Sunday was supposed to be a day of rest for Christians, but for most of my 20 some years as a Christian, Sunday was far from restful. The day started out with my family scrambling to all get showered, dressed, and out the door in time for Sunday School (at 9:45). Three out of four of us were not morning people. My mom tried to have a special breakfast for us on Sunday mornings plus she needed to prepare the lunch we would eat after church, so she had added burdens that required more time and less sleep. Getting out the door was incredibly stressful and hardly helped at least me to be in the right frame of mind for spiritual things. The Sunday events at my home church consisted of 9:45am Sunday School, an 11am service, 4pm teen meeting (for the few years we had that), 5pm choir practice, and a 6 pm evening service. The 11 service often ran until 12:20pm or later, but we didn't get home until close to 1pm because we socialized with friends. By the time lunch was made and eaten, there really wasn't much time left in the afternoon. We made the best of it, though, by taking walks, playing games, or watching something together. As we kids got older we discovered the joys of Sunday afternoon naps. Some families didn't allow any activities on Sunday (based on Old Testament principles); I was very thankful my family wasn't that hardcore. When I reached college I did begin to question spending time on non-spiritual things on the Lord's day, but quickly abandoned my questions.
My Sundays in college were rarely restful. I chose to attend churches that were at least an hour away all four of my semesters. The first two of those semesters were spent at a church where I did what I could to help the pastor by teaching a Sunday School class, knocking on doors (even in the snow), and working on whatever odd projects came up. The next two semesters I attended a different church, largely so I could be with some new friends that I had made. We spent our afternoons crashed at the pastor's house, at a nearby mall, or otherwise having adventures together. It was during this time that I began to question how conducive to a day of rest the model of church I was used to actually was. My friends brought this up and I found myself in agreement; if one of us was sick or just feeling wiped out we chose to come back early or, rarely, skip church altogether. The college would have never approved of what we did, but to an over-tired (and very ill, as I was experiencing a mystery illness that would turn out to be fibromyalgia) college student, it hardly seemed important. My body, mind, and spirit needed rest; God had commanded that we observe a day of rest, so I rested.
Showing posts with label God. Show all posts
Showing posts with label God. Show all posts
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Saturday, September 7, 2013
Article: Goddess with Us: Is a Relational God Powerful Enough?
A very interesting approach to the concept of an omnipotent divinity. Read it here.
Previously, I had never heard of a relational divinity. The beliefs I was raised with taught that the God of The Bible was omnipotent, and, if he were not then he would be a sham not worth worshiping. Indeed, I found him unworthy of my worship because I could not accept him as both good and omnipotent.
Previously, I had never heard of a relational divinity. The beliefs I was raised with taught that the God of The Bible was omnipotent, and, if he were not then he would be a sham not worth worshiping. Indeed, I found him unworthy of my worship because I could not accept him as both good and omnipotent.
Saturday, July 6, 2013
A Realization About Spirituality
A thought struck me earlier today and I haven’t been able to
shake it, so I will write about it.
My spirituality has never been allowed to be about me.
The strict Baptist upbringing of my first two decades did not allow for anything that even hinted at selfishness. We
weren’t Puritans by any stretch of the imagination, but we were taught that our
lives weren’t about us because they belonged to God. We were born because God
had a purpose for us. This purpose might include many things (pain, ridicule,
sacrifices as huge as dying), but it ultimately culminated in bringing glory to
himself. All that we said or did was supposed to please him and bring glory to
his name and cause. How we worshipped, what we wore, and even the secret things
we pondered late at night belonged to him. To do things because you wanted to
was selfish and sinful. Rebellion was “as the sin of witchcraft,” (1 Samuel
15:23) after all. Most of the Christians I have known toss around the phrase, “it’s
God’s will” or “the Holy Spirit is leading me to do this” or something similar
to that to justify the decisions they make. I’ve seen those phrases used to
justify some pretty terrible things, but that’s a topic for another time.
Fundamentalism removes the individual’s self. An individual
(in the sense I’m speaking about) is comfortable in their own skin and is quite
happy to find his/her own way in life. An individual is empowered and free.
Individuals don’t last in fundamentalism (unless they become cult leaders or
the like). Fundamentalism must break down people’s sense of self, tell them
it’s evil (play on past guilt, etc.), and then insert a controlling measure
(strict adherence to particular teachings, lifestyle, dress, etc.). The Bible
often uses the imagery of sheep needing a shepherd to illustrate humanities’ need
for the Christian God. Sheep are very stupid animals, or so I’ve been told, and
will get themselves into all kinds of trouble without the guidance of a
shepherd. People often act like sheep; sometimes we like being told what to do
rather than having to make our own decisions and then being responsible for
them (and sometimes it’s necessary, to a degree). Individuals don’t fit well in
flocks of sheep, though.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Some thoughts...
This is not written as a formal paper or argument, so do not judge it as such.
Christianity and its many forms call for proselytizing, as does Islam (and many others I'm sure). Throughout history, both religions have held a viewpoint of "Convert or die!" Sadly, that viewpoint is still in existence today. The holy books of both religions give examples of such ideology and/or call for the death of unbelievers. Thankfully it is only the more extreme, hardcore believers that would still put that ideology into practice today, but such an awful concept is displayed and put into the minds of all who read/hear. My knowledge of Islam is limited, so I shall now speak about what I know - Christianity.
The Old Testament is full of stories in which people, such as the Canaanites, are slaughtered (usually without being given the chance to convert) simply because they aren't Jews, they don't believe in the right god, and they own the land the Jews want. As a child, I found the OT both fascinating and disgusting. The bizarre stories it contained were largely skipped over by my teachers and pastors (probably because of the confusing and even horrendous nature of said stories) at both church and school (I attended a Christian school), but I still read through my Bible and found them. When I attended a Christian college, and we worked through the whole Bible in two survey classes, the bizarre stories came to light again, and were passed over by the teacher either entirely or after he'd only said a few words. We discussed the children of Israel and their long battle to claim Canaan, but no-one ever said a word about how awful it was that they were being ordered to massacre people. During the time of the OT, if you weren't a Jew, tough luck - you're either going to be serving the Jews, distant enemies, or massacred for your land (unless you were lucky enough to be a virgin, and God said they could take you alive, which didn't always happen). Once you hit the New Testament, this ideology largely disappears, because now Jesus is telling the Jews to love their neighbors, enemies, and everyone else. The Jews of the OT were an exclusive bunch and did very little proselytizing. In the NT, Jesus seeks for converts, but focuses on the Jews. It isn't until after Christ's death that the conversion of gentiles is sought after. From that point on, history is full of Christian attempts to proselytize the rest of the world, be it with love or force. Heretics are burned at the stake (even by such illustrious leaders as John Calvin), those suspected of witchcraft are tortured and killed, and on the list of things done in the names of Christianity and God goes.
Christianity and its many forms call for proselytizing, as does Islam (and many others I'm sure). Throughout history, both religions have held a viewpoint of "Convert or die!" Sadly, that viewpoint is still in existence today. The holy books of both religions give examples of such ideology and/or call for the death of unbelievers. Thankfully it is only the more extreme, hardcore believers that would still put that ideology into practice today, but such an awful concept is displayed and put into the minds of all who read/hear. My knowledge of Islam is limited, so I shall now speak about what I know - Christianity.
The Old Testament is full of stories in which people, such as the Canaanites, are slaughtered (usually without being given the chance to convert) simply because they aren't Jews, they don't believe in the right god, and they own the land the Jews want. As a child, I found the OT both fascinating and disgusting. The bizarre stories it contained were largely skipped over by my teachers and pastors (probably because of the confusing and even horrendous nature of said stories) at both church and school (I attended a Christian school), but I still read through my Bible and found them. When I attended a Christian college, and we worked through the whole Bible in two survey classes, the bizarre stories came to light again, and were passed over by the teacher either entirely or after he'd only said a few words. We discussed the children of Israel and their long battle to claim Canaan, but no-one ever said a word about how awful it was that they were being ordered to massacre people. During the time of the OT, if you weren't a Jew, tough luck - you're either going to be serving the Jews, distant enemies, or massacred for your land (unless you were lucky enough to be a virgin, and God said they could take you alive, which didn't always happen). Once you hit the New Testament, this ideology largely disappears, because now Jesus is telling the Jews to love their neighbors, enemies, and everyone else. The Jews of the OT were an exclusive bunch and did very little proselytizing. In the NT, Jesus seeks for converts, but focuses on the Jews. It isn't until after Christ's death that the conversion of gentiles is sought after. From that point on, history is full of Christian attempts to proselytize the rest of the world, be it with love or force. Heretics are burned at the stake (even by such illustrious leaders as John Calvin), those suspected of witchcraft are tortured and killed, and on the list of things done in the names of Christianity and God goes.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Brief Thoughts on "The Will of God"
She has a very good point....
When anyone (my past self included) presumes to know the will of God - be it from a sudden realization, from a passage of Scripture they read, whatever - their knowledge is tainted by their personal views, desires, experiences. So, what is the difference here between Christians and non-Christians? Non-Christians have sudden epiphanies and then tell people, "Hey! I just had a great idea! I've been thinking about this for awhile, and after a lot of research, counsel, and trouble-shooting, I now know what I should do." Christians have the same epiphany experience and tell people, "Hey! Guess what God showed me today! Yup, He definitely revealed His will to me. Praise God for showing a sinner like me what He wants for my life!"
It's not that they have a very different experience, just that one person has the guts to take responsibility for their work and ideas while the other group claims it's divinely inspired and now a holy quest. Conversely, when the non-Christian discovers he/she was wrong about the former decision/action, they can take responsibility for the mistake and change the course of action. If the Christian feels he/she was in the wrong, either they must think God had a bad idea (blasphemy!) or His once-so-clear guiding was grossly misunderstood, and if the Christian so grossly misunderstood things, well, he must be "living in sin" or something, right?
Personally, in my past, I would read through the Bible regularly, study it through outside writing about it, and pray to God every day - I wanted to know His will. As I read and prayed, I thought about everything I saw and felt, and from those experiences I drew conclusions about what was the right thing to do, and considered it to be God's will. Then later on down the road, when I realized that my original conclusion was wrong, I would feel confused (it had been so clear before, and that was what Scripture had said) and then feel a sense of guilt for being such a sinful idiot for misunderstanding things. After all, God wasn't cruel and vindictive enough to lead me on or hide His perfect will from one of His children... was He? If I sought Him earnestly and did as His Bible told me to do, was I not following Him and considered to be His child? Consider this passage:
Thursday, March 22, 2012
A Brief Book Review (with quotes)
The following paragraphs are quoted from Christopher Hitchens' book god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (capitalization as printed by the author). I discovered this book at my local library, and found it to be a very interesting read. The author is a staunch atheist, so I disagree with him there, but his overall look at religion was both intelligently written and fascinating to read. I would highly recommend reading it (if you are an open-minded person and not one to have your feelings easily hurt, as he is not "nice" at times), particularly the chapters on the Old and New Testaments. I typed out these particular sections (all italics are the author's), but would have liked to type out the whole chapters he wrote on the Old and New Testaments - they were that good.
"Ask yourself the question: how moral is the following? I am told of a human sacrifice that took place two thousand years ago, without my wishing it and in circumstances so ghastly that, had I been present and in possession of any influence, I would have been duty-bound to try and stop it. In consequence of this murder, my own manifold sins are forgive me, and I may hope to enjoy everlasting life.
Let us just for now overlook all the contradictions between the tellers of the original story and assume that it is basically true. What are the further implications? They are not as reassuring as they look at first sight. For a start, and in order to gain the benefit of this wondrous offer, I have to accept that I am responsible for the flogging and mocking and crucifixion, in which I had no say and no part, and agree that every time I decline this responsibility, or that I sin in word or deed, I am intensifying the agony of it. Furthermore, I am required to believe that the agony was necessary in order to compensate for an earlier crime in which I also had no part, the sin of Adam. It is useless to object that Adam seems to have been created with insatiable discontent and curiosity and then forbidden to slake it: all this was settled long before even Jesus himself was born. Thus my own guilt in the matter is deemed "original" and inescapable. However, I am still granted free will with which to reject the offer of vicarious redemption. Should I exercise this choice, however, I face an eternity of torture much more awful than anything endured at Calvary, or anything threatened to those who first heard the Ten Commandments."
~ pg. 209-10
"Ask yourself the question: how moral is the following? I am told of a human sacrifice that took place two thousand years ago, without my wishing it and in circumstances so ghastly that, had I been present and in possession of any influence, I would have been duty-bound to try and stop it. In consequence of this murder, my own manifold sins are forgive me, and I may hope to enjoy everlasting life.
Let us just for now overlook all the contradictions between the tellers of the original story and assume that it is basically true. What are the further implications? They are not as reassuring as they look at first sight. For a start, and in order to gain the benefit of this wondrous offer, I have to accept that I am responsible for the flogging and mocking and crucifixion, in which I had no say and no part, and agree that every time I decline this responsibility, or that I sin in word or deed, I am intensifying the agony of it. Furthermore, I am required to believe that the agony was necessary in order to compensate for an earlier crime in which I also had no part, the sin of Adam. It is useless to object that Adam seems to have been created with insatiable discontent and curiosity and then forbidden to slake it: all this was settled long before even Jesus himself was born. Thus my own guilt in the matter is deemed "original" and inescapable. However, I am still granted free will with which to reject the offer of vicarious redemption. Should I exercise this choice, however, I face an eternity of torture much more awful than anything endured at Calvary, or anything threatened to those who first heard the Ten Commandments."
~ pg. 209-10
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Spiritual but not Religious
"Spiritual but not religious" is a term I stumbled across a few months ago (when I was searching for an appropriate term to describe my religious views). It's a rather vague term, and it probably leaves most people scratching their heads and wondering "Well... what on earth does that mean?" When I first saw the term, and then read it's definition, I knew it was the correct description of my beliefs. Before I write any more, please read this definition found in Wikipedia's online encyclopedia:
"Spiritual But Not Religious (SBNR) is a popular phrase and acronym[1] used to self-identify a life stance of spirituality that rejects traditional organized religion as the sole or most valuable means of furthering spiritual growth.[2] The term is used world-wide, but seems most prominent in the United States where one study reports that as many as 33% of people identify as spiritual but not religious.[3] Other surveys report lower percentages ranging from 24%[4]-10%[5]
Those that identify as SBNR vary in their individual spiritual philosophies and practices and theological references. While most SBNR people reference some higher power or transcendentnature of reality, it is common for SBNR people to differ in their ideas of the existence of God as defined by the Abrahamic religions.
SBNR is commonly used[6][7] to describe the demographic also known as unchurched, none of the above, spiritual atheists, more spiritual than religious, spiritually eclectic, unaffiliated,freethinkers, or spiritual seekers. Younger people are more likely to identify as SBNR than older people. In April 2010, the front page of USA Today claimed that 72% percent ofGeneration Y agree they are "more spiritual than religious".[6]
The term has been called cliché by popular religious writers such as Robert Wright,[8] but is gaining in popularity. It has even spawned a Facebook page[9] where members discuss the attributes of the SBNR lifestyle.
Monday, November 21, 2011
I'm Free
I'm not a Christian anymore.
I don't believe the Bible is inspired, without error, THE guidebook, etc. I don't believe in so many things that were ingrained in me through church, school, college, and my home. My life has changed. I am free. I can live my life without fear, without willingly being down-trodden in the name of love, and without the guilt of the eternal souls of the world. The knowledge that my God died for me and now holds me responsible for telling the rest of the world will no longer drive me to despair and confusion. I no longer have to see the pain and wrong in the world and try to find ways to explain why God is in control AND good. I no longer have to find a way to convince myself that the conflicting passages of Scripture somehow add up to create a unified, perfect picture. It doesn't matter what people think about me now. I don't have to sit and wait for God to tell me what He wants me to do. I am responsible for my life. I can now do my best and know it's okay. I no longer feel the weight of being unable to attain the perfection demanded by the Bible. I'm free to say that Paul was a sexist, narcissistic, controlling jerk. I'm allowed to think and search for the truth, without having to make it fit the Bible. I see reality. They always told me there was no love, no beauty, no truth, nothing apart from Christ and the Bible. They were wrong. I've found all these things in abundance in "the world." Instead of finding darkness, pain, and emptiness I've found light, peace, and joy. Life is more simple, the world is brighter, and hope abounds. No, I will never go back. It is impossible. Some things cannot be unlearned, and once you've tasted freedom you don't voluntarily go back into slavery.
I am not a Christian anymore.
I am free.
I don't believe the Bible is inspired, without error, THE guidebook, etc. I don't believe in so many things that were ingrained in me through church, school, college, and my home. My life has changed. I am free. I can live my life without fear, without willingly being down-trodden in the name of love, and without the guilt of the eternal souls of the world. The knowledge that my God died for me and now holds me responsible for telling the rest of the world will no longer drive me to despair and confusion. I no longer have to see the pain and wrong in the world and try to find ways to explain why God is in control AND good. I no longer have to find a way to convince myself that the conflicting passages of Scripture somehow add up to create a unified, perfect picture. It doesn't matter what people think about me now. I don't have to sit and wait for God to tell me what He wants me to do. I am responsible for my life. I can now do my best and know it's okay. I no longer feel the weight of being unable to attain the perfection demanded by the Bible. I'm free to say that Paul was a sexist, narcissistic, controlling jerk. I'm allowed to think and search for the truth, without having to make it fit the Bible. I see reality. They always told me there was no love, no beauty, no truth, nothing apart from Christ and the Bible. They were wrong. I've found all these things in abundance in "the world." Instead of finding darkness, pain, and emptiness I've found light, peace, and joy. Life is more simple, the world is brighter, and hope abounds. No, I will never go back. It is impossible. Some things cannot be unlearned, and once you've tasted freedom you don't voluntarily go back into slavery.
I am not a Christian anymore.
I am free.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Brief Thoughts on God
Who is God? People seem to make Him what they want Him to be, whether it's holy and loving or vengeful and incredibly strict. Mohammad obviously thought God was in tune with his sexual desires when he wrote that men in heaven got so many virgins for their pleasure. The men who wrote the Old Testament wrote of a God who demanded blood sacrifices and chose them - Israel - to dominate Canaan and slaughter those who got in the way. The God written about in the New Testament is partially the same God from the OT, but He's suddenly more loving and merciful. Perhaps this is where the confusion over the love and mercy of free will vs the strict, harshness of predestination comes from, this apparent duality in nature, but that's a topic for another time. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity do share some characteristics in the description of their god, but each religion puts its own spin on who he is, what he expects, and why he did/does things a certain way. Most religions seem to claim that their god is perfect and holy, which, if nothing else, shows mankind's universal desire to attain perfection. Also, mankind worships the most perfect people and things it can find - that is true all throughout history and very obvious still today. People have varied ideas of perfection, and many times it simply reflects who they are as well as who they wish they were. The religions of the world seem to reflect this observation, as the religions are as varied as the people who propagate and follow them.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Does Belief Matter?
What makes a religion, or any other belief, good or valid?
People of all faiths can talk about their experiences, the good feeling or peace that their beliefs bring them. So, the question that always bugged me is: Are all of the experiences, emotions, whatever that people have valid, or is only set's real? Christians claim to be the only truth in the world, and other religions make similar claims. If only one set of beliefs is the truth, then the experiences of everyone else must be invalid. To a Bible-believing Christian, the happiness of the Buddhist or Muslim is somehow fake, because the only "true" happiness is found in Christ. The followers of Christ should, by default, be the happiest people in the world. All of their problems are simply explained as happening in order to bring glory to God, right? Then Christians should welcome their every trial and tribulation as just another opportunity to bring God glory. People with chronic illnesses and debilitating conditions should just accept them with joy, since they have such a great opportunity to bring glory to their God. Their beliefs sustain them, and are the source of their happiness. Everyone else in the world has beliefs, and their beliefs also bring them happiness and fulfillment. But, only one set's happiness and fulfillment is real... or is that just an exclusionary lie? Is the rest of the world simply faking their happiness and fulfillment? Or, horror-of-horrors, could be it be true that all beliefs are valid, in the sense of bringing the believer happiness and personal fulfillment (along with all the emotions and experiences associated with "discovering the truth")? Is all truth set in stone, or can it be relative? History is full of people who found joy and contentment in believing what we now know to be lies. Was their joy lesser than anyone else's?
It seems to come down to the act of believing in something, rather than what that something is or isn't, is what brings fulfillment and joy in one's life.
People of all faiths can talk about their experiences, the good feeling or peace that their beliefs bring them. So, the question that always bugged me is: Are all of the experiences, emotions, whatever that people have valid, or is only set's real? Christians claim to be the only truth in the world, and other religions make similar claims. If only one set of beliefs is the truth, then the experiences of everyone else must be invalid. To a Bible-believing Christian, the happiness of the Buddhist or Muslim is somehow fake, because the only "true" happiness is found in Christ. The followers of Christ should, by default, be the happiest people in the world. All of their problems are simply explained as happening in order to bring glory to God, right? Then Christians should welcome their every trial and tribulation as just another opportunity to bring God glory. People with chronic illnesses and debilitating conditions should just accept them with joy, since they have such a great opportunity to bring glory to their God. Their beliefs sustain them, and are the source of their happiness. Everyone else in the world has beliefs, and their beliefs also bring them happiness and fulfillment. But, only one set's happiness and fulfillment is real... or is that just an exclusionary lie? Is the rest of the world simply faking their happiness and fulfillment? Or, horror-of-horrors, could be it be true that all beliefs are valid, in the sense of bringing the believer happiness and personal fulfillment (along with all the emotions and experiences associated with "discovering the truth")? Is all truth set in stone, or can it be relative? History is full of people who found joy and contentment in believing what we now know to be lies. Was their joy lesser than anyone else's?
It seems to come down to the act of believing in something, rather than what that something is or isn't, is what brings fulfillment and joy in one's life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)