|
Post by krwordgazer on Mar 26, 2010 22:59:09 GMT -5
No. I'm sorry, but I feel very strongly here. This is not Christianity. The worship of Baal and Ashtoreth and the sacrifice of children to them was what God abhorred. The abuse of children given to Molech is spoken about in the Bible in terms of God's extreme distress-- "such a thing never entered into my mind," God said.
What Lot did was never endorsed or approved by God. It was his own idea and was part of the extreme value that ancient culture placed on hospitality to strangers, coupled with lack of value on females. The Bible does not endorse that culture; it merely records it.
The requested sacrifice of Isaac had to do with the covenant God had made with Abraham. A study of the meaning of ancient covenants makes it clear that the idea was that what one party does for another, obligates the other party to do in return. A theology of free will says that God limits his interference in human affairs except to the extent that humans invite God in. The covenant with Abraham was the way God was invited in. Under the covenant, only the offer, not the actual sacrifice, of Isaac was necessary to enable God to offer God's own sacrifice. God never had any intention of letting Abraham kill Isaac, as evidenced by God's earlier promise that the covenant would be fulfilled through Isaac's seed-- Isaac had no children at the time Abraham offered him, and yet God had already promised that Isaac would have children. Paul mentions that Abraham trusted God's promise about Isaac, to the extent that he knew Isaac was going to come out alive.
The Father God did not "abuse" Jesus the Son. Jesus was not a child, but a full, freely acting adult, at the time of the crucifixion, and his submission to the crucifixion was Jesus' own choice. He even said that if he called out, God would send a legion of angels to rescue him. The sacrifice of Christ was to fulfill the covenant with Abraham and also usher in a new covenant of freedom and love-- but Christ wanted to come just as much as the Father wanted to send him.
Child abuse is simply not what the Christian story is about. God's revulsion to child sacrifice is clear throughout the Scriptures, and it is clear God never intended the sacrifice of Isaac to be culminated.
The idea that I am supposed to be trembling at what God did to His own son, that God is a monster my children should shy away from in fear for their safety, is a twisting that I had never even imagined until I read it here-- such a thing had never entered into my mind. It distresses me deeply.
Jesus comes into the world to open the way to a kingdom that is not of this world. The kingdom is not imposed from the outside, but is "within you, even in your heart and in your mind." It is supposed to be not about external rules, but about walking in the Holy Spirit. The kingdom of the new covenant is for all people equally-- no external matters such as race, sex, age, or anything else apply any longer. "Do to others as you would have them do to you" applies to all, even to those in positions of power.
Jesus never promised to prevent us from getting hurt. He said that we would have trouble in this life, but that he had overcome. But there is no place in his kingdom for deliberately inflicting pain on one another. To the extent that anyone preaches or teaches this, they are not teaching what Jesus taught.
|
|
|
Post by musicmom on Mar 27, 2010 8:31:20 GMT -5
You make a lot of good points here, but I still must ask you - for all those who don't know the finer point of Christians theology (which I submit are simply mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious), what message is being sent out? Do you think most people understand that God was wanting Abraham to open the door to Him? I think what they see is that God wanted him to be willing to sacrifice his only son. To kill him with a knife - an innocent child.
Does not Christian morality teach us that it is the intention which matters, not the act? Well, Abraham, at the behest of God, formed the intention to kill his son. He did not know that God was just "testing". God wanted Abraham to be willing to commit murder - whether he actually did it or not. This to me, is sick. This is not a loving father.
There is also the much more upsetting incident of the flood and the drowning of all human beings except a select few. This is a terrible story and a frightening example of how God views his children - or at least, most of them. No matter how wayward a child, would you support a parent drowning him? Of course not. But this is what God did and whether the story is literally true or not, it is supposed to teach us something, yes?
In some places, Jesus appears to be submitting willingly. But he also said "My God, my god, Oh why have you abandoned me?" and "Father, if you would let this cup pass from me....."
Yes, I agree there is the possibility of great spirituality and genuine love in Christianity - as there is in all the religions, I believe. But I cannot ignore the most obvious meaning of Christianity which is that it is ok, even righteous, to sacrifice your own child to provide justice and absolve your own guilt. This is what child abuse is all about, isn't it?
I am glad you are deeply disturbed by this thought. I think we should all be deeply disturbed by it. And I do not believe that you have never considered Christianity to be about child abuse before - perhaps consciously the idea has never occurred to you. But we have grown up with the messages of Christianity and realized their murderous import subconsciously long before we were big enough to be horrified at what the implications are. Now that we are big enough, we should speak out against the lessons it teaches and the behavior it enables and supports.
|
|
em
Full Member
Posts: 176
|
Post by em on Mar 27, 2010 8:39:12 GMT -5
I absolutely do not think Christianity is anything about child abuse. Never once in my life, the millions of times I went to mass or from all my family or people from church, have I heard anything that would make such a thought enter my head. Anybody who uses religion to abuse children ... that is firmly on them. They are the sick, twisted problem, not religion.
One again, I want to express my thought that it isn't religion that is warped. It's using extreme religion to propogate your sick, twisted views that is warped ... and that applies to any belief or cause, not just religion.
|
|
|
Post by mommybunny1 on Mar 27, 2010 9:53:36 GMT -5
I never thought of Abrahamic religion as child abuse. I have been thinking a lot while reading this thread. After reading kr's post, it is beginning to make sense to me. It is about dominance and submission. Dominance of the greater being and submission of the lesser being. The reason Abrahamic religions represent progress in society is because the Greater...God...ultimately loves his subjects. He asks for submission, but ultimately spares the lesser beings, if not in life, then in the afterlife. It seems that Christianity is his "proof" that this is so. Evidence is shown to the lesser beings that he is willing to sacrifice the life of his only son because of the promise of a greater afterlife.
As a society, we may be nearly ready for another big step in understanding. This stimulates fear in some folks...and these folk respond with dogmatic adherence to the "old" way. It stimulates wonder in other folks. For most of us, it is likely a mix of emotions. I have shared my own faith crisis here. It is hard for me to believe in this myth, given my 21st century understanding of the world. And yet, having been raised with it, it is difficult to give up. (Like a security blanket)
Going back to the original thought, it is all about power. And it is a male understanding of power, which is "power over". We see it in politics right now in the US. The two major parties see only total domination over one another as victory. The Democrats are enjoying what they define as "crushing" the Republicans. This is what has truly happened. Yes, there is a Healthcare bill that was passed, but it is NOT the bill that the Dems wanted. It is a compromise. Yes, neither side is willing to see the POWER of cooperation. The laws in the US can and have been changed if they do not work. The founders were truly ahead of their time. They understood the power of compromise and change. This kind of understanding is described by some to be feminine power. It is good that these men were in touch with their feminine side!
Abrahamic religions are quite specifically, anti-feminine. The appreciation of feminine power, of cooperation and balance are growing. (even as fundamentalist religions are also growing) It will be interesting to see what happens. Janedoe shares her stream of consciousness with us and it is sometimes hard to follow. But she has a very legitimate point of view.
|
|
|
Post by musicmom on Mar 27, 2010 10:47:37 GMT -5
I absolutely do not think Christianity is anything about child abuse. Never once in my life, the millions of times I went to mass or from all my family or people from church, have I heard anything that would make such a thought enter my head. Anybody who uses religion to abuse children ... that is firmly on them. They are the sick, twisted problem, not religion. One again, I want to express my thought that it isn't religion that is warped. It's using extreme religion to propogate your sick, twisted views that is warped ... and that applies to any belief or cause, not just religion. During all those times you went to mass, did you ever see a crucifix hanging high in front of everyone? Is this not the ultimate symbol of God giving "His only begotten son" for the salvation of the world? Do we not hear that God so loved us that He sacrificed His only son? What is this, if not the ultimate child abuse? And how is it different from parents who abuse their innocent children so that they and their children can achieve holiness and someday, Heaven? I do not mean to upset people here - but I can't help thinking that what is happening to children (like Lydia) is a direct effect of the central idea of Christianity. Not that all people use Christianity to excuse the abuse of children - I don't say that. But that many people see (perhaps not consciously) that message and carry it out with horrific consequences.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Mar 27, 2010 13:02:07 GMT -5
You make a lot of good points here, but I still must ask you - for all those who don't know the finer point of Christians theology (which I submit are simply mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious), what message is being sent out? It is this idea which drives fundamentalist readings of the Christian scriptures. All that matters is what is "obvious" to us, here in the 21st century, reading the Bible as if it were written yesterday by someone who thinks exactly as we do. What is "obvious" to our 21st-century eyes is not at all what was going on in the minds of those who lived at the time these passages were recorded. Their way of thinking was very different. Yes, it was savage. Yes, it was born out of a mindset where death was everywhere-- not clinicalized and sanitized as it is today. Most of us have never actually seen someone die. Many of us have never killed to eat. Someone else does that for us and presents our food to us in styrofoam and plastic. Blood sacrifice was part of the way they thought back then. It wasn't strange or creepy-- it was the way you worshiped. Many religions wouldn't even have blinked at the idea of child sacrifice. The ancient Hebrew religion did blink, and that was a big step forward. I will repeat this again. Anyone hearing the story of Abraham and Isaac back then would have two things in their minds that we may not have in ours: 1) that God had entered into a blood covenant with Abraham, and 2) that God had promised that Isaac was going to have children, and Isaac hadn't had any yet. Not keeping a promise was breaking the covenant. God would not have done so. No, Abraham did not expect that Isaac was going to die. He didn't know what God was going to do, but he trusted the covenant. I have spoken before here of the idea of "accommodation." The idea is that God spoke to those people at that time in ways that people would understand. What those people would have understood was going on, had nothing whatsoever to do with child abuse. The Bible must be read as we would read any other ancient text-- with an eye to authorial intent and original audience. To do otherwise is to do a major disservice to the text, and to run the risk of completely misunderstanding its meaning.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Mar 27, 2010 13:12:28 GMT -5
Yes, yes, it is very accommodating to change a culture's dress, festivals, legal system, food, religion, etc. Pretty much everything that makes a culture a culture. But not acceptance of a paradigm of child abuse as necessary for a covenant with the divine. No, not *that* bit, and the genocide bit, and the sexism bit, and the slavery bit oh, *those* bits god couldn't touch.
I'm sorry if that makes me think of your god as a little impotent and pathetic... poor god cannot teach his people how to be nice, but he *can* teach them an entirely new law of diet, or to wear tassels of a certain color on their clothing, or to hold such and such a festival 'just so.' And then supposedly I'm supposed to consider that working *within* the culture??
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Mar 27, 2010 13:53:11 GMT -5
You're using the operative word there, Jemand: "paradigm." Paradigm shifts are absolutely the hardest things to make. They must be done gradually, if at all. At this point our paradigm has changed so completely that theirs makes no sense at all to us. But it took thousands of years.
Clothing styles and food choices-- even holidays and laws-- are comparatively easy. But they may play a slow, incremental role in changing how a people looks at the big picture, too.
Go ahead and look at it instead as the gradual evolution of humanity. Even from my perspective, that certainly plays a role in it. But what I object to is when our paradigm is superimposed over theirs, and everything they did is viewed in terms of ours.
In other fields of study, we are willing to allow experts-- scientists, doctors, etc-- to tell us when what seems obvious to us isn't really what's going on. Why not when it comes to the Bible? Why must we insist that our subjective, literalistic view of the text, has to be the actual meaning?
|
|
|
Post by asteli on Mar 27, 2010 15:54:09 GMT -5
The problem is, KR, that you understand the Bible can't just be read as if it were written yesterday; that there are cultural and linguistic subleties that casual reading won't reveal. MOST people don't get that. For most people, the Bible is the Bible and the words mean exactly the same as they always have. There is no subtext for most of them. You are arguing from your point of view and understanding while everyone who disagrees with you is speaking of the GENERAL understanding of the Bible by the majority. And from that understanding, the Bible and many religious rituals are brutal, destructive and just plain disturbing.
|
|
|
Post by musicmom on Mar 27, 2010 18:13:15 GMT -5
You're using the operative word there, Jemand: "paradigm." Paradigm shifts are absolutely the hardest things to make. They must be done gradually, if at all. At this point our paradigm has changed so completely that theirs makes no sense at all to us. But it took thousands of years. Clothing styles and food choices-- even holidays and laws-- are comparatively easy. But they may play a slow, incremental role in changing how a people looks at the big picture, too. Go ahead and look at it instead as the gradual evolution of humanity. Even from my perspective, that certainly plays a role in it. But what I object to is when our paradigm is superimposed over theirs, and everything they did is viewed in terms of ours. In other fields of study, we are willing to allow experts-- scientists, doctors, etc-- to tell us when what seems obvious to us isn't really what's going on. Why not when it comes to the Bible? Why must we insist that our subjective, literalistic view of the text, has to be the actual meaning? Kwordgazer, I can appreciate part of what I think you are saying: namely, that before the advent of Christianity, child sacrifice was a common, accepted occurrence and one of the major ways that people would cleanse themselves of guilt or do penance for any type of success. Perhaps Christianity DID do some good in that it took that practice and assured people that God had already done that dirty job for us - He sacrificed His Son, so that we didn't have to sacrifice ours. Perhaps because of Christianity, millions of children have been able to live. Perhaps this is a slow evolution toward humane living, as you suggested. The next step might be admitting that taking out our feelings of guilt and shame upon our children is not acceptable in any form and that God does NOT approve of innocent life being killed for the guilty. This would be a tough sell in Christianity, I grant you, since that is pretty much the whole idea of the religion (innocent life slain for the guilty), but maybe we are poised to move forward into something else. Cases of abuse (especially sexual abuse) are way higher in religious homes. I can't help but believe that it's not accidental.
|
|
|
Post by philosophia on Mar 27, 2010 21:50:30 GMT -5
I absolutely do not think Christianity is anything about child abuse. Never once in my life, the millions of times I went to mass or from all my family or people from church, have I heard anything that would make such a thought enter my head. Anybody who uses religion to abuse children ... that is firmly on them. They are the sick, twisted problem, not religion. One again, I want to express my thought that it isn't religion that is warped. It's using extreme religion to propogate your sick, twisted views that is warped ... and that applies to any belief or cause, not just religion. During all those times you went to mass, did you ever see a crucifix hanging high in front of everyone? Is this not the ultimate symbol of God giving "His only begotten son" for the salvation of the world? Do we not hear that God so loved us that He sacrificed His only son? What is this, if not the ultimate child abuse? And how is it different from parents who abuse their innocent children so that they and their children can achieve holiness and someday, Heaven? I do not mean to upset people here - but I can't help thinking that what is happening to children (like Lydia) is a direct effect of the central idea of Christianity. Not that all people use Christianity to excuse the abuse of children - I don't say that. But that many people see (perhaps not consciously) that message and carry it out with horrific consequences. Proverbs 23:13-14 Do not withhold correction from a child, For if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. You shall beat him with a rod, And deliver his soul from hell. I cannot deny that, like many home schooling Christians, we read the chapter of Proverbs for the day of the month, month after month. People must decide whether this is truth, or whether it is abuse. It still causes me a great deal of confusion because my children have been trained to respect this form of behavior control in over all others. When I gave up the rod, they mocked me, said I was spineless and that I did not love them. Hebrews 12:6-8 My son, do not despise the chastening of the Lord, Nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him; For whom the Lord loves He chastens, And scourges every son whom He receives.”
If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons.
It is a mark of the believer that he is punished. Proverbs 13:24 He that spares his rod hates his son: but he that loves him chastens him betimes. Although there are Christians that interpret these passages to mean any form of discipline, Quiverfull and most "Bible Believing" Christians interpret it to be an act of love to beat children with a rod. Not only that, but they themselves expect God to beat them into submission as adults as well. As I said, my belief is in limbo right now. I believe in a God, but I'm not sure about religion.
|
|
|
Post by philosophia on Mar 27, 2010 22:04:20 GMT -5
Does not Christian morality teach us that it is the intention which matters, not the act? Well, Abraham, at the behest of God, formed the intention to kill his son. He did not know that God was just "testing". God wanted Abraham to be willing to commit murder - whether he actually did it or not. This to me, is sick. This is not a loving father. As disturbing as this line of thought may be, I am forced to agree with musicmom on this. And what about Jepthah? He sacrificed his virgin daughter. (Please don't explain this story away. I think it takes gymnastics to say she was not actually physically sacrificed.) And what about Lot's daughters, who he was willing to hand over to the Sodomites for the sake of a couple of "Strangers". And I saw this quote on a youtube comment list today, and it surprised me with it's simplicity. Regarding the story of the first children, Adam and Eve: TheAntiBella (3 days ago) Show Hide Oh, honey, the very fact that they didn't have the knowledge of good and evil proves they didn't know right from wrong--because knowing right from wrong IS the knowledge of good and evil, and until they ate from that tree, they did not have that knowledge. Therefore, your god put them in a situation that they did not understand. It's like sitting a toddler down in front of cookies and telling him not to touch and then leaving the room.
Really let that one sink in. Would you send the toddler to hell?
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Mar 28, 2010 0:25:17 GMT -5
The problem is, KR, that you understand the Bible can't just be read as if it were written yesterday; that there are cultural and linguistic subleties that casual reading won't reveal. MOST people don't get that. For most people, the Bible is the Bible and the words mean exactly the same as they always have. There is no subtext for most of them. You are arguing from your point of view and understanding while everyone who disagrees with you is speaking of the GENERAL understanding of the Bible by the majority. And from that understanding, the Bible and many religious rituals are brutal, destructive and just plain disturbing. Actually, most Christians do not follow a literalistic view of the Bible, per this Gallup poll: www.christianpost.com/article/20070525/poll-1-of-3-americans-say-bible-should-be-taken-literally/index.htmlA quote from the poll: Overall, the most popular view Americans hold today is that the Bible is the inspired word of God [but not to be taken literally word for word], with 47 percent claiming such a view while 19 percent believe the Bible is a book of ancient fables, legends, and history as recorded by man.The poll also shows that the more educated a person is, the more likely they are to read the Bible with "subtext," as you call it. I find that those who have come out of evangelical fundamentalism (like those who are still immersed in it) tend to think that this is the "normal" way of thinking about Christianity. In fact, evangelical fundamentalism is a relatively new phenonemon that arose around the middle of the last century. Fundamentalist literalism is not the way the majority of Christians throughout history-- or even today-- have tended to read their scriptures. Philosophia, I have no intention of "explaining away" the Jephthah story. However, the emphasis of that story is on the conclusion: how the women of Israel would hold a memorial service every year afterwards, leaving their husbands and going off by themselves, in a gesture that clearly communicated, "Don't let this happen again." There is no divine endorsement of what Jephthah did, and though the view of the culture was that vows must be kept no matter what-- the real lesson is the disapproval of rash vow-taking on the part of the surrounding society. As far as the "rod" passages are concerned, all I can do is repeat what I said about those other threads not long ago. Here's one: nolongerquivering.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=pearl&thread=765&page=5#12585 and another: nolongerquivering.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=open&thread=681&page=1#10488As far as the Adam and Eve story is concerned-- no, I don't think "knowing good and evil" is the same thing as "knowing right from wrong," or that the idea of the text is God's unfairness in subjecting them to something they didn't understand. I don't think Adam and Eve are being portrayed as mental toddlers in that story. Anyone can read anything they like into any story-- particularly an ancient text that we are far removed from in time and culture-- but the issue is, what would the original audience have understood it to be about? I think the story should be read as myth, as a picture of the human condition. I think the wording of the story, with its constant symbolic references, shows that it was intended to be read symbolically and not literally (what kind of fruit is a "knowledge of good and evil" fruit?) I think the story is fundamentally about humanity's sense of loss-- that a state that we long for is lost or missing. There is a difference between the way we feel things should be and the way they are. The reason comes down to separation from communion with God. Adam and Eve are a picture of turning away from simple trust and love, to analyze and judge the divine-- and losing our connection to it in the same moment. Ultimately, through the symbolism of story, the message being conveyed goes beyond words and into our deepest feelings and needs. As far as Christianity being about the innocent suffering for the guilty-- I think Christianity is actually about the divine stepping in to reconnect the lost connection through identification with humanity. If anyone is portrayed in the Bible as knowing good and evil, it is God. And in Christianity, it is God who suffers to redeem man. Not so much innocent for the guilty, as the all-mighty for those who cannot help themselves. These are very much nutshell versions of what really deserves much longer treatment-- but what I'm really just trying to say is that if you want to believe Christianity is a monster religion, evil and ugly in its very nature, I can't stop you. But there are other ways to look at it that I think reflect a bigger picture, and perhaps account for why so many people through the milennia have found it instead a source of healing, grace and peace.
|
|
|
Post by philosophia on Mar 28, 2010 8:45:44 GMT -5
KR, This was my first visit to the boards in a while, and I felt compelled to comment on your discussion but I should note that I don't think Christianity is a monster religion. What I am saying is that I can see how people can construe it as a monster religion. I appreciate all of your in depth comments on the various issues. But the thing I am having trouble reconciling in my own mind is this: If it is truth, why isn't it entirely truth? If God is so different from the Pagan gods that required child sacrifice, why then does he require it? If you are saying he is meeting the culture where they are, why not teach it is EVIL to sacrifice children rather than, "Here, I'll do it for you." My simple understanding leads me to believe there are two options: - All religions evolved out of the culture and are similar and equally valid/invalid.
- There is one true religion that all the others are shadowing in some way.
I suppose an atheist would accept the first position, and a Christian would accept the second, with Christianity being the "true". If that is the case then God wants that sacrifice. For, if Christianity were employing other religions' methods to get converts, how then can it be said to stand on it's own? Which brings me back to my own personal dilemma: If God is all powerful, why is it so important for me to be a good witness? He ought to be able to prove himself. (I am talking both about old testament law and the standards of some churches today.) (Just my random thoughts for the day, I'm headed to church now!)
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Mar 28, 2010 10:51:32 GMT -5
See, KR, I am totally unconvinced by that poll. It says that 45% of Christians believe the bible is the literal word of god, word for word. While a believer, I would definitely have said no to that. I would have said yes to it being "inspired." But I thought all the ideas were divine, human wording, but divine, eternal ideas. Given how *close* that 45% of word for WORD literalism is to 50%, and the fact that, I didn't even get there even *when* I did not believe in much subtext, I really think the majority of Christians do not really care about the cultural context of these texts, at least the vast majority of the texts.
Secondly, you say this view is new. Well, maybe so, but it came about *from* a simplistic, face only reading of the text. Say we fight it back into nothing, say you are right and we get back to the "traditional" view that includes context. Well, guess what, that face only reading is *still there!* In a text that is widely reverenced in society as from a perfect and unchanging god. And in one thousand years, there's going to be another group of idiots who resurrect the fundamentalist simplistic meaning. It's a textual ideological time bomb. There is no way we can get away from this sort of recurrence short of granting that it is actually not the timeless word of god. Actually not from a divine agent that is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Mar 28, 2010 12:29:58 GMT -5
I'm going to the coast with my family today, so I have time only for this:
Philosophia, where and how, exactly, does the Bible say that God is into child sacrifice? Where and how does He say, "Here, I'll do it for you?" If you're talking about the sacrifice of Jesus, then I don't get it. Jesus, according to Christianity, is the eternal divine God, second Person in the Trinity. He is called the "Son," but not in any biological sense. He was 33 years old at the time he, by his own statement, voluntarily laid down his life, on his own authority. How is that child sacrifice?
As I said before, the Bible shows continually that God is against people sacrificing their children to Him or any other god. Not only against, but emphatically against. So yes, I think it's twisting the Scriptures to say they support "child sacrifice."
Jemand, of course there are always going to be idiots. Of course Christianity is an ancient religion that sprang out of a barbaric culture, and itself came from an even more ancient religion that sprang out of an even more barbaric culture. Of course the ancient texts, like all other ancient texts of those periods, are going to reflect the barbaric mentality of those peoples. What I don't see is why that negates the beauty of human communion with the divine through intervention of the divine. There is a message that transcends all cultures.
I really think that the main problem today is that many Christians have almost stopped worshiping God in favor of worshiping the scriptures. That's the mistake the Pharisees were making too. Jesus said the scriptures were never intended to do more than point to the divine. I have been in communion with the divine, and it is the single most beautiful thing in my life. I will not toss it out just because groups of people through the ages have entirely missed the point.
|
|
|
Post by musicmom on Mar 28, 2010 12:46:22 GMT -5
KG - I can totally agree with you that Christianity can be used to make people more loving and ethical. There is plenty of fodder for great philosophy, love of God and man, examples of altruistic behavior abound. No doubt, you can find those good meanings if you want to. And many people do. But, I don't think that is the question. I think the question - for me, anyway - is, can I support a religion which I see to be encouraging child abuse by the example of God, and by many MANY verses in scripture. Along with all the loving things in Christianity, is it doing terrible damage to children by enabling people to cleanse themselves of guilt by chastening their children? I'm thinking yes - it does do this. As an example: Men beating their wives used to be pretty commonplace in most societies. For most women, it was just a fact of life and something that we lived with. Not all men did, of course. Many loved their wives and would never hurt them. The laws of our country actually used to give men permission to hit their wives, as long as the beating instrument wasn't too big (Virginia had this law in place pretty recently, in fact). So, my question is: Even if most of the law was good and just and encouraged good behavior and respect of others, it is ok that it gives permission to beat wives? And did that law cause more women to be hurt? Studies have shown that since the laws have been changed, men do not do it as much as they used to. It is against the law, and is known to be wrong. Some still do, of course, but not near as many as when it was codified in our legal code. Now, it's true that the Bible is not legally binding, but to believing Christians, it is MORE influencial than the laws of our land. At least, it used to be for me. We used to have a certain pride in our house that we followed God's laws, as opposed to men's laws. And this included how we brought up our children. What it said in the Bible definitely influenced my thinking on child discipline and made me feel like I was being a good mother for hurting my children - in God's name, of course .
|
|
|
Post by musicmom on Mar 28, 2010 12:58:36 GMT -5
I'm going to the coast with my family today, so I have time only for this: Philosophia, where and how, exactly, does the Bible say that God is into child sacrifice? Where and how does He say, "Here, I'll do it for you?" If you're talking about the sacrifice of Jesus, then I don't get it. Jesus, according to Christianity, is the eternal divine God, second Person in the Trinity. He is called the "Son," but not in any biological sense. He was 33 years old at the time he, by his own statement, voluntarily laid down his life, on his own authority. How is that child sacrifice? Exodus 20:29,30 (NIV) "You must give me the firstborn of your sons. Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, but give them to me on the eighth day." Scary stuff. All those innocent little babies. KG, I know what you are saying about having that transcendent religious experience of pure love with God. Christianity has been the vehicle for many such experiences, and for me too. I guess I am just seeing that God is God and can be experienced in so many different ways - nature, Buddhism, music, helping others, seeking my center, etc... So many different ways to approach God and experience the divine. So, do I really need to be involved in a religion that bases itself on punishing innocence as a means of redeeming the powerful? Does that even make sense? Is it, in any way, fair? Can it lead to people doing terrible things and thinking God is cheering them on?
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Mar 28, 2010 13:08:11 GMT -5
Jemand, of course there are always going to be idiots. Of course Christianity is an ancient religion that sprang out of a barbaric culture, and itself came from an even more ancient religion that sprang out of an even more barbaric culture. Of course the ancient texts, like all other ancient texts of those periods, are going to reflect the barbaric mentality of those peoples. What I don't see is why that negates the beauty of human communion with the divine through intervention of the divine. There is a message that transcends all cultures. I really think that the main problem today is that many Christians have almost stopped worshiping God in favor of worshiping the scriptures. That's the mistake the Pharisees were making too. Jesus said the scriptures were never intended to do more than point to the divine. I have been in communion with the divine, and it is the single most beautiful thing in my life. I will not toss it out just because groups of people through the ages have entirely missed the point. But where *are* those scriptures of the more barbaric form you believe Christianity arose from, the ones before the Bible? They are *gone* from popular perception. We don't need them anymore. They would do far more harm than good if society considered them inspired in any way. So WHY do we have to keep around and venerate as inspired the barbaric texts Christianity is based on? Can we say that, maybe at this time, there is a need for a *different* spirituality completely, a new break from what came before, where these old texts will stop holding us back still? I know you have an experience with the divine and I don't, and I understand that. What I *don't* understand though, is why you choose to frame your experience in a tradition and paradigm which contains such barbaric thoughts and practices, while admitting you think that your current paradigm came out of a previous even worse paradigm. If that is the case, why not another spiritual paradigm shift for today? I'm not saying it would be a good idea to toss out your divine experience because groups of people throughout the ages caused so much harm, I'm saying it would be a good idea to stop rooting and interpreting that experience in the same texts and ideas which *caused* the harm on the part of so many groups. There are always going to be idiots, so why support ideas that allow those idiots to be more dangerous than they should be?
|
|
|
Post by journey on Mar 28, 2010 16:09:04 GMT -5
So, do I really need to be involved in a religion that bases itself on punishing innocence as a means of redeeming the powerful?--musicmom Didn't quite understand this... Would you mind clarifying? On this general subject... I can see Christianity in a number of different lights, most of which I find distasteful (including fundamentalism). However, I can see it much as KR described it (though I'm sure we differ in many areas, I tend to nod my head much of the time when she explains her view), where it is about connection with the Divine and the study and practice of walking in love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. I like it where it is about practicing peace, standing up for the weak and the unlovely, and seeking the good of all. That kind of practice and interpretation of Christianity (which includes using that kind of lens in interpreting the Scriptures, seeing them as a collection of works in which humanity, culture, history, emotions, current mindsets, etc, are all on display, along with a love for the ever unfolding God) is something I do not find distasteful. However, most other ways of understanding and practicing Christianity do not at all mesh with what I sense to be truth (at my core level). Currently, I mostly try to avoid them (difficult, when they make up so much of the Christianity in my community, but do-able). Someone once said (I think it was the "evangelical in the wilderness" blogspot guy) that they viewed Christ and His actual message as this little burbling fountain of sweet and pure water...and that Christianity was this gargantuan ediface of a city constructed over the top of it, filled with mazes of roads and buildings and pollution and business and confusion, to the point where the sweet little fountain was deeply covered over and it was almost impossible for both tourist AND city dweller to even know it existed, much less find it. I really resonated with that description, because I felt at one point that I found that fountain and drinking that water changed everything... and then spent years later living in the city, believing the city founders that the "city" was the way you are to properly express your allegience to Christ, who you eventually forget all about in your busy frantic scurrying of following all the rules and demands of city life. Whereas I think the point of the fountain is simply to drink deeply and enjoy the healing and transformative powers of the water there... IF you can get to it, that is... (Once you learn how to get to it, you can avoid all the insanity constructed over it...there are some little secret paths some of us take, and it's actually relatively quiet, down deep under the city)... I have great doubts about Christianity...so many doubts that I think my faith in the city is probably lost altogether. But I love the little fountain down there, underneath it all. I'm not even sure what that means. I don't think I could explain it in "real" words...I only have things I can pull from my imagination to use, really. As far as that goes, most of me no longer cares that I can't analytically spell out what this even means. I'm tired of trying to explain everything and get it all parsed out (so much my life in fundamentalism, getting all the doctrines all neat and tidy, ever to the exclusion of love). I just know what is good (the water from that fountain) and what is worth trying to avoid (everything built on top of it). As for whether or not there are other paths to the Divine, I really don't know. I'm reading and listening with an open mind, and must say that I uncomfortably see and hear many who seem to be finding God (or whatever name they have for God) completely outside the bounds of the Christain faith (which I was always taught was not only not allowed, but was flat out impossible). Listening with an open mind makes me uncomfortable more often than not, in these matters, but I refuse to go back to that tight little insulated box where "we know everything" all because we refuse to look outside the walls we locked ourselves into. That means I have a lot more questions than answers. All I do know is that I find deep meaning and purpose and delight in the waters from that little unassuming fountain, buried under the ruckus.
|
|
|
Post by musicmom on Mar 28, 2010 17:43:35 GMT -5
So, do I really need to be involved in a religion that bases itself on punishing innocence as a means of redeeming the powerful?--musicmom Journey - nice to read your words again Well, what I meant is that Christianity's central idea is that God lets Christ be punished for our sins. Christ is the lamb, the innocent, the sinless. The only one who never sinned. We are, allegedly, the guilty, the trapped, the damned. He is punished in our stead - a concept that has always baffled me (and caused my children to ask many questions that I could not really answer, because their questions actually had common sense to them ) I think....and I'm not sure... but I think that this idea might be the one that lends itself so well to parents who, in trying to achieve their own sanctity, end up punishing their innocent children. We get the idea from God the Father, and, judging from the alive and well status of the abuse industry, it must achieve something for the adults. It makes the adults feel powerful and relieved. They become more successful in their lives and no one would ever guess that someone so well respected and "beyond reproach" would ever hurt a child. They dump all their guilt and shame upon the helpless, innocent child and then go about their business stronger and happy. I just can't help but be reminded of all of this when, this morning in church, I hear about Christ "bearing all our iniquities". "Surely He has borne our sins and carried our sorrows." "He bowed His head to those who would smite Him." And on and on. Well, that was probably much more than you wanted, but I am just trying to think this out for myself too.
|
|
|
Post by journey on Mar 28, 2010 20:53:46 GMT -5
Okay, I get it now (I think-lol)... I wasn't sure why you said that it was to redeem the powerful. Now I see more where you are coming from. I'm not a big fan of the punitive explanation of the Cross (often called Penal Substitution or Satisfaction Theory), where God had to have satisfaction for His honor, had to punish... It's commonly understood to be *the* explanation of the cross, and yet historically, Christus Victor is actually the Classic view and the one associated with the early church! Here's wiki on a brief explanation of Christus Victor: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_(Christus_Victor_view) It is such a completely different way of explaining the Cross and WHY Christ died and all of it........ For me, it was SO refreshing and interesting, because I was SO not tracking anymore with penal substitutionary atonement, AND, holy smokes, the fact that it wasn't some "libs" who made this up but it actually was the view of the early church and remained the view of the Eastern Orthodox half of Christianity? ?? Way cool. A deep disatisfaction/frustration with penal substitutionary atonement for ME came, actually, right on the heels of my exploration into parenting theories and my switch from the more punitive Pearl-type model to a more grace-based/AP model. I find it interesting that you see the two (theory of the cross and theory of parenting) connected as well. To me, they were SO connected... If penal substitutionary atonement was the correct explanation, then, well, the Pearls were right. I knew that just couldn't be. Btw, I say none of this to try and get you to "stay" with Christ (as if anyone can truly do that, anyhow) or to argue or anything even remotely like that. I understand a lot of your questions and concerns, in that I share many of them. I'm just chatting here, sharing some stuff I found, as I wrestled through (and continue to grapple with) my own observations. We all who've been deeply wounded by teachings from w/in the camp of Christianity have to come to our own place of peace with where we sit w/ the religion and with Christ, and that takes time and processing and time and processing and then some more of the same. I'm certainly not sitting anywhere yet...sort of wandering, actually...
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Mar 28, 2010 23:27:04 GMT -5
I don't really agree with penal substitutionary atonement either. The view I take is probably more along the lines of Christus Victor, though I wasn't aware there were only two choices about this matter. I think about it in terms of idenfication: That the divine Person of Christ became identified with the nature of humanity, so that humanity could become identified with the nature of Christ. In this way, the goodness of God opened itself to absorb every evil committed by humanity, and by absorbing evil, to take away its power in our lives, so that we could walk in freedom.
As far as why I identify with Christianity rather than any other religion-- we have had this conversation before on this forum, and I'm really tired after spending the day on the coast. So I'm pulling a few of my words forward from last year.
I believe Jesus’ life and teachings transcend culture and stand the test of time; that creeds like the Nicene Creed reflect a consensus of early followers of Jesus that I can check my own experiences and thoughts against, to make sure I’m not just waltzing off into a set of personal fantasies. At the same time, Jesus’ teachings can provide a litmus test to check the ideas of people like Christian fundamentalists. If we have a basic understanding that the greatest commandment is to love God and love our neighbor as ourselves, then what do we do with a supposedly “Christian” teaching that flies in the face of such love? If I love my neighbor as myself, then I will not decide I am superior to my neighbor, that I have the right to oppress or exploit my neighbor merely because of something like race or gender. . . .
Finally, it’s because I find the accounts of Jesus compelling, beautiful, uplifting, challenging, and peace-imparting. There is no other religious story that resonates with me the way this one does. Probably some of this is simply because of my culture (and I do not believe it impossible to come to God from other cultural understandings) -- but the story of Jesus sings to me. It at once calls me to a higher standard of behavior, offers me grace when I fail to reach that standard, and gives me incentive to get back up and try again and again.
It so happens that I think there really was a person called Jesus of Nazareth who believed he was the Messiah, not just of the Jews but of the whole world, and I have become convinced of what I think is the reality of his death and resurrection. I guess that makes me a Christian, for better or for worse-- and despite the cultural accretions that existed then or exist now.
As for God commanding that firstborn babies be "given" to him-- Musicmom, there is no verse 29 in Exodus 20, so I don't know which passage you are referring to. But I did find Exodus 34:19-20, where God says that the firstborn belong to him-- so the firstborn of an animal can either be sacrificed, or redeemed from being sacrificed - but all firsborn children MUST be redeemed. Sacrificing them is not allowed. And "belonging" to God didn't mean God harmed you, but that God considered you set aside for a special purpose. The Levites belonged to God, as did the priests-- and in another sense, all of Israel. So all those "poor little babies" were not harmed at all, but stayed with their mothers and were considered special to God as they were raised.
So again I find nothing in the ancient religion that endorses child sacrifice-- or child abuse either. What I continue to find is the principle of "accommodation" that I explained earlier, as people whose understanding was limited (mine is too, in different ways) came in contact, according to their own understanding, with the divine.
|
|
|
Post by journey on Mar 28, 2010 23:59:08 GMT -5
Speaking of child abuse being in the book of proverbs, it's also worth noting how the original readers interpreted the infamous "rod" passages of Proverbs. The Jews, from everything I've been able to snoop out, had what we would probably call a very very very attachment-parenting-ish style philosophy for their babes and young children. We now, in fundamentalism, interpret the "rod" passages in the context of the weirdo American-style view of spanking children, which is something we have to remember is very specific to our culture.
So reading the proverbs "rod" verses in light of the context and culture of THAT time is so informative. For example, the horrible verse about beating your child means you save him from hell? The likeliest interpretation of that verse from an OT context means it is talking about getting ahold of your (na'ar) young adult male before the law does (and he is beaten by the magistrate, or even executed, due to his out-of-control behavior) or before he accidental kills himself due to his recklessness, and YOUR beating of him (which at that time was a perfectly acceptable thing) might just save him from Sheol (specifically, the *grave*, not "hell-the-lake-of-fire").
That verse has been SO badly bungled. I mean, it has been practically turned on it's head in order to turn into a prooftext to teach well-intentioned parents that they've got to spank their little toddlers over and over again in order to ensure that they won't go to Hell.
Drives me bonkers. It really does.
Looking at everything we've got (historically speaking) on how the ancient Jews parented really ruins most of the "Bible says spank them babies" teachings, because somehow, the ancient Jews seemed to miss the memo.
|
|
|
Post by journey on Mar 29, 2010 0:00:03 GMT -5
Btw, KR, there certainly are more than two theories of what atonement means and what it did. Sorry to make it seem like there were only two. !!!
|
|