Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

OK, let's recap, just in case somebody joins this discussion at the end. In part 1, I proved that nearly every Christian evangelical, fundamentalist, and/or Biblical literalist church and ministry in America is teaching a false gospel. They teach that a magical ritualistic prayer will guarantee your admission into Heaven after death, whether or not it changes your behavior; Jesus, the judge of all the dead, specifically contradicted that message in his description of Judgement Day in Matthew 25:31-46. And what's fascinating about that point is that what He says He will use to measure whether or not you really meant your repentent prayer was how you treated the poor, sick, unfortunate, and oppressed, whether they deserve it or not. In part 2, I made a big deal out of the fact that charity whether the object "deserves it" or not is, of course, completely antithetical to traditional Republican policies, which are more consistent with Satanism than with Christianity. And I demonstrated that, based on an eyewitness account by someone who was in the room when the decision was made, the leaders of the evangelical and fundamentalist churches and seminaries decided to preach Satanism under the guise of Christianity if that was what it took to win elections for what they thought was the more reliably anti-communist political party. And in parts 3 and 4 I demonstrated two of the specifically Republican anti-Christian gospel messages that are taught from almost every evangelical or fundamentalist pulpit in America, specifically to persuade people that God endorses only Republicans: the lie that the Bible prohibits rights and protections for homosexuals (part 3), and the lie that the Bible prohibits abortion (part 4).

I do feel some temptation to make a big deal out of another evangelical and fundamentalist crusade that's blatantly anti-Biblical as well: public prayer. Ever since the Supreme Court ruled that government-sanctioned public prayer involving captive audiences was coercive and an impermissible establishment of religion, so many churches have been fighting tooth and nail to get that little perq back. Perhaps they should have consulted Jesus first? As quoted in Matthew 6:5-6, He said, "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly." In fact, all of Matthew 6 is worth reading to get a broad understanding of this point: if you're practicing your religion in front of others to be seen, heard, or whatever by them then God isn't having any of it. But I won't make a big deal out of this now, because truthfully it doesn't fit the grand narrative of this piece, namely the Republican takeover of the churches. No, this was more an example of the Republicans seeing a parade go by and rushing to get out in front of it. It may actually be the only thing the Republican party has changed their opinions to go along with the fundamentalists on. Too bad for them both, come Judgement Day, that the thing they agreed stands in direct contradiction to what Jesus said.

Now that I've had my say, there are two obvious questions about this sermon series, this lengthy rant, this extended diatribe that are entirely fair to ask, that I know that most of you want to ask, that I anticipated from the start. First of all, why should I care, why do I care? And secondly, what should you, or I, or anyone do about this?

It's a fact of my biography that if it weren't for a fundamentalist high school that I attended from September 1974 to May 1978, the aforementioned Dr. Stormer's private school Faith Christian Academy, I probably never would have amounted to anything in life. While I was in the public schools, I was coasting ... and still blowing the curve. The Hazelwood School District's schools, teachers, families, and students lived in a culture of deep antipathy towards all-out effort at anything other than (a) team sports and (b) making and wasting money -- in that order of descending importance. When I got to Faith Christian Academy, it wasn't the faculty or the staff that knocked me out of that mindset. It was my fellow students. Can you believe that? It goes beyond that. The first two fellow students to ask me, with obvious emotional concern, why I wasn't trying to do my best were a basketball star and a cheerleader. At Faith Academy, because of how they were almost all raised, because of the cultural norms of people who put their kids into private schools (even tiny little low-prestige ones like Faith), even the kids knew that trying to learn all you could and excelling in scholastics to the best of your ability was something any sane, healthy person would want to do.

And it was in that environment that I first encountered fundamentalist theology. It was hardly my first encounter with Christianity. My first encounter with Christianity came at a United Churches of Christ neighborhood Sunday School at the age of 4, where they were trying to teach us to recite and memorize the Apostle's Creed. I refused to memorize it until it was explained to me. The Sunday School teacher thought that was inappropriate. I'm not sure, truthfully, that she understood it herself. To her it had become just what Jesus decried in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew chapter 6, "vain repetition" of "much speaking" to be heard of men. I hated it. I refused to have any part of it. I stood by my guns and insisted that my parents remove me from that Sunday School, and I got my way. I never darkened the doors of another church for any reason until age 14. But theology, especially theology that takes the written Scriptures seriously ... that's something altogether different. That's a thing of beauty, a thing of elegance, perhaps the most beautiful game of verbal logic ever invented, a system of knowledge with its own rules and procedures as simple to lay out and as delightfully complex in operation as any fractal. I'll still debate Christian theology at the drop of a hat, I still love it, even though (as I've said in part elsewhere) I consider monotheism itself to be toxic to human freedom and many of the the distinctive doctrines that separate Christianity from other religions to be potentially toxic to decency and sanity. To me, it's a game. And when I'm playing a game, it really pisses me off to see other people cheat. And it pisses me off even more to lose to a cheater, let alone an army of cheaters.

And that's what this is really about, as you might have guessed. It took the Republicans and their faux-Christian Satanic puppets in the evangelical and fundamentalist ministries forty years to sell their lies to people, to tell their lies so often and to suppress dissent so broadly that hardly anybody left alive remembers the true Gospel. They did it to remove any hint of true Christian feeling from the American electorate if that Christian feeling would be an obstacle to a Republican majority; that's not a theory, that's a reported fact by an eyewitness and participant. But as we saw in the exit polls last month, they finally succeeded. The real reason that George Bush won that election is that for the first time since the Civil War, the Republicans are the majority party. OK, technically, they're a plurality; roughly one third of the electorate does not identify with either political party. But of the people who showed up to vote on national election day in 2004, a measurably greater number of them self-identified as Republicans than as Democrats.

Now, the Democrats have done their own damage to themselves, shot themselves in the foot with the electorate in their own ways, and eventually I'll get around to going off on my party for (to preview the topic) the way in which they made themselves a party specifically for losers. But if that were all there were to this, I wouldn't be quite so angry, quite so worked up. Because if all that was going on here was that the Democrats and the Republicans had a nationwide, multi-generational debate over values, over policies, over who can be trusted and the Republicans won fair and square, then that would be that. As H.L. Mencken said, "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." Vox populi, vox Dei. But that's not what happened. The Republicans played a trump card that moved the debate out of the marketplace of ideas. They got their boot-licking lackeys in the pulpits to lie, and lie, and lie so often and so long that almost nobody remembered the truth. They added a new 11th Commandment to the supposedly inalterable word of God: "Thou shalt not vote for a liberal." They managed to persuade enough voters, not a majority but enough, that no matter what their best interests were, no matter what they thought was best for the country, no matter what they themselves thought was morally right, if they voted against the Republican candidate then they were an enemy of God Himself. And with the majority of the Bible-preaching pulpits in America subborned to that Satanic lie, how were those people to know any different?

(If they internalize Republican values and go on to practice contempt for the poor and unfortunate, not that all of them will but those that do, then if the Bible is true their ignorance won't save them on Judgement Day, and they ... you ... will still burn. It was all right there in the Book in plain unmistakeable language to read.)

And you know what? I'm not the only person who knows this. Yes, there are wishy-washy liberal so-called-Christian theologians who earn the public's contempt by running away from the Bible, by embracing every spiritual fad that comes down the pike, by treating all paths to holiness as equal. They preach this in front of a public that still believes the Bible, and are stunned to find themselves treated like parriahs; how dumb can they be? Nonetheless, you don't see the earlier-mentioned Donald Miller running away from the Bible. He's willing to be a parriah in the false churches (and yet sell 100,000 copies of each book) by standing up and preaching and writing the true gospel. Nobody ever accused retired Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong of running away from the Bible; he preaches to the condemnation of the Pharisees and the hope of renewal of Jesus' own faith every week, and he does it solidly from the Bible. But for every published voice, I wonder how many people there are like this woman:
"My pastor kept asking us to pray for George Bush to win," a Georgia woman told me last week, "and most folks seemed to go along with it. So I just kept quiet and secretly prayed for the other side."
I saw that quote in an article at FirstAmendmentCenter.org that was forwarded to me over the news wires, I think probably through Google News, right after the election, and that anonymous woman's dilemma pierced me to heart. And the title of that article by FirstAmendmentCenter.com's Charles C. Haynes? "Christian-Republican alliance: Faustian bargain?" And that was the crack that opened up the whole dam. Because I realized, in the context of what he was saying, that what Dr. John Stormer had described to me about the 1964 Republican National Convention's anti-communist caucus meeting really meant that "Faustian bargain" wasn't merely an allegory this time. The leaders of Bible-based Christianity, by throwing out or obfuscating the plain words of the Jesus Christ in the Bible and subsituting politically inspired doctrines antithetical to the gospel, had done just that: to save their lives, they made a literal deal with the Devil. And because they sold that poor woman's church out from her, quite possibly even before she was even born, she sits in her pew where she wants to be, in a Church that promises to teach the Christian scriptures. She hears her pastor preach emnity towards Christ's teachings. But maybe she thinks she's the only one who thinks so. Or else she doesn't want to make a fuss. Or else she lacks courage. Or more likely, she values whatever vestige of true spirituality and pure religion she can find in that church, and doesn't want to lose it by making an enemy out of the converts to the false gospel, by opening her mouth and giving them a reason to hate her. She is the real reason why I wrote this, and I'll probably never even know her name.

What is there to do about it? I wish I knew. It won't be we secularists or Pagans who lead false Christians back to Christ. We've no credibility, and too obvious a self-interest. Still, if you make these arguments (or deliver them) to people who claim to think for themselves, who read the Christian scriptures for themselves, and ask that person if they or their pastor can find anything in the scriptures to disprove what I've written, perhaps you can wean them back to a true Gospel. Maybe they'll even thank you for it ... until they find out what happens to the pink monkey in a cage full of brown monkeys. As I think it was Spider Robinson who said, "In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is in for a hell of a ride."

But you know, I already knew a lot of these arguments when I was a fundamentalist myself. Knowing didn't help me. Even hearing them from the horses' mouths, from Dr. Stormer and from graudates of Dallas Theological Seminary, I knew that the fundamentalist arguments about birth control, abortion, prophylaxis, gay rights, and especially rock and roll were specious arguments, mere personal opinions not binding on anybody else who had freedom of conscience. I found a pastor who toed the public line to the minimum and who had a support structure of elders and volunteers in his church determined to keep it a true Christian church. (The pastor was one of the two most spiritually enlightened men I have ever met in my life, Richard "Rick" Bovey. It was a true privilege to meet him and study under him.) What happened to us? The "conservatives," the Republico-Christians, suspected us from the get-go. They organized conspiracies of silence to freeze as many of us out as they could. They then engineered a coup d'etat within the church, rammed through a slate of pseudo-Christian right-wing elders who ousted the pastor himself. No dissent from the Republican party line was to be tolerated ... not even private, secret, suspected dissent. It was not enough for them to control what was taught, it was their clear agenda to police thought crime as well. Those of us who quietly took stands for the true gospel tried to do so in a way compatible with Biblical guidelines, like the ones in Galatians 6:1 and in Matthew 18:15-17. I can't say that it won't work for you; but I do know that when we tried it back in the early 1980s, all it did was make us easier to marginalize. Against such stresses, is it terribly surprising that Christ-preaching Christians are threatening schism, even sometimes following through with it as happened with the Baptist General Convention of Texas' break-away from the Southern Baptists? All I know is that if the true words of the Bible are to be heard over the din of the false gospel, somebody is going to have to be called to preach them.



( 62 comments — Leave a comment )
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
Dec. 6th, 2004 06:41 am (UTC)
There are Christians working on undermining the false goepel--afaik, none of them have gotten much traction. The Trinity Fountain combines giving practical help to homeless people with persecuting televangelists. There was a substantial article about them last week in the New Yorker. Unfortunately, the New Yorker doesn't seem to keep an online archive.

In the blogosphere, there's twistedchick who does a substantial newsblog, the Nielsen Haydens, whose Making Light and Electrolite are notable for essays (especially Making Light) and excellent comment discussions, Slacktivist which does short essays and has been running a page-by-page analysis of what's wrong with _Left Behind_, and Body and Soul--more short essays, and a relevent verse from John Prine:

But your flag decal won't get you
Into Heaven any more.
They're already overcrowded
From your dirty little war.
Now Jesus don't like killin'
No matter what the reason's for,
And your flag decal won't get you
Into Heaven any more.

Any theories about how the mainstream left and the Christian left got alienated from each other?
Dec. 6th, 2004 11:34 am (UTC)
"Your Flag Decal Won't Get You Into Heaven Anymore" is a great song by Prine. If you haven't heard it, you should I saw him do it live last year. It has even more resonance now than it did when he wrote it - for the Vietnam War. Sad.

Not that I'm Brad, but I think part of the reason the mainstream left & christian left became alienated was because of anger toward Fundamentalist Christianity. Some leftists were ex-Christians, some mistrusted the political agenda of mainstream Christianity; in any case, all Christians were tarred with the same brush.

Dec. 6th, 2004 10:51 am (UTC)
I linked through here by courtesy of greybeta I liked your resoning here and tought that the rest of your journal was interesting so I friended you, hope you don't mind.
Dec. 6th, 2004 11:50 am (UTC)
This series of essays was excellent. I have added you to my friends list and am going to share the wealth with my family, a huge group of Republico-Christians who think I'm satan-incarnate for supporting tax-funded social programs.
Dec. 6th, 2004 01:08 pm (UTC)
Word file
I loved this piece, and that may be an understatement. I collected all five parts and consolidated them into a 23-page, 123KB Word file so that I can print it out and share it with a few people who are not computer literate. When the semester ends, I may even document the links in MLA-format.

I want to nail it to some church doors, but I lack the revolutionary spirit and the money to pay Kinko's for a really good copy. Plus, that propably violates some kind of copyright law.

Thank you.
Dec. 8th, 2004 07:25 pm (UTC)
Re: Word file
I can make it into a downloadable PDF complete with links, bookmarks and footnotes, if Brad would like me to.
Re: Word file - bradhicks - Dec. 8th, 2004 10:07 pm (UTC) - Expand
Dec. 6th, 2004 02:17 pm (UTC)
Years ago I took a really excellent course at my local college which covered the Bible as a literary and historical document. A good friend, who knew of my antipathy for c-tianity, asked me (with great surprise) why I was actually studying the bible?!

After some consideration I answered, "Because the first good strategy in any war is: know thine enemy."

I'm glad you can look at this situation and consider it worriesome but fixable. I'll admit, I can't -- to me and to many of my friends, it is a vicious, dangerous war of ideology against those who don't toe the party line. In effect, and through no fault of our own, this twisted version of c-tianity has already condemned us out of hand. If it could, it would eject or kill those who disagree with it and/or don't match its perverse standards of "normalcy."

If you know of a peaceful way to help c-tianity return to tolerance, integrity, and honesty, I'd sure like to hear it -- I'd be happy to help.
Dec. 6th, 2004 02:38 pm (UTC)
There's at least one better reason than that to study the Bible: plain old fashioned literacy. If you've ever read a Complete Shakespeare, then you know that before you did so, you didn't know where 40% of the catch phrases and clichés in the English language came from? Well, another 40% (at least!) come from the King James Version of the Bible. I've argued in the past that you're not fully literate in English if you haven't read both the KJV and the complete works of Shakespeare.
(no subject) - collie13 - Dec. 6th, 2004 02:48 pm (UTC) - Expand
good question - ponsdorf - Dec. 6th, 2004 04:32 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: good question - collie13 - Dec. 6th, 2004 10:02 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: good question - drooling_ferret - Dec. 7th, 2004 07:42 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: good question - collie13 - Dec. 14th, 2004 07:26 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: good question - drooling_ferret - Dec. 15th, 2004 03:57 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: good question - collie13 - Dec. 15th, 2004 01:41 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: good question - drooling_ferret - Dec. 15th, 2004 03:35 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: good question - collie13 - Dec. 17th, 2004 08:57 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: good question - collie13 - Dec. 17th, 2004 09:57 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: good question - drooling_ferret - Dec. 18th, 2004 06:53 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: good question - (Anonymous) - Dec. 22nd, 2004 02:06 am (UTC) - Expand
Dec. 6th, 2004 02:56 pm (UTC)
BTW, you do know Shakespeare was one of the writers of the Bible's King James version, yes? In the older versions of the KJV, at the very front, there's a paragraph from Shakespeare (or all the writers as a group -- I don't have my copy to hand to verify precisely) which is a rather obvious and obsequious attempt to curry favor with the King.
Dec. 6th, 2004 03:00 pm (UTC)

This Christian thanks you. I'm spreading links to this series around. This is important stuff.
Dec. 8th, 2004 10:30 am (UTC)
And thanks for doing so -- I found these posts through yours...
Dec. 6th, 2004 04:28 pm (UTC)
Hi. I came in by way of twisted_chick. I'm a recovering Fundamentalist myself.

My biggest issue is the idea that I am Not a Real Christian anymore. I'm a lukewarm Laodocean Christian of the sort that makes Jesus puke.

I still believe, in my heart of hearts, that if you're going to call yourself a Christian, you have to believe ALL the Bible. There's no sense in doing it half-way, being a cafeteria Christian and picking out the bits you like (my beloved has gone down the garden to feed among the lilies) and glossing over what you don't like (Thou shalt eat no rattlesnake).

These days, I'm just going with the "when I was hungry you fed me, naked you clothed me" business. I do what I can to help (it's never enough), and keep it quiet.

Dec. 7th, 2004 09:46 pm (UTC)
I haven't seen the actual movie version of The Handmaid's Tale, but I'm guessing that's where your icon is from.

I read that book in 8th grade, I found it in the house of a family I was babysitting for. I eventually bought it--I reread it every now and then just to scare the shit out of myself.

Dec. 6th, 2004 04:58 pm (UTC)
I have just finished reading your treatise-in-five-parts. I found you through dglenn's journal.

Please publish this somewhere that it will get to the people who are living, afraid and misled, in these churches.

May I add you to my friends list?
Dec. 6th, 2004 08:38 pm (UTC)
Gods only know what of my stuff will ever make it into a book or magazine article some day; I keep writing it, maybe eventually I'll find an agent and one or more publishers. In the mean time, yes, as I keep saying, I don't need or want to give permission for people to add me to their friends list. I find it flattering.
Dec. 6th, 2004 07:07 pm (UTC)
This was probably one of the best and most insightful sets of essays I've read in a very long time. You should give it a polish and shop it around to folks like the Atlantic or even the New York Times magazine. It's that good. I made my own archival copy, and have friended you, too.

Dec. 6th, 2004 07:21 pm (UTC)
I would like to post links to this. I haven't even finished my list of where. May I? Do you want the full list?

Dec. 6th, 2004 07:25 pm (UTC)
You may post links to this anywhere. Please, do.
Dec. 6th, 2004 08:01 pm (UTC)
i got here via wispfox. this was thoughtful and thought provoking. i'll be linking to it from my journal. thank you for writing it. i'm not a christian, i'm some kinda wacked out something-or-other. who knows what :) but i've always thought of jesus as a good guy, and i wonder if he's in heaven looking down on the mess and rolling his eyes.

Dec. 6th, 2004 08:11 pm (UTC)
Thanks for writing this, Brad. I'm a liberal Jew myself, but my inlaws are righty-fundies. Their take (or rather their world's) on their faith has always confounded me -- I've never expected to agree with them on the divinity of Jesus, but I've tried and failed to understand why I have so much trouble finding common ground with them about the human Jesus I've always admired as a teacher and philosopher. Your account is sad and more than a little scary, but it explains a lot.
Dec. 6th, 2004 10:42 pm (UTC)
One of my pro-choice communities linked to this, so I thought I'd say thank you so much for posting. I have linked to all five parts. :-)

I have to say that I appreciate the first post the most. I haven't been to Church in years, but the way you explained Christianity in that post is the way I was taught. I thought I was the only person out there that still thought of Christianity as a religion of acceptance, love, and helping others. Thanks so much for proving me wrong.
Dec. 7th, 2004 12:30 am (UTC)
I was linked to this from ggdsbuckey. I really enjoyed your entire series. I also have not been to church in years, but I see much of the fundamentalist teaching in my town. I live in a very small town where 98% is Republican-Christian. And I find it very refreshing to find others that detest the indoctrinated dogma that is now being taught. I look forward to reading more of your fascinating works.
Dec. 7th, 2004 07:34 am (UTC)
I want to thank you for writing these insightful and intelligently stated articles. I lived in the Southeastern US for most of my life, and how this blending of political, moral and religious agendas affects everyday life, is scary. I still remember my mother asking me, "If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?"

Now, I am a happy expatriate, and it's amazing how much religious thought and discussion differs here in London. Nowhere is perfect, but I have been deeply surprised to encounter intelligent, liberal Christians who aren't afraid to say they're Christians.

Why aren't there more pagans over here? There don't need to be. :-)
Dec. 7th, 2004 09:52 pm (UTC)
Having come back to a liberal Christianity far different then the half-assed conservative Lutheran I sorta grew up with, and combining it here and there with my Paganism (don't ask me how it works, it just seems to do so)....

I firmly believe that if more people were exposed to a liberal progressive Christianity, less people would be leaving it. Which isn't to say that I believe that the rising Pagan/Wiccan religious movement is a bad thing. I would just be happy to see people who are Pagan have less outright animosity towards Christianity. I know why they feel that way (I used to), but it's sad. I've had a few of them come down on me harshly for joining a Christian church. They wouldn't get angry to find out I was going to a Buddhist temple, or a temple to Bast, but put Jesus in there and they freak out.
Dec. 7th, 2004 08:00 am (UTC)
This was a great set of entries (hopefully, you're not tired of hearing that, yet!): thank you for taking the time to write them, despite the problems you're currently dealing with.

I long since stopped believing in the god-related parts of my early religious training, but I still have a casual hobbyist's interest in the scriptures. Given that you can probably answer this off the top of your head (what I can't quite figure, despite some looking around), is there an accepted response to questions about the apparent conflict between God's omniscience and our free will?
Dec. 7th, 2004 08:22 am (UTC)
Re: This...
The stock answer is that God created the world knowing every step of the outcome. And even knowing that outcome, knowing how the garden of Eden test would turn out, knowing that some unspecified percentage of human beings would fail to choose correctly, he gave human beings free will anyway. You're not free to choose anything that God didn't forsee, but that's not the same thing as Him choosing it for you.

Look at it this way. When George Washington had to decide whether or not to risk crossing the Delaware River on Christmas Eve, did he have free will or not? We know how he chose, but we know that he could have chosen differently. That we know now what he chose doesn't mean that he didn't have the freedom to choose otherwise, it just means that he didn't. The Christians say that God differs from us in this regard primarily in that he knew all of history before creation began.

These are their answers, not mine. Personally, I think that the idea of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being is so much hoo-hah. Nobody has ever seen such a being, and the kinds of trivial logic puzzles that the existence of such a being would create are almost proof enough of the falsity of the proposition. We have eyewitness accounts, throughout human history, of actual Gods. They were powerful, but not all powerful; wise, but not all-wise; knowledgeable, but not omniscient; able to travel vast distances in the blink of an eye and see far, but not omnipresent. When the survival of the human race has been on the line, they have visibly interfered in favor of those who demonstrated some virtue or other that the individual Gods cherished; this was to the benefit of the whole human race at times, but it hardly makes them omnibenevolent. The Hebrew/Christian/Islamic infinity-sized God is the kind of goofy half-thought-out idea I'd expect a toddler to think up - or a philosopher.
Re: This... - drooling_ferret - Dec. 15th, 2004 04:07 am (UTC) - Expand
Dec. 7th, 2004 08:43 am (UTC)
Thank you so much.

Much of what you've said are things that I've been coming to for a while now, but you've filled in a lot of gaps, which is going to help a great deal when I'm arguing with people for change.

I was lucky enough to end up in a church with a priest who stands up and states, loudly, that Christ had a lot to say about social justice and caring for others, and almost nothing to say about sexual immorality. He even made up a 10 foot tall bar graph to show how many mentions each of about 20 issues gets in the Bible and put it in the entrance to the church -- it's striking to see how many of the things that the evangelicals and literalists are either little tiny bars or not on the graph.
Jul. 20th, 2010 06:34 pm (UTC)
Every church needs one of those bar graphs. EVERY SINGLE ONE. I don't suppose your priest is willing to share? ;)
(no subject) - hel_ana - Jul. 20th, 2010 06:47 pm (UTC) - Expand
Dec. 9th, 2004 10:08 am (UTC)
I'm with you: the three facts that piss me off to an almost elemental level about the Republican Party and its pseudo-Christian/ pseudo-American behavior are:

1: That they profess to be pious and patriotic when in plain fact their behavior goes directly against both the Christ and the Founders(*);

2: That they lie, cheat, obfuscate, steal, and perhaps even kill to defend or conceal those contradictions; and...

3: THEY ARE WINNING, rewriting not only our laws and our rights but our entire history as a nation.

For the sake of our nation, this MUST end. The walls MUST be pulled down and the falsehood exposed, or we, as a culture, are doomed.

Thank you for howling so loudly against the storm.

* = Can you IMAGINE Thomas Jefferson or Jesua the Nazarene meeting George W. Bush or Dick Chaney? If any of the scripture I have read or the letters Jefferson has left are any indication, the meeting would be very short, very unpleasant, and would NOT leave Bush or Chaney very happy men.

Dec. 9th, 2004 10:17 am (UTC)
>I think that the idea of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being is so much hoo-hah.

I think it's the most sado-masochistic concept imaginable. To imagine a creator being who knows how much suffering will be endured by its creations, and yet who not only allows it to occur but actively directs things so that suffering will be increased and intensified, then punishes with eternal torment those beings that happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time or perhaps believing the wrong thing, is to create the most sadistic demon conceivable.

That so many followers of such a being have crafted - and employed - torments worthy of Hell itself only reinforces the idea that the so-called "God of the Book(s)" is, in fact, the enemy of mankind - ie., Satan.
Dec. 9th, 2004 10:18 am (UTC)
Oh, and thanks for pointing out that Matthew Chapter 6 thing. I've been harping on that for years, but no "pious Christians" seem to be paying attention.
Aug. 13th, 2006 05:40 pm (UTC)
I'd disagree, there are people who are very much focused on And what's fascinating about that point is that what He says He will use to measure whether or not you really meant your repentent prayer was how you treated the poor, sick, unfortunate, and oppressed, whether they deserve it or not.

For what it is worth, the free childrens medical clinic I'm on the board of serves mostly the children of illegals, was founded by an LDS (Mormon) lady and uses property owned by one of the oldest Baptist churches in Plano -- which also provides us with significan support.

(no subject) - satyrblade - Aug. 15th, 2006 11:57 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - ethesis - Aug. 15th, 2006 05:23 pm (UTC) - Expand
Aug. 22nd, 2007 02:52 am (UTC)
Christians in the Hand of an Angry God
From a former Live Journal user (I don't even remember what my handle was, but my real name is Pete. I live in Alberta, Canada).
I swiped this and stuck it in (primarily) a BDSM chatsite, chockful of partisan political guff,from both sides of the fence, as an unpleasant sideline to the erotica there.
This is one hell of an interesting screed.
I thank you for having tolerated your particular education for as long as you did.
I know I certainly couldn't have articulated why I don't like Evangelical Christianity nearly as competently, but I've known all along that there's nothing christian about it, except the name they usurped, to inspire the devotion of the unenlightened.
Thank you,also, for all the biblical quotes. I'm not conversant with it,having never studied it, and it was a heady experience to learn the meanings behind the quotes.
A Jewish man I used to know one said of the bible, during a religious discussion, "It's a business manual", and considering the probable trillions of dollars accrued during Christianties last several centuries, I rather tend to agree with him, after all the years since he first said that to me.
Jan. 5th, 2008 09:36 pm (UTC)
Thanks for this. Would it be OK if I point out this series to a community of which I am a member, dark_christian?
Jan. 5th, 2008 09:42 pm (UTC)
It'd be a re-post. It showed up in a link on that community when it first came out.
(no subject) - greymalkini - Jan. 5th, 2008 09:48 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - strongaxe - Jan. 6th, 2008 01:29 pm (UTC) - Expand
Jan. 7th, 2008 07:47 pm (UTC)
Brad, would you consider posting this to Street Prophets? It is a progressive religion/intersected with/politics blog that has everyone from atheists to Muslims to Pagans to Christians of all descriptions posting in general amity, and it's read by quite a lot of people. This deserves wider exposure.
Mar. 15th, 2009 01:44 pm (UTC)
Writer's Block: Big Debates
User packbat referenced to your post from Writer's Block: Big Debates saying: [...] as it may be - nevertheless has a soul. I refer them to Christians in the Hands of an Angry God series, which, in Part 4, demolishes the claim that the Bible puts the beginning of life at conception. [...]
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
( 62 comments — Leave a comment )