The Only (I think?) Anti-Christian/Anti-Jewish post I'll ever make

[hkellick]

A bunch of people are making long ass poses discussing their spirituality. And after a long and interesting discussion with ecwoodburn about religion, I feel the need to vent my own soul too.

However, not so terribly long ago, I already wrote up my spiritual past and I won't get back into it again.
However, after reading some of your entries and definately after talking with ecwoodburn, I am now going to explain why I could never go back to Judaism or step into Christianity.

And so, onto the Anti-Christianity/Anti-Judaism portion.
Why I could never be Christian or Jewish
1) I don't believe in your god.
2) I don't like most of your fellow church/templegoers.

Let's explore these more in depths.
On God
One of the main tenets of major religions is that god is just, all-knowing, all-loving, forgiving etc.
Of course, the obvious questions like "How can God allow XXX to occur?" can't be answered.
This life, this world, is filled with tragedies, mostly small-scaled, but some large-scaled.
The Holocaust, 9/11, Terrible fires, floods, deaths, wars, rapes, abuse.
People robbed of all their savings by money-hungry corporations, children abused by clergy, kids fighting an unjust war shot to death while buying CDs.
God has allowed all of it. To be honest, it's so prevalent in today's society that we've become desensitized to some of it. It's become so prevalent we ceased to be shocked when we see a woman get raped on TV, stories of children trapped in cars in 90 degree weather etc.
How can an all-knowing and all-good God ALLOW for these things to happen?
I think that's the major turning point for all people. At some point, all people of all major religions have to turn to their peers, their clergy, their parents and ask "How could god/gods/etc. allow this to happen?" And either you lose faith or you don't.
An interesting theory I've heard kicked around in the past few years is that "Yes, god allows this to happen. He allows this to happen so that you can become a better person from it, to learn and grow."
But I don't believe that for a second. The people with this belief are trying to mollify their own and their peers troubled soul because so much of what goes on today, there's nothing to learn from.
What are you supposed to learn from being raped?
What are you supposed to learn from having your child taken from you when some bastard takes an airplane and wraps it around a skyscraper?
And do any of these lessons truly compare to the lessons you may have learned if these tragedies, small and large scale alike, didn't occur?
If any of you truly have faith in the JudeoChristianMuslim God and can answer for him, by all means go ahead.
Explain to me why God allows these things to happen.

I was talking to dawnstar yesterday and one of the things I said is that the only good thing I can say about my father is that I'm a better person because of, or perhaps despite him. And she and coderlemming both asked "How do you really know?"
And I can't answer.
How do I know I'm a better man for having a father as terrible as mine was compared to no father at all or, completely differently, a good father? I don't. I can't. There is no way to answer that question because I don't have the power to run a controlled experiment contrasting me as I am now with a me who had no father or me with had a good father.
The only one with that sort of capability would be God.
And here's where I bring the point around.
How can you really say that your life is better for living through the tragedies and the terribleness that life can bring?
Is it truly divine will? Some ineffable plan? Or is God a fucking bastard with a nasty sense of humor and a terribly nasty streak.
Let's see what the Bible, another major tenet has to say about that.
Well well well... according to the old testament at least, it looks like God's a fucking bastard: mass killings (Story of Noah's Ark anyone?), countlessly testing his people to see if they love him (Sacrifice of Isaac), destroying anyone who didn't believe in him, despite the fact that supposedly he created them all.
According to Christian theology, anyone who doesn't believe in him (keeping in mind that he created everyone), goes to hell to suffer eternal torment.
This doesn't sound like the works of a just, all-knowing, all-loving etc. God to me.
And this is why I can never turn back to God.

Editted: - Yes, upon talking with others and listening to the comments, I am now going to edit this post.
Followers
And with the Segue, let's get into y'all (and when I say y'all, I don't really mean those of you reading this, since most of you are generally more enlightened than the common mass)
The editting begins with this.. if I'm going to be fair, I don't know too many christians. Those that I do know (and you know you are), I don't consider to be a fair crosssection of the main populace. Maybe that's an unfair assumption, but given that I have more negative experiences with christians than positives ones, it's all I have to work with.
To me, the epitome of the Bad Christian (and unfortunately the stereotype of what a "good christian" is supposed to be in America) is currently running our country. He fights because he is morally right and god speaks to him daily to tell him so.
How I define a Bad Christian are these right wing extremists (and it seems like there are an awful lot of them making asses of themselves in all sorts of ways) who don't actually follow what Jesus himself wrote. You know these people when you see them. They're the ones who feel prayer belongs in schools, that homosexuality is evil, that harry potter is evil and any host of small-minded and stupid thoughts. Worse yet, and the thought that has always bothered me the most is that any nonbelieves of christ are doomed to hell. Which, as dustkitten pointed out, Jesus never said.
These people seem to be everywhere. They made big asses of themselves when Williamsville School District tried to put some distance between themselves and Christmas. They're all over the news, especially in politics. They even occasionally come onto MU**s to convert people.
Alot of evil has happened in the name of christianity. In truth, alot of good probably has too, but (again, this part is editted), to be fair, I don't know of much of it.
I can not believe for a second that Jesus Christ would ever have stood for using his name as you marches across the holy lands in the Medieval Ages and took it from those living there. He'd have turned in his grave as people used his name to support unjust and terrible actions against people.
(Edit Finished)

These two reasons are why I could never turn back to these monotheistic religions, especially any religion that believes in an all-good, all-knowing god. And I plainly refuse to ever bow my knee to any bastard that could allow the things that happen to happen. Ever.
And now you know.

I'll leave comments on. If you want to argue with me, flame me, tell me I'm a stupidhead moron who should shut up and never talk again, you may do so.
Though I reserve the rights to delete any comments that are too abusive.

Back to work.

Comments

[phoenixsong]

I was talking to dawnstar yesterday and one of the things I said is that the only good thing I can say about my father is that I'm a better person because of, or perhaps despite him. And she and stile both asked "How do you really know?"
And I can't answer.
How do I know I'm a better man for having a father as terrible as mine was compared to no father at all or, completely differently, a good father? I don't. I can't. There is no way to answer that question because I don't have the power to run a controlled experiment contrasting me as I am now with a me who had no father or me with had a good father.

No, you can't run a "controlled experiment", but on the other hand, life (as we perceive it, anyway) is hardly controlled in the first place.

On the other hand, I think you do know you're better, because you have a pretty good example of what sort of person you do NOT want to be. It's horrible in some ways that it had to be a negative rather than positive example, but you can still take something from that. You have a concrete example of what a bad father is like, and to this day, you take clues from that on how you want to be different.

I think you've also had a positive example in what your mom's been able to do for herself since the divorce. Think about the kind of hell (pun only half intended) she's been through, and how in spite of it she's still managed to do pretty well for herself and her sons. It's sucked along the way, but would you honestly say she's learned nothing from it? I think that would be giving her less credit than she deserves.

If I hadn't been adopted, I wouldn't have gone through some horrible things like the incident before my 18th birthday. On the other hand, I also likely wouldn't have ever met blackfelicula, which has been one of the most enduring friendships in my life to this point.

9/11? Yes, it sucked a lot for a lot of people. I will never, ever say otherwise. It also brought a lot of people together, very quickly, in a way that wouldn't have been possible under less extreme circumstances. It was said after the blackout last month that things in NYC might have been a lot crazier if it weren't for 9/11 -- people would have been a lot less sensitive and caring, even if they also wouldn't have been as frightened by it. The Red Cross, sadly, could never have inspired as many people to donate blood and time on its own. Many fewer people would have realized what a messy position the U.S. had put itself in before that point. (What Bush has done, or failed to do, with the multi-national support we had for a short time after that, I lay directly at his feet and the feet of those running the PNAC kolys posted about the other day -- not any of those responsible for planning 9/11 in the first place.)

There is always another side to any great triumph or great tragedy. The question is, can you look beyond your own limited scope and find it? I think the world would be a better place if more people rose to that challenge, instead of basking in their own glory or despair.

[lite.livejournal.com]

I'll concede that maybe we do become better people after we've gone through some great personal loss. The whole "That which doesn't kill us makes us stronger" argument is valid.

I guess I'm trying to step away from the whole "Well, look at the silver lining" ideal and asking whether or not this is the best way to live.

I mean, basically the point is we seem to learn better when we're in pain, when we've lost, then we do when we're happy. Why? Is this the best world we could live in? Is there no other way?

Why do we HAVE to live in a world where this random nasty violence and stupidity has to exist on a daily basis?
This is why I can't believe in the JudeoChristianMuslim God. Because if he does exist, if he did create the world, then he's either a nasty bastard or one who truly fucked up this world.

[phoenixsong]

I think that whatever Divine Force is running the universe DOES speak to us, trying to teach us from small good things, every single day. The problem is, if you allow yourself to be desensitized to violence, you also are more likely to dismiss these small goodnesses as flukes, accidents.

In my belief system, the big bad things happen when large groups of people ignore the small good things. "If you're not going to listen to Me, and use your free will to appreciate and act upon the good things in your life, I don't really have much choice but to send something bigger that will get your attention."

And don't try to tell me this is just a JudeoChristianMuslim belief. I'm pretty sure at least some pagan theology follows the same logic. Mt. Vesuvius destroying Pompeii was probably seen as an act of the gods. There are probably lots of other examples from mythology that are escaping me at the moment.

You point to Noah's Ark as an Old Testament example that the JCM God is a bastard (and I hope those reading will forgive my abreviation). I can think of some others, too. The plagues in Egypt. The Hebrews having to wander in the wilderness for 40 years. Exile to Babylon. You know what? Each of these was immediately preceeded by God showing great kindness to His people, and His people turning around and saying, in pride, "Ah, all our good fortune is due to our own power and supremacy, we don't need no stinkin' Jehovah!" God then would send prophets to warn the people that their pride was going to their heads, that they should thank God for their blessings. The prophets were ignored, the people went on in their pride since things were still pretty good. BANG! God loses His temper and punishes them.

According to the Torah, this went on for at least a thousand years. And you know, in the 2500 or so years since the end of the Torah/Old Testament, people haven't changed all that much. Christianity started out trying to change that, but as soon as it changed from a faith to an institution (around 300 C.E.), the institution reverted right back to the same mindset: "We're God's elect, screw you all! Oh wait, why does such terrible stuff happen to us? Gee, it can't be because we're messing up, so it must be because of all the other horrible people who don't believe in our God!" (BS logic, if I do say so.)

BTW, the people who go door-to-door are generally Mormons, aka The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. This is a completely different form of Christianity from both most Protestant sects, and Roman Catholicism, not to mention the actual teachings of Christ. If you expect anyone to give your arguments credence, love, you need to quit lumping all people who revere Jesus the Nazorean in a religious context together. Catholics would be rather offended by being lumped together with Mormons or born-again Christians, Protestants resent being lumped with "those Popish Mary-worshipers," and born-agains generally look down their nose at anyone who isn't born-again but still claims to be Christian. (If you want to go with devout stereotypes, that is.)

[lite.livejournal.com]

Except for a few details, most of what I've said, at least about God, applies to Christians of all faiths.
Admittedly, I don't know too much about the different sects of Christianity.
I'm trying to steer the argument away from stereotypes because I can't argue stereotypes intelligently as I'll sound like an ass.
My argument concerning the followers of CHrist is currently that while I concede that some are good worshippers, my own experiences with Christians has been generally more negative than positive. I know a few good christians but I've been annoyed and harassed, in person and those institution I support by loud, annoying christians.
Maybe it's an unfair fact of humanity, but we tend to remember the bad over the good and as such, these people have left a bad taste in my mouth regarding christians in general.

I won't argue the Torah with you, but consider the following scenario. I go up to you one day and tell you that if you don't start.. watching football, then I'm going to punish you, would you do it?
Chances are pretty high you wouldn't. You've never done it before and you see no reason to start now.
God sent those prophets down knowing full well that he was going to end up punishing the Egyptians or Romans or what not. (Especially if you keep in mind that god is, in fact, all-knowing)
It's an unfair test and he knew it. So how is this something a fair and just and good god should be doing?
Another perfect example.
One might say all evil stems because in the Garden of Eden, Eve went and ate the fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (or whatever it was called.).
But before that, God had created this tree and planted it in the Garden of Eden and created Serpents who, apparently, were terrible evil tempters and created a burning sense of curiosity that has plagued men for years.
THEN said "Whatever you do, don't do this."
Another unfair test.

You bring up Pagan religions. The major difference between Pagan and JCM is that JCM claims their god is all-knowing, just etc.. whereas Pagans never did. Take a look at any theology and you'll see gods as jealous, small-minded and otherwise silly as the people who worshipped them. That's the sort of god I can believe in, one who makes the same sorts of mistakes we do.

[phoenixsong]

OK, I'll give you a point on the last bit. At least in the mythology we're fed in grade school, yes, gods were small and petty. Frankly, and this is just my opinion, if whatever Divine Force that's running the universe is really like that, then I'd have a harder time honoring it. To me, those aren't god(s), those are just people with superpowers. And if I'm going to worship anything, it's not going to be another human being who is just as failable as I.

On the other hand, another thing to remember is the books in the Bible? They were written long after the original events, so of course the author, God-inspired or not, is going to want to paint God as knowing more than mere people in order to convince other people that this Jehovah fellow is worth worshiping. So they make him out to be not only all-knowing, but all-powerful, too, and making the people seem to be silly and without free will -- i.e., all the times the Bible says something like "God sent his prophets to warn his people, blah blah, but God hardened the hearts of the people so that they would not hear."

God didn't write a single word down. Neither, for that matter, did Jesus. The words and actions attributed to them were written down anywhere from 30 to 2000-3000 years after the fact. Human oral tradition and human memory are terribly fragile things. Even if those who wrote the stories down were "inspired" by God, got the words directly from Him...do you really think "God" is going to say "Yeah, I tried to convince them to follow me, but they liked other gods better. So I beat them up like a schoolyard bully because I couldn't handle rejection"? No way.

[lite.livejournal.com]

And here we get into semantics.

You suggest above that god may not be all-knowing, or all-powerful. That perhaps those who wrote the testaments, both old and new, may have embellished it slightly to show how superior their god was.

How is that different from a pagan god? Knowing that possibly the authors of the new and old testaments may have made him out to be a little more than he was, how can you be sure Jehova and Jesus ARE any more than a man like me but with superpowers?

And, of course, if he is (and I suggest he is, and as far as I can tell, UU does too. It suggests that all mythologies have a kernel of truth in them and that the truth is somewhere between all the various mythologies), your mythology is no more valid than my own.

[phoenixsong]

OK, if you're asking me personally, then my answer would have to be, that's why I think I, personally, am having such a hard time figuring out where my spirituality is. I've had many, many experiences that, to my mind, indicate that there is indeed a Higher Power out there. What I said in my first paragraph two levels up, that's my personal view, and others can take it or leave it. My experience, logical or illogical, says there's some force outside of myself that, when my life seemed like it was at the absolute worst, suddenly everything came back together.

Do I know what to call this Force? Nope. Not a clue right now. "God" has become something of a shorthand that I use, not entirely adequate. But, I do have faith that this Force does indeed exist. And since this force is intangible to my perception via physical sense, but is something I seem to connect with on a spiritual/energy level, I label it as being "god-like" rather than something due to the actions of any human, including myself.

The above are strictly my views, not my speaking on behalf of any other individual or group.

I guess what it boils down to is this: I can accept someone not wanting to be part of a faith where the doctrine is vastly different from what they believe or perceive. But don't tell me you (specific or non-specific) don't want to participate in organized religion only because of the raving lunatics. There are raving lunatics and extremists associated with just about every faith on this planet, and they've existed pretty much since the beginning of organized religion. The only difference is that now, in the age of mass media, the person or family who might have been quietly shunned by the rest of a small community -- someone everyone living there knew was there, but certainly didn't represent the views of the rest of the community and everyone knew that, too -- is now the guy who gets all the airtime on national news, with only a few "human interest" soundbytes by one or two neighbors. I don't believe the actual proportions are any different, just the attention paid to the lunatics for the sake of ratings.

[lite.livejournal.com]

For lack of a better word, I usually call that Divine Force "God" too. I think that this Divine Spark is in each and every one of us (and everything else too) and can act through us. I don't know where Fate and/or Free Will come into the equation, but they do somehow.

Keep in mind that the majority of the post was actually dominated by why I can't believe in the JCM god more than why the loonies bother me. I still stick by these thoughts.
My whole point to the majority of this post was why I can't believe in the JCM ideal of who God is. It doesn't jive with the realities of the world as I see it.

I guess I'm a little bit more put off by Christianity in general because, perhaps, of how vocal (and how, at times, omnipresent) your loonies seem to be. I agree that they're in every state, every religion, every population of any sort, but I've had more bad experience with Christian loonies than any other sort.

[soreth.livejournal.com]

Amusingly, "That which does not kill me makes me stronger" was first said (or at least published) by Nietzsche.

[trillain.livejournal.com]

Mmm, Nietzsche.

~
That's really all I have to add, I don't think I need to add any more fuel.

[phoenixsong]

Oh, and for the record -- most of any of the above who call themselves Christians would definitely tell you Unitarian Universalists aren't Christians. So, for that matter, would most UUs. s:) UU is probably closer in a lot of ways to what blackfelicula posted yesterday. And you've seen their place, you don't get much more pagan (i.e., non-JCM) than blackfelicula and mechanchaos.

Just thought I'd toss that in there, seeing as you seemed to equate UU with Christianity yesterday when we were talking. If you want more information on UU, check http://www.uua.org.

Oh, and I'd probably say that most of the people on your friends list that are part of any organized religion, also know at least a handful of other "good" types of whatever faith they happen to follow. I'm with dustkitten on this one, there are hundreds of thousands of good, average Christians, Jews and Muslims, as well as any sort of Pagans, out there. It's the crazy ones that get all the air time, and yes, I personally would include GWB in that statement. s:P~ The only time Clinton's spirituality got any sort of media airtime, you may recall, was when the Lewinski scandal broke, i.e. he was having a spiritual crisis. And personally, while in some ways it was good to see he sincerely felt badly about it, at the same time I don't think it was really anyone's business. Clinton's spirituality didn't interfere with his ability to do his job. GWB's does, on a frighteningly regular basis, it's just disguised to make it appear that it's an important part of his job.

[lite.livejournal.com]

Kindly reread my post now. I've edited it. I agree with you that there are hundreds of good average Jews, Christians and Muslims. I also want to point out that there are hundreds of BAD average Jews, Christians and Muslims.
I don't know where the numbers stand, but I've taken that portion of the post out anyways and rewritten, expressing my grief with the bad ones.

[dustkitten.livejournal.com]

I don't believe in "God allows things to happen." I believe in free will. Man allows things to happen. Man does things. If you want the hand of God to reach down and flick a rapist off someone..that's not really exactly what makes free will, or faith.

(you=non-specific person)

What are you supposed to learn from being raped?

Let's see. I learned not to date a drug-using, drug dealing guy who screws around with random chicks. I learned that safety is more important than trust in the beginning of a relationship. I learned about power, and how it can be used against a person. I learned to be stronger. I learned that you can't change someone with love. I learned a ton of things, some of them good, some of them not so good.

*

Further down into your post, you say you loathe this Judeo-Christian God and his followers. Hm..that's me, isn't it? And Kareila. And Andi...Interesting comment to make.

Jesus said, "He who believes in me will never die" not "If you don't believe in me, burn motherfucker burn."

Using George Bush as an example for Christians is like me saying that all football fans paint themselves in team colors and only drink large quantities of beer and chips.

You know as well as I that any system is as flawed as the people in it. And idiot majority often rules. For each crysaliq, there's someone like me. I'm happy to be a Christian, and if someone wants to know more, I'll tell them or point them in a good direction, but I don't carry tracts or make hellfire judgments.

*

The God of the OT is..interesting. Lots of hands at that point. Lots of judgment. Then nothing until Jesus. And while Jesus fulfilled the Books of the Law (in the eyes of the Christians), thus proving himself the Messiah, it was in a way that seems to completely contradict the OT. It seemed almost like the OT God had to show reasons to have faith, and Jesus backed it up with "If you don't got it, you don't got it."

Ignorant people will use anything they can to prove their point, whether it's religion or insults or just repeating the same thing over again.

Just because these people grab the attention of the media doesn't make them the voice of Christianity. It makes them the kind of people who want to stand in front of a camera, who want to shove the world into their worldview.

I have a church I feel I belong to, even tho with my work schedule, I haven't been there much in the past year or so. The people are very sweet. Yes, they believe the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong, but why shouldn't they when that's what their Bible says? They want to follow what they think is right. And I'm sure there are annoying people within this community, but for the most part, you have a lot of really good people. And this isn't the first church I've liked. There are ones like it all over the place. Just happy, content people of faith.

I think you should stop and think of the people in your life who are Jewish and Christian--people in your life, not people you see on TV or read about in the media. And then think about how many of them are assholes. (*cougcryscough*) And then how many aren't. Then get back to me and tell me about the followers of the Judeo-Christian God.

-A-

[lite.livejournal.com]

I'll say it here. Yes, and as I pointed out, most of the people *I* know aren't big scary evil christians. But that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Like I said earlier, simply because I don't know any terrorists by name doesn't mean they don't exist either.

Jesus may have said "He who believes in me will never die" but every christian who has made a nuisance in my life (And no, I don't know their names, but you see them.. they knock on your doors, they write angry letters in the press, they make theirselves known) say "Believe in him or you'll burn."
And my argument isn't with Christians who actually follow the word of Jesus so much as those who don't.

You want me to look at the people in my life and I suggest to you that that is NOT a fair cross-section of Christians. I know a handful of Christians and there are far far far more than that.
So if I really want a good idea how the typical person (of any race, religion, sex etc.) thinks, how else am I supposed to pick it out but through the media, hmm?

I also suggest you look up at my comments to ecwoodburn about why I can't believe in the JudeoChristian god. Yes, there might be a silver lining to the constant barrage of violence and stupidity, but I fail to believe that an all-good and all-knowing god can't do better than this.

[dustkitten.livejournal.com]

When was the last time the media picked up a story about an average person, having a happy, average day?

Yes, let's use the media. They aren't going for ratings or anything.

-A-

[phoenixsong]

Amen. s:) Why do you think that anything good that shows up on the local news is held until the last 30 seconds of the half-hour? Because people want to end with a feel-good note, and because stations know that if they reported good stuff first instead of tragedies, they'd lose viewers. It's all a ratings scam.

[dustkitten.livejournal.com]

Out here, we have The Happy News (it's not called that; that's what we jokingly call it) because it totally spins the bad events of the area and does a lot of human interest.

I mentioned this to a friend who's in television and radio, and he was laughing, "Oh yeah, blame us!" and I asked him, point-blank, "If you had a choice between running the story of a happy Christian guy who wakes up, goes to work, comes home, has dinner with his family, read his kids a bedtime story, and one of a guy who says Jesus is coming next week and he has the bodies in his cellar to prove it, which would you show?"

He said he sure couldn't argue with that.

-A-

[lite.livejournal.com]

The obvious question, of course, then is to define how the average XXX (it doesn't matter what you fill in here.. Woman, Christian, Gay Person) really thinks otherwise.
Knowing a friend of a friend thinks that doesn't help. Altogether every friends of every friend I have still doesn't constitute the majority of the populace.

Maybe using the media itself isn't fair, but feel free to suggest something else that gives a fairer cross-section.

[dustkitten.livejournal.com]

I suggest there _is_ no average, that each life is in of itself a whole, individual.

-A-

[nissacrosseyed.livejournal.com]

If you are ever looking for a good book series that goes into the very problems you mention in this here post, I'd recommend The Sparrow and The Children of God by Mary Doria Russell. The first book describes awful, awful things that have happened to a group of people. And the second tries to reconcile that with the Judeo-Christian belief. It was probably the best, most honest attempt I have ever seen.

And that aint Catholic theology. The Church, from my understanding, teaches that Christ will do anything to be reunited with his people, maybe even after death (aka purgatory). And that we don't know how far his saving power goes. Think about it. We believe he is God, yet we try to limit what sort of salvation he is capable of.

And I agree with dustkitten. How many christians/jews that you know personally are really that bad of people or live their faith so poorly? What have I done that you loathe so much, what has she done? None of my friends who are Christians are small minded. Not a one of them. Don't you agree that politicians in general aren't the sort of people you like? Couldn't that have anything to do with your distaste?

And I stand to say that all the good things that Christians and Jews do all around the world aren't covered much in the media. I can't talk for any other denominations, really, but I do know that the Catholic Church loses lots of money each year to funding social justice and service projects all over the world. Wherever there is a major problem, be it hunger, war, or other injustices, I venture to say that there is someone from the Catholic Church there, comforting those that need it. That gets so easily discounted because people don't hear about it, they only hear about the things that will sell movies.

Look at a biography on the current pope (there is a good movie out called Witness to Hope, I only saw part of it, but it was really good); he was instrumental in helping the iron curtain to come down in eastern europe. He helped to make the focus of the modern church change more towards human rights and social justice. He is an amazing man who I greatly admire. Look at Mother Theresa, can you really discount what she has done, what her organization, the Sisters of Charity, still do? Can you look at the thousands of priests and nuns who have sacraficed all other things, their entire life, for the opportunity to serve others and after that still say that Christians are small minded pig headed people?

Whoa, that's enough for now. :)

[nissacrosseyed.livejournal.com]

I take it back. I really think you should read the books by Mary Russell. You are reminding me of the main character, and if nothing else, you might be amused by that. The second book has to be one of my favorite books I've ever read, so they aren't poorly written at all.

[lite.livejournal.com]

I may check that book out. I'm at least curious to see how it attempts to reconcile these things with the Faith.

Your points are valid but keep in mind that the only christians I know about are you people (who, as I said above, I would not necessarily consider a fair cross section of any sort of population.)
I look at you and dustkitten and kholnuu and ecwoodburn and I attempt to reconcile it with what I really see about Christians in general out there and I'd still say that you are extraordinary Christians and not the norm.

The pope.. I wouldn't look upon the pope with starry eyes. He's done wonders to help the iron curtain come down and may have made great strides towards human rights and social justice, but he still denies homosexuality, marrying priests and has done little to nothing with the whole American Priest scandal.

I won't deny that there are plenty of every day people trying their best to make a difference and maybe, in that respect, I'm being unfair since I don't see these people and they have nothing to do with my life. In that respect, I probably am being unfair.

[nissacrosseyed.livejournal.com]

Well, even if a good amount of Christians are what you say:

Look at Americans. Look at Bush, look at all the other bad Americans out there. Does that make America bad? Once you start to stereotype, you might as well continue onto every other organization that could easily be misrepresented by it's followers or members.

The fact is that we can't look at any human and attribute one cause to their behavior. They are more complicated than that. One of my most favorite parts of the bible is when we are told not to judge others because we don't understand whatever they have gone through. We haven't lived the life of any other human, we can't understand fully what motivates them.

As an illustration, defense for at least some of the pope's actions, things you probably never knew before today but unfairly (as we all do) judged him on:

Actually, once you understand the pope's beliefs on our sexuality, he simply can't back down on certain things without denying a little of our dignity as human persons. But you probably don't want to get into that, unless you've read something explaining why the pope believes what he does, do you? (If you are interested, I have another awesome book that explains it quite well.)

Homosexuality is a whole bag of worms in itself, not to be handled lightly when you don't understand the theology behind what the pope is saying. Frankly, I don't think a lot of protestants do understand it. The same theology behind this also argues against birth control and more for self control in our sexual unions, but that isn't something a single protestant church will attest to. Do you consider me a bad person if I don't think same-sex marriages are good things, either?

And married priests. Frankly, a priest takes a vow to marry themselves to the Church. How can they then marry another human being? It would be unfair to call them to be spouses to both, someone would suffer. Being a Catholic priest is harder than it looks. They take vows of obediance, poverty, chastity. They work every day of the week, they have church services nearly every day (in contrast to Protestant ministers that may have them twice a week at most and often have many ministers on staff at any parish). They take on more than just church services, though. They celebrate births, marriages, deaths... they counsel people in their times of trouble... they work more than 40 work weeks on a very regular basis, I can assure you. And with the priest shortage, they are oftentimes doing this for more than one parish, sometimes as many as 3 or 4. Can you really see a healthy marriage stemming from someone who is called to be that devoted to their work? Especially from a faith system that sees marriage as such an important and beautiful thing worthy of much time and devotion?

There are plenty of other vocations out there for married folk. (For an example, look at myasma, a man who is training to become a decon.) Marriage itself is considered a vocation, on par with priesthood. It would require a huge twist in theology, a total rethinking of what marriage and religious life mean, for that to change.

The American branch of the Catholic Church has very much been a rogue amongst the nations. No matter if the pope said something or not, I highly doubt the bishops would listen much to his commands. Despite that I do agree with you, I think he should say more on it than he has.

Frankly, our brains are wired to stereotype; we wouldn't be able to function if we couldn't sort through the massive amount of input we get on a daily basis and make some generalizations. We all stereotype, really. But we also can agree that it isn't the most fair thing to do sometimes....

[nissacrosseyed.livejournal.com]

I mean, just think about it for a moment:

The pope has lived for 80+ years, and atleast 60 of those years, he has a priest. One of his primary things he has done is reflect on all the teachings of Christ. He has been thinking theology for atleast 60 years. 3 times my lifetime, atleast 2 times yours. He has been thinking about this stuff for that long, really. And his main focus, even in his early years, was rethinking of our sexuality as it relates to our spirituality.

I don't think anybody can fault him for sticking to his guns on this one, really.

[lite.livejournal.com]

I don't fault him for sticking to his guns, but I do find his thinking faulty.
Yes, he's been thinking about this for 60+ years, but that doesn't mean that he's right.
I could contemplate the theory of how lint moves into the bellybutton for 60 some years, but that, in and of itself, doesn't mean I'll ever have the right answer.

[nissacrosseyed.livejournal.com]

Do you want to get into a discussion about his thinking? I think I could justify it, but it involves me digging through my packed boxes to find my catechism and book on sexuality in the church.

I just don't understand how those that aren't Catholic can say what Catholics should believe and support, like married priests. That is very much a very very very big part of our religion, and changing that changes what we believe, how we practice.

[dustkitten.livejournal.com]

Wasn't there even a period of time where it looked like the Church was going to flip a decision about birth control, but eventually changed its mind due to "popular demand" in the higher ranks? "We've been this way for so long..."

..So I've heard.

-A-

[nissacrosseyed.livejournal.com]

Well, I had never heard anything about that, but it could have happened. I know that certain orders within the church have never been big on the birth control doctrine (like the Jesuits), but I think with documents like Humanae Vitae and the current pope's pretty obvious conservativism on the subject that things aren't changing any time soon.

Honestly? I had always disagreed with the whole birth control thing (I come from a liberal family and pretty liberal religious atmosphere) until I took a class on the pope's teachings this summer. Now I can't see how the church could actually reconcile the utter conflict of theology that would result in saying that birth control is ok.

[lite.livejournal.com]

Dear Nissa, it was also a very big part of your religion that men are superior to women and that a women's place is in the house, not in the office.
That's changed. Christianity survived, perhaps even became a better religion.
Just because something's worked for a thousand years doesn't mean that it is somehow sacred and unchangable. Most of it is tradition.
Go ahead and quote me the bible passage where Jesus tells priests that they must remain celibate (if such a passage exists), because otherwise your argument is "It's been done this way before, so it should be still."

[dustkitten.livejournal.com]

Dear Nissa, it was also a very big part of your religion that men are superior to women and that a women's place is in the house, not in the office.
That's changed.

Actually, no, not in all sects.

Christianity has almost as many branches to it as people that practice it.

-A-

[lite.livejournal.com]

OK, not in all sects.
Catholicism? (If we're discussing priests not being able to marry, Catholicism seems to be the obvious question)

[dustkitten.livejournal.com]

I really think it depends on how literally the person/couple is taking that one lovely Biblical verse used to justify that kind of behavior.

-A-

[nissacrosseyed.livejournal.com]

I have been a practicing, involved Catholic for three years now and have never felt that my dignity as a woman has ever been lessened, not even once, not in any of the teachings I have come across in my study of christianity or catholicism, not in any of my experiences amongst friars or nuns, not in working part time this year at a church. Some big mistakes were made in the past, and I don't think anybody can deny that.

But enough on gender roles for now.

I totally forgot to grab my books from the house to discuss theology. (It is odd living at two places at once, I keep forgetting to take things back and forth.) Frankly, I am a tad offended that you think I only have bible passages... being Catholic means that I have tons and tons of experts that have written books and books on almost any subject of faith. :) I'll review my books and take notes tonight, and maybe if I get an opportunity tomorrow (I am going to a funeral and then donating blood), I'll write something. :)

my answer (part one)

[nissacrosseyed.livejournal.com]

To understand the Church’s teaching on celibacy, one has to understand it’s teaching of sexuality, the meaning of sex, and the meaning of marriage. I’ll try to sorta explain it, but I am by now means an expert, just an enthusiastic learner of the pope’s teachings on it. :)

But before I do, I want to make it really known that I am not doing this in any way to convert anybody. I just think it is tragic for folks to be dissenting something they aren’t properly informed of.

A great resource for all of that will follow that someone gave me is a book by a man named Christopher West called Good News about Sex and Marriage: answers to your honest questions about catholic teaching. It is a really easy to read question answer format that jumps off from Genesis and all the issues of our fallen nature and other things I don’t really want to go into right now but are really important to the whole understanding of the theology of the body and then delves into all the tricky issues: homosexual unions, contraception, celibacy, divorce.

First off, Catholicism is a very sensual religion, I’ve always liked it for that. The Church teaches that dualism, that the body and spirit are separate, is a heresy. We are body-persons, our bodies are expressions of our spirit, in a sense. Whatever you do to one, you affect the other. You can’t separate the two.

God, then, comes to us most effectively in both spirit/body forms in the sacraments. The sacraments, listed in no particular order, include baptism, communion, reconciliation, confirmation, marriage, anointing, and holy orders. Each includes a physical element. Eucharist – wine and bread, baptism – water, marriage – the act of intercourse to consummate the marriage that night (not many people know that one very well, I venture... you never knew the Church was so scandalous in it’s theology, eh?), etc etc. I had the sacraments explained to me once as “where heaven and earth kiss”; they allow us to see invisible realities in the form of visible things. Not only that – they really communicate what they symbolize. Baptism, for an example: God’s washing away of sins and real cleaning by water.

Marriage symbolizes the one flesh union of Christ and the Church. Every married couple is like a mini Christ and Church. Where are husband and wife one, giving fully of themselves to another in both body and spirit? Only in sex. I wont go into much more of the details, but that is why the Church is so big on sexual morality. It is supposed to symbolize our relationship with God, our beautiful relationship with God. Marriage is a preparation for heavenly marriage, where we are all to be married to Christ, one body.

So, how does this relate to celibacy, it seems like a big paradox, doesn’t it?

The one flesh union of marriage is as a sacrament that is supposed to be a sign and foreshadowing of heaven, the nuptial union with God that we are all created for. Sexual desire, in this light, is then our desire for heaven. Marriage in this world is supposed to point us to the heavenly marriage in the next. Celibacy is the act of forgoing the earthly marriage for the heavenly one.

Celibacy isn’t essential for a valid priesthood – some converted priests from other denominations can be ordained as a Catholic priest even if they are married and eastern rite churches in full communion with the Catholic church have married priests. The Roman rite chooses to uphold this discipline in order to more fully follow the example of Christ. Christ didn’t marry any one woman because he came to marry the whole human race. A celibate is therefore not divided in his service, but fully giving of him or herself to embrace the beauty of their service.

my answer (part 2, the big conclusion!)

[nissacrosseyed.livejournal.com]

That people think married priests would solve our sexual morality problems is absurd in light of all this, then, because marriage can’t simply be a legitimate moral outlet for our disordered sexual lust. (On the contrary, if the argument for married priests would help to increase the number of priests entering, that’d be different, but I don’t think that is why you are disagreeing with it.) Celibacy is a grace, a gift much like the gift given to married couples. It is a grace given to stay faithful to one’s vows. Some people have entered into that relationship for bad reasons and bad things, horrible things, result. But an interesting point to end with—the number of abuse cases from the celibate priesthood is no higher than in any Protestant denomination. Marriage doesn’t help the problem.

[lite.livejournal.com]

Look at Americans. Look at Bush, look at all the other bad Americans out there. Does that make America bad? Once you start to stereotype, you might as well continue onto every other organization that could easily be misrepresented by it's followers or members.
I've been working with that dillemma for a while, actually.
We supported Bush, even if we didn't vote for him. Even if, as time moves on, he's losing his support and still doing what we think is wrong.
I feel like we have some responsibility towards what Bush is doing in our name. So, yes, to some extent, yes, it does perhaps make us evil since he's still speaking with our voice and no one has made any moves to stop him.
Like I said, I'm still working with this dillemma.

I don't consider you a bad person for being anti-abortion and anti-homosexuality, but I definately do not agree with your point of view either. Nor do I agree with your stance on priests marrying. Rabbis marry.. some Protestant priests marry.. and they do a fine job as spiritual advisor.

I agree, the sterotype isn't fair and once I realized how unfair I was, you may note that I change my post somewhat.

[dustkitten.livejournal.com]

Rabbis marry.. some Protestant priests marry.. and they do a fine job as spiritual advisor.

It's just a different level of commitment. It doesn't make them better or worse as spiritual advisors. Like the difference between dyeing your hair at home and going to a salon, with neither one being set as either choice.

If a priest wants to marry, then he shouldn't be a priest. That's like saying, "Well, I want to be Jewish, but I'll be attending church every week." If you're not living within the guidelines of something, you're not it. If you're drinking every night, you're not straight-edge. If you'll be wanting the sex enough that you're going to have the sex, you shouldn't be a CATHOLIC priest. But feel free to be an Episcopalian one.

-A-

[lite.livejournal.com]

You're argument is circular.
What makes being a priest a different level of commitment than being a rabbi or a protestant priest?
Why specifically does being married interfere with a priests level of commitment?
Just because this is how things were done thousands of years ago in the beginning doesn't mean it's the best thing anymore.

[dustkitten.livejournal.com]

It was the Church's decision to keep tradition.

What makes being a priest a different level of commitment than being a rabbi or a protestant priest?

For the same reason that a rabbi doesn't conduct a Catholic Mass in Latin.

-A-

[lite.livejournal.com]

Let's try this again without the stupid typos :p

It was the Church's decision to keep tradition.
What if the Church was wrong? What if they made a mistake?
Certainly, the church is not infallible. Tradition's change. Maybe it's time this particular tradition to change.

For the same reason that a rabbi doesn't conduct a Catholic Mass in Latin.
I fail to follow your logic. A rabbi doesn't conduct a Catholic Mass because that's not his job.
I'm asking about level of commitment, not why do they not do each other's jobs.

[dustkitten.livejournal.com]

Obviously, they are not infallible. I'm not sure that they don't talk about this or debate it all the time. Like I was replying to someone else, there might have been a time where things were looking like they might change, but instead, the choice was to go with the tradition, that it was what the Church wanted to stand for.

A rabbi doesn't conduct a Catholic Mass because that's not his job.
I'm asking about level of commitment, not why do they not do each other's jobs.

Again, my answer is very simple: The level of the commitment is part of the job.

-A-

[nissacrosseyed.livejournal.com]

If I am not a bad person for believing differently, does it suddenly make me a bad person if I start to vote according to my beliefs or try to live according to my beliefs? When does one cross the line? Aren't I, and all other Christians and Jews, allowed to live my life according to my beliefs... both religious and otherwise?

I guess I don't understand how the pope can't still be a great person because he does believe differently, but when I believe the same thing I am a-ok. :)

[lite.livejournal.com]

I've been thinking about this question of what makes someone a "Bad person."
Do I agree with you? No. Does that mean you're a bad person? No.
I guess there's a line you cross between believing what you do and forcing that belief on others. That's the line we shouldn't be crossing and that gets crossed all too often.
I'd say that if you were anti-abortion in and of itself, you weren't a bad person, but that if you were so anti-abortion that you were blocking women from going to the abortion clinic, than you are.

As for the pope, how do you define great?
My opinion is that as popes go, he's done an okay job, not spectacular, not terrible, but OK. He's a leader in charge of a certain flock of people and as a leader, he hasn't done either a terrible or horrible job.
That's just my opinion, though. You have every right to disagree.

[nissacrosseyed.livejournal.com]

But what if there is one real truth out there? What if some people have a real conviction that that truth is not only right to follow but truly brings people to a happier place?

I struggle with this all the time, by the way.

[lite.livejournal.com]

I don't believe for an instant that there is one truth and only one truth. To assume that any one truth is right is to singlehandedly tell the majority of people "You are wrong."
And, indeed, if there is only one truth, how do you know, how do you ever guess, that you are following it?
Perhaps your own religion is naught but a lie, then?

[soreth.livejournal.com]

There are quite a few reasons why an omnipotent, omniscient (and possibly wholly benevolent) deity would let life be a shitpot full of horrible horrible events. Not that I'll try and convince you of anything, since it seems you've already cemented your viewpoint on the matter, and you've got this whole big rant to make you look foolish if you back down on everything. But hell, give me a buzz about it sometime if you're interested in hearing a few reasons why life might suck even with something like the Christian conception of God running things. Don't forget... I think through this kind of crap daily. :)

[lite.livejournal.com]

I'm curious.
I expect you're going to say something about free will, but I must admit I'm curious what your argument is.
So go ahead.

[soreth.livejournal.com]

"Free Will" is just the first stop. :)

The first, most obvious reason is that this God believes in letting everyone have their freedom of will, and furthermore, will allow a person to exercise it constantly, even for making bad decisions... presumably in the hopes that they'll realize their mistakes and get it right next time.

But there are other potential reasons, too. For example, what if there's an eternal Heaven, and being there is just so good that it literally makes up for even a theoretically infinite amount of crappiness in a person's life? In that case, the shit in the world doesn't even matter - it's only temporary, and any harm it's done is just going to be washed away completely by the trip to the afterworld.

Or... and here's a weird one: what if God is not as omnipotent as He's been made out to be? What if "all-powerfulness" has a limit, and God is using all that power to the very limit just keeping things from getting worse? Or what if there's a Satan-like figure who is just as powerful as God, and those two are continually counteracting each other, leaving mere mortals entirely up to their own devices?

Or... what if there's going to be (literally) Paradise on Earth or some other amazingly good turn of events that can only come about from all this shitty history?

There are a few more, but they hinge a lot on definitions of what constitutes a "being such that no other being can be greater than it" - one of the common definitions of God.

[dustkitten.livejournal.com]

You may have my new favorite brain.

-A-

[soreth.livejournal.com]

Thanks. I actually got almost all of those out of a single afternoon in my last Philosophy of Religion course. :)

[kareila]

I don't think you're stupid, and I don't think anyone is wrong or right here.

Religion (and more secularly, philosophy in general) is about the search for answers. The faiths you reject are providing answers you don't like... so keep searching for better ones. If you look hard enough and far enough and keep an open mind, you will find them.

Also, keep in mind that different people are looking for different answers. That's why I dislike organized religion in general.

[lite.livejournal.com]

You are my hero :)

[phoenixsong]

Personally, that's one of the reasons I'm looking at Unitarian Universalism -- there's no dogma or creed to speak of, and they're all about a "responsible search" for personal truth. I may be a religion geek and a compulsive reader, but when it comes to actual worship, in some ways I'm just more comfortable in a group.

[lite.livejournal.com]

I've been doing some looking into UU since you started suggesting you sort of like them.
I don't disagree with most of their points and I can see the wisdom they preach.
I guess the part about them, the one part I'm still stuck on is the bit where they still pray as a communittee. I don't want to be a part of some communittee prayer. I'm not comfortable with that.

[phoenixsong]

I can understand that, at least somewhat -- it works for me, it doesn't for you.

Thank you for at least looking at it. *hugtight* We can talk more about it this weekend, maybe? I think this may be one of those things that will be easier to get across in person than online.

[lite.livejournal.com]

Sure. We can talk about it anytime you want. Tonight. This weekend. Whichever :)