was asked. Oh yes. That parable. I guess Jesus DOES demand self-sacrifice, eh? No thanks. Savior figures of all types always provoke unhealthy responses in me.
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Nov 8, 2009 9:29:31 GMT -5
I used to read a Jewish message board on which someone pointed out that if the purpose of giving was to feed the poor, not prove who was more righteous, than the rich Pharisees who gave more were doing a better job.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Nov 8, 2009 10:09:13 GMT -5
well, yeah, unless the pharisees set up and with their power continued social systems which created the inequality and hunger in the first place I guess.
|
|