Losing My Religion

making less and less sense these days (to me).

Had a chance to watch a program on tithing the other day and I was quite flabergasted at the conclusions being made – heck I even argued with the tv a few times (lol). They can put a spiritual ’spin’ on anything can’t they?

What bothered me the most was the justification and reasoning for the ideas behind tithing. It was practically a litany of ‘no-no’s’ when it comes to interpreting scripture and pulling scripture from here to mesh with this one there (or the old copy and paste idea of interpretation). Top it off, the person speaking wrote a book on tithing – which pretty much floored me. Sometimes you just have to laugh I guess.

I am starting to realize why people would consider Christians ‘dumb’ though…that show revealed a lot to me. At one point a lady comes on the show and tells the people how she has followed the principle to ‘tithe’ and lots of bad things have been happening to her…not as promised by the scripture. The hosts basically ignore the problem and ask her to keep giving and God will be faithful…has the lady wondering ‘when’? But they didn’t hesitate – even when presented with proof against their theory – ‘just be more faithful’ was the answer…the mystery of God’s timing huh?

I guess that type of spirituality just irks me.

Accountability.

How can we blame an entity for our actions? It’s puzzling to me – in all honesty. The biblical ethics are a code of accountability which were given for our responsibility for our actions…have we been forewarned about what our actions entail?

I thought about this for a bit…I don’t blame God for people’s actions (or my own actions). When we are young we are under the responsibility of our parents – at this point they are responsible for our care (they are accountable for our well being). As we grow up we become accountable for our actions and responses (how we percieve what happened to us as kids and how we’ll react). How is it God becomes a blaming factor anywhere in there?

Maybe it’s just me thinking this – but I see a lot of blame going God’s way for some things which I am not sure is completely justified.

If your brother asked you to sacrifice your other brother – would you?

If your parents (or parent) asked you to sacrifice your brother – would you?

If the church asked you to sacrifice your brother – would you?

If the gov’t asked you to sacrifice your brother – would you?

What if any or all of them were sanctioned by God – would you re-consider?

What if God asked you to sacrifice your brother – would you?

If science/the law said the world was better without your brother – would you oblige?

If someone held a gun to your head and said ‘it’s you or your brother’…would you then?

How much do you love your brother? Treat the citizens of the world as if they are your brother.

Here is a subject I have ignored like the plague…but since the world is facing a pandemic I figured I’d discuss this idea – the rapture.

Is the rapture plausible?

The scriptural basis for it is flimsy at best and the doctrine wasn’t even in Christian theology until the mid 1700’s and 1800’s. Here is some historical timelines from Wikipedia.

“The concept of the rapture, in connection with premillennialism, was expressed by the American Puritan father and son Increase and Cotton Mather (both part of the Salem Witch trials). They held to the idea that believers would be caught up in the air, followed by judgments on the earth and then the millennium. The term rapture was used by Philip Doddridge (1738) and John Gill (1748) in their New Testament commentaries, with the idea that believers would be caught up prior to judgment on the earth and Jesus’ Second Coming. The concept of a pre-tribulation rapture was articulated by Baptist Morgan Edwards in an essay published in 1788 in Philadelphia.”

“John Nelson Darby, considered the father of dispensationalism, first proposed the pre-tribulation rapture in 1827. This view was accepted among many other Plymouth Brethren in England. Darby and other prominent Brethren were part of the Brethren Movement which impacted American Christianity, primarily through their writings. Influences included the Bible Conference Movement, starting in 1878 with the Niagara Bible Conference. These conferences, which were initially inclusive of historicist and futurist premillennialism, led to an increasing acceptance of futurist premillennial views and the pre-tribulation rapture especially among Presbyterian, Baptist and Congregational members. Popular books also contributed to acceptance of the pre-tribulation rapture, including William Eugene Blackstone’s book Jesus is Coming published in 1878 and which sold more than 1.3 million copies, and the Scofield Reference Bible, published in 1909 and 1919 and revised in 1967″

As is told by the history of this theological belief – it started in the 1700’s and caught momentum afterwards (namely publications and conferences helped push this along). But for like 1500 years prior the belief was pretty much non-existent. Which makes me wonder – why did it even spring up and in relation to what? Christians that needed this idea were persecuted under Roman rule many centuries earlier and never held such a viewpoint. They held the view they would ’suffer like Christ’…Paul is pretty quick to admit this in his letters and the gospels also keep this idea afresh in the believers minds.

History is not on the side of the doctrine (that’s pretty clear). I also think the idea is not plausible and falls into the category of ‘make belief’. I think it is a best wish scenario based on a passage (from Thessalonians) that is pretty vague to be building such a detailed doctrine upon. I don’t see the theological or historical credibility of such an idea – as it is presented in this day in age (I am talking pre-trib ideas here).

I figure if the early Christians had to take the hard road and face most of the persecution from society around them – why would that change for the West (if this were to ever happen)? Also, wouldn’t WW2 have been a good time for this to occur? Some 200 million men went to fight in that war – likely some 30% or higher (maybe even 50%) were Christian (UK, Canada, America, France, and other northern territories). I figure, if people were gonna escape some tribulation – that would’ve been quite ideal.

I have heard a claim for years and I am not sure how warranted it actually is. Here is the claim:

‘Jesus suffered more than any person that ever lived’

Christians use all kinds of sayings to depict this idea…but is it true?

I am not saying Jesus did not suffer – crucifixion and torture are both horrible ways to go. But did he suffer more than…well…let’s say other political prisoners crucified during his era? What makes his suffering worse if this is the case?

Also, suffered more than anyone that ever lived? I don’t know about everyone else but I have quite a few stories of people that have suffered a lot worse. For example, I read a story about a girl that was enslaved by her father for 28 years in a basement and forced to raise their 5 kids (all incest) without any real sunlight or freedom. By any and all accounts she was a prsioner of her father’s for that whole time – suffering massive mental trauma and a variety of health concerns (bore children without a doctor’s aide – 5 times). Then there are stories from World War II and some of the stuff those victims had to endure for months even years one end…just to end up dying of starvation.

In fact, most Christian will openly admit Jesus died within 6 hours of being on the cross from the torture prior…which amounts to about 7 or 8 hours of suffering in total. In comparison to many months even years of suffering that is like a very minut %.

I think the claim is over-exaggerated for the sake of telling a good story. I think the messiah suffered – from the stories – this is not the way I would choose to go out that’s for sure. The point the bible is making is the messiah suffered – a rather new concept for it’s day – and unheard of for the messiah (made no sense in the messianic ideology). The point is he did not suffer more than every single person ever – actually there is no scripture supporting this claim.

“Karen Armstrong was hardly the point of the whole talk” (Temaskian)

I agree – however my point about Karen’s words is really key to the whole talk. What if they are misrepresenting what Karen Armstrong is saying in her book ‘the history of God’? What if they are taking something they read and making it say what they think she is saying? Are you willing to accept that if it is true?

I mean I may be making a mountain out of what you would consider a molehill – but if there is misrepresentation on one level – what makes anyone think there isn’t more? This really is a key issue. Now I don’t know what Karen meant by her saying ‘God is not a being’ but I am pretty sure she believes in God (thus her continual writings on the subject). Which makes me think there is some ’spin’ happening in this process.

And that is what I am pointing out – one lump in the dough can ruin the whole thing (it may not but it can). I think many of things they think about the sociology of some de-converts or Christian atheists is right on the money – but some of it’s carried too far in conclusions. I am just keeping them honest if anything.

“I backed up my interpretation by going back to the original Hebrew words and by attempting to reason with you” (Temaskian)

I am not sore about this – good on you. I backed up my interpretation by going to Jewish sources and for some reason you see them as biased…oh well…even did everything linguistically I could to show you the form of the sentence is on Monotheism – but to no avail…oh well.

I am pointing out what I will call ‘false weighting’. It’s okay for atheists to make some of the mistakes you claim I am making but not okay for me. I think that needs to be re-examined if that is the case…maybe it is – maybe it isn’t?

“I don’t think Dan has misinterpreted what Karen said” (Temaskian)

Well what you think and what actually is being said by Karen are 2 different things. So I took the liberty to at least look this stuff up – and I have to buy that book and read it to prove my point – I am more than game (something we can both do – as friends).

Some of the concepts of God (the being) Karen found in literature:

“The Rabbis: “God is the place of the world, but the world is not his place.” The Rabbis stress on the one hand the Shekinah–the presence of God in distinct places in the world–and on the other the ultimate mystery of God. To create an official doctrine of God is a sin because it limits the essential mystery of God”

“God had, as it were, adapted himself to each person ‘according to the comprehension of each.’ As one Rabbi put it, ‘God does not come to man oppressively but commensurately with a man’s power of receiving him.’…”

“Aristotle had said that God was “the unmoved mover,” Necessary Being. In Exodus, God defines himself to Moses with: “I am What I Am.” Aquinas fuses these two definitions and calls God Qui est: “He Who Is.” God is not any particular form or kind of being, but rather Being Itself: esse seipsum” (the actual passage in question)

From the site: http://www.necessaryprose.com/armstrong.htm

*You will be happy to note Karen does support your theory of various identities of God during the early writings of Judaism (from El to YHWH). Just thought I’d note these things.

***Comment taken from Temaskians blog ‘A Conspiracy Without a Mastermind’

I find theists and atheists can never really understand one another (as sad as that is) because in the end they are respresenting competing claims (and they do no neccesarily hide this) they both hold as ‘true’ about the realities they live in.

In conclusion, one side must lean towards the other in order to make room for discussion or agreeance must occur for one side to feel they are ‘right’ and feel some justification for their stance. Both sides that want a discussion do this.

Truth is – you cannot prove God – so we can discuss any and everything under the sun after this claim is made (which is logical and also a justification for the atheist). Someone made the claim we all use ‘faith’ (in the sense of ‘trust’) – so for the theist this is also justifcation for their side. Convo continues.

Luke lables this as ’searching’ – we all must continue in this process…and this is the middle ground for both sides…or is Luke making a point that an atheist has to concede some ground to make discussion? Convo continues.

Fact is, all of us have a story that differs from one another and we want to put the facts of any issue outside of that reality (our biases being as limited as we can make them). This is common ground also – and we all admit to having bias in our thinking in some way. Convo continues.

I find, as a theist, I really don’t care if an athiest believes in God or not – and this is pretty much the norm for the athiest towards the theist. I think we like the discussion because it helps us learn and defend our points better. It’s maybe a search for the truth on some level but in essence do we really care about any of this?

***Comment taken from Sabio Lantz’s blog ‘Misunderstanding Each Other’

“Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.

They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” He said to them, Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. The disciples said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.”” (Matthew 19:3-10)

When you read that – what is being said about:

(a) Marriage?

(b) Divorce?

I am asking because I want to know how people interpret stuff like this. I am very interested in what interpretive form they are using to make sense of such a scenario. In fact, Jesus is interpreting the Torah here (all caps) and possible arguements of the day. Well, we are in our day and need to determine how this gets used…what do you see?

“You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7:16-20)

“But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy” (James 3:17)

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law” (Galatians 5:22-23)

What does ‘fruit’, as a metaphor, mean in all of these passages?

I was looking at a tree today – the leaves had all fallen off it and it looked…well…dead. For some reason the parable Jesus spoke about a tree and it’s fruits came to my mind and reminded me of a few things about ‘trees’. Trees continually produce fruit – over and over and over again – they produce the same fruit – year in and year out. Trees do not produce a different kind of fruit – it’s usually one kind each season. The tree lives to produce that fruit – it’s it sole action in life.

Well, in the parable a good person (or tree) is determined by their actions (or fruit) – vice versa for a bad person. This analogy is then used by Paul and James concerning the actions of Christians and what those outcomes should be (ie: peace). How is it a Christian can claim they have no responsibility for their own commitment to God (what they want to call salvation) when it seems abundantly clear within these passages on the metaphor of trees and fruit – that a tree is defined by the fruit it brings forward (according to the direct wording of that parable from Matthew). Prior I used James’ letter to prove this point – but Matthew makes this exact same point with his metaphor of tree’s and fruit.

This is not some ‘far-out’ idea that Christians are responsible for their behavior and that their salvation is as guaranteed as a tree producing the same ‘good’ fruit year in and year out. It seems to me in this parable (and the resultant scriptures afterwards) that without the produce the tree is useless. James said faith without works is dead. I saw a tree today that was dead…it produced no fruit.

“You just interpret the bible to fit into your own thinking. You’re not allowing the bible to change your thinking.” (Temaskian)

I agree – I am not orthodox – but my faith and that bible do not ask me to be. Nowhere am I ever asked to adhere to the thought of a trinity and various atonement theories. Anyone that says anything like that has not read all 27 books and letters in the NT and cross-compared the vaiety of messages being offered from the synoptics, to Paul, to James, to John. These things need to be weighed out a lot better IMO.

As for interpretation, I would call what I do elaboration – in line with the rabbinic literature should be approached. These are not just words on a page – they need to be examined and re-examined and then re-examined somemore for the reality we have to face…what I call experiential theology…living the ideals.

If the teachings are just literal – then literal needs to be defined better and linguistics also needs to be looked at with regards to what is written (and context). I would say ‘yes’ they are ‘literally words on a page’…but they are meaningless without some substance…and now for 2 examples.

(a) The words become flesh – literal or metaphorical? For example, I am talking about an experiential theology – living what it is you are reading…in a sense I am saying…you are the words become flesh (a spiritual paradigm). This point is being made about Jesus in John’s intro – a book I find filled with symbolism and not literalism.

(b) You mentioned the beatitudes – namely the persecution aspect of those beatitudes. You only want to see a literalism to that verse – and not what it is pointing the person towards. Agreed, people will suffer for their faith – for holding to teachings that run contrary to some aspects of society…ever try be loving person in a gang? You don’t only lose respect I can tellz ya that.

But that teaching is about holding firm to your beliefs – having integrity even when it might hurt. Its confirming your faith is not just some magical feeling but experiential in nature and real…tried, tested, and true. It is also pointing the person towards change. If you don’t like the fact the Romans have orgies to their gods – then stop paying tribute to that god or attending those bathhouses. It’s about standing firm for change – and either the situation changes or you will suffer – but either way knowing your going to suffer you make a concrete stand in the face of opposition (ie: like civil rights activists in its hay-day).

I would say that teaching in the beatitudes is the reasoning for keeping one’s core beliefs. Yes there is an aspect of ‘other-worldly’ but your not persecuted for your stand in heaven – but on earth…that teaching is addressing the scenarios people will face ‘here and now’ and asking them to stand firm.

***Comment originally aired at Temaskian’s blog ‘another reason why it’s depressing to be a theist’