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

[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?