Christianity promotes a helpless victim mentality...

by logansrun 151 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  LittleToe

  ROFL @ Six

  Ya got me laughing again
• 

  seven006

  Little Toe,

  The "fairly smart" is the best I can do for a church going Christian, it was also done with a bit of humor which I see you got. If all Christians had your demeanor and open mindedness I wouldn't give them so much shit. It's kind of a hobby of mine.

  I never looked at you as having a victim mentality at all. I think Logansrun was looking at the common view of Christians in a general manner such as I was. You have to admit, the way you look at Christianity is not the mainstream. I do have some Christian friends that I spend time with but I do have to admit I try to avoid the subject with them. They are like you, they tend to base their basic spiritual belief with the christen theme but blow off all the myth bullshit. I don't completely understand it but I also don't hold it against them. I also have friends who believe strongly in UFO's and some who play with Ouija type boards. I also have one friend who swears on the bible he saw big foot while camping in the Oregon Mountains. He's an agnostic so go figure.

  To me it's "balance" that is the key to life. Believe what you wish, just don't pick up the "absolute spoon" and try and shove it down my throat. I eat those people alive.

  Everyone has to have a hobby.

  Dave
• 

  seven006

  Ravyn,

  Being an illustrator I have seen a lot of illustrations of Mother Goose. I have never seen one like you posted here. I like nudity as much as the next guy but you just killed my vision of Mother Goose. Got any of Cinderella?

  I lived such a sheltered life as a kid. Goddammed religion!

  Dave
• 

  LittleToe

  Ah, "balance", a phrase that I used to love as a dub, and have astutely avoided since. You're right, though.

  The only absolute I believe in is "absolutely wrong", and that's relative

  I have to confess to not knowing many Christians with a "helpless victim mentality" (and I know hundreds) - maybe that's got more to do with my definition of what a Christian is.

  I do know that non-Christian churchgoers tend to have a different viewpoint to Christian ones, and often outnumber them (at least in this part of the world). It's funny how these two groups take a different interpretation of a sermon on "sin".
  It's analogous to the way JW's have a different take on words, to that of the general population.

  Maybe from that perspective I could agree with Bradley's thread title, if you are talking about a congregation rather than the "church" (body of believers) per se. TO be honest, I really haven't got the stats on that, though.
• 

  Gamaliel

  Alan,

  :: The "Ransom Sacrifice" is one of the most perverse, incoherant and twisted religious ideas humankind has ever thought of. I have yet to find a Christian who can answer the above problems logically. Some find ways to skirt the issues, to be sure, but I'm talking about a logical presentation that answers all of the questions, as well as a number of others that also arise. Good luck if anyone wants to tackle it.

  I believe my own version of Christianity is already considered perverse, incoherent and twisted, so I might be just the one to tackle this issue.

  Sacrifices had two types of value in the context of Jewish and pagan religions that emphasized blood sacrifice:

  1) The first ransom idea at the time was simply that something is sacrificed and the value of that thing will buy some kind of appeasement or propitiation from the God(s). A sheep or goat might appease a family's sins for a year. A couple of birds might appease a persons temporary sin (uncleanness) for something relatively minor. A bunch of bulls might appease a whole nation's uncleanness (Hezekiah). So the simplest idea was that the more valuable the sacrifice, the more valuable the scope of the atonement.

  2) The blood and the specifics of several of the sacrifices had developed other meanings too. Animals already represented people vicariously, and priests represented the whole nation of people vicariously. The latter idea was convenient and practical because the priests who ate of the sacrifice actually ate vicariously for the whole nation. Otherwise, there would not be enough meat to go around, and this way, too, the Levites would all make a decent living even though almost all of them had the same job: kosher butchers. So another purchasing value of the sacrifice is that it meant that the whole nation would eat. In some sense this represented the "fertility" of the nation which explains "first-born" animals, "first-fruits" of grain, etc, and the biggest sacrifices were, of course, at planting time and harvest time.

  Now on the value of the sacrifice of Jesus, John's gospel had deified Jesus from the opening verse, so by the time he gets to: "for God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son..." the meaning of ransom in part 1 above is obvious. The better the sacrifice the bigger the atonment. A sacrificed god (John 1:1) ought to propitiate for entire world.

  The other meanings and value that had been attached to idea of the sacrifice was that by participating in the sacrifice you were buying your livelihood, paying a small ransom as a bet against the whims of the gods. Storms and droughts and locust plagues were possible, but your harvest would still come in, your family would be fed, if you placed the bet against God's anger. You were purchasing a blessing from the gods, at least for the next season. This idea wasn't lost on the Gospels either. The eating and drinking of Jesus body and blood by anyone (who all are priests now) provides eternal life for all seasons.

  Of course, most Christians want to make sense of Paul's comments about one man Adam and one man Jesus corresponding somehow. That's where most of the trouble comes from. Otherwise we can find enough answers in any Jewish, Mithraic, or other sacrifice-oriented religion.

  Of course, I don't think a Christian has to make much of the sacrifice theory, because Jesus did not live up to these deified expectations of John or others. In a sense, however, his sacfrice was quite valuable in that it leaves us on our own again. We are left to wonder whether God has forsaken us, as Jesus did. We are on our own. We must find new lessons that learn from the false hopes and mistakes of Jesus followers (imo).

  The closest thing to a practical ransom that Jesus might have actually provided was to delay the violent takeover of Jerusalem/Judea/Palestine by Rome. As the Sadducees commented: it is better for one man to die than for Rome to come and take away our [Temple and] nation. Ironically, even that ransom didn't work very well. (I'm talking about the literal story here, not whether such a plot by the priests ever really happened.) His followers made a martyr out of him and the Christians (in the story) were able to indict the highest levels of Rome (Paul v. Caesar) and the highest levels of the Jerusalem Temple cult (Sadducees Annas, Caiphus, etc.). Christians were partially vindicated, but when that vindication evolved into vindictive hopes against Rome (e.g., Revelation), those hopes failed. But love never failed.

  In my own thinking, there was no real ransom, per se, but there was a great value to his sacrifice in that Jesus is described as knowing what the plotters were up to yet he had a message that was so important he realized that it was worth more than his life, so he still declared as openly as possible. He knew the danger to himself, his reputation, but he managed to find a way that declared the message from the rooftops, to a maximum number of people whom he was sure needed to hear it. Even though he encouraged others to have the same kind of love for others that would risk their own life if necessary to serve others, yet it worked out that he alone took the punishment.

  How'd I do?

  Gamaliel
• 

  seven006

  <<<I have to confess to not knowing many Christians with a "helpless victim mentality" (and I know hundreds) - maybe that's got more to do with my definition of what a Christian is.>>>

  Now that seems to be the sub-theam of this whole thread. As time goes on the definition of the word "Christian" seems to shift back and forth. I use to know hundreds of people who called themselves Christian but then they kicked me out of their club. It seems that Christians are more confused about definition of what or who a Christian is than non-Christians. Ya think the way the bible is written has anything to do with it?

  An artist Christian couple I hang out with told me I was more "Christ like" in their eyes than most Christians they knew. That was of coarse after the forth or fifth drink. I'm a nice person and treat people fairly and keep a very open mind. I don't see anything "Christ like" in that but they were buying the drinks, who was I to argue.

  I remember the whole time I was a JW I never once called myself a Christian. The word itself made me cringe. I have met people who the title of this tread would describe and at one time felt exactly as Logansrun does. Then I realized I was getting into a grouping and labeling mode and decided to join the "live and let live" club.

  I lived for two years with a woman (an EXJW) who was an absolute victim of past circumstances and she was too afraid to get help to deal with it. Her elder father raped her and molested her from ages 13 to 15 and it destroyed her for life. It absolutely broke my heart. Any time the subject popped up she ended up on the floor in a severe panic attack. She was also an alcoholic and lived in her own little world. It was terrible to see such a beautiful and intelligent woman having her past destroy her life. While I was with her, her dad never came around. I swore if he did Id beat him to an inch of his life. Now she was a victim. Splitting up with her was the best and worse thing I ever did. It was quite an education and experience.

  Dave
• 

  logansrun

  Little Toe,
  

  Let me start out by saying that I would take your version of Christianity -- or Gamaliel's -- over most all others, especially the JWs, fundy's, militant Babtists and the rest. All the same....I have some criticism.

  Much like SP said, I think that the "liberal" Christians focus way too much upon the "nice" parts of the Christian message and virtually totally ignore the elements which are either extremely unlikely or downright malicious. I am referring, of course, to the great bloodshed in the OT as well as the sanguinary second coming of the Lord hoped for by Christians. Some try to "spiritualize" these things to make it less ostensible. For example, I've read liberal commentators interpret hell as eternal seperation from God or the vengeful second coming of Christ as allegorical for the ongoing fight of good versus evil. Very nice. Fanciful. Poetic. Too bad it simply obfuscates matters almost beyond recognition. One would think that a truly loving Father would make things somewhat simpler for his children to understand and not open to a cornecopeia of interpretations.

  As my best friend (still a JW) one time asked, "Why does God play games?" My answer -- because it simply isn't God . This thought came to me years ago when I asked myself after a session of Bible study, "Now, if I wanted to relay this information so people could truly understand it, would I say it this way?" I don't think I need to supply you the answer I came up with.

  A problem arises with your "mystical" experiences as well. How much are you simply reading into the experience? It should not be surprising to find a scripture about wisdom after praying to God for it and randomly looking in a book which is basically a collection of the wisdom of the Jewish people. The mind is a very powerful, sometimes strange and suggestable thing. What you described reminds me very much of people that do psychic readings or remote viewing. This is a whole different subject, though. I recommend two books on this subject, both written by psychologist Michael Shermer: "Why Do People Believe Weird Things" and "The Borderlands of Science : Where Sense Meets Nonsense." Both are quite illuminating.

  All the same, I admire you for being "unorthodox" and do have a respect for the driving force behind your spirituality. I think you are very well intentioned, although I think you are, in the end, gloriously wrong.

  Bradley
• 

  LittleToe

  Dave:
  JW's try to be "christ-like" as far as they can interpret that. It doesn't necessarily make them Christians, IMHO. They put on the sheep's clothing but wont go to the very one they claim to represent.

  Bradley:
  You think me a liberal, huh? I wont accept that label, either.

  As for experiences, I guess ya had to be there

  I think you are very well intentioned, although I think you are, in the end, gloriously wrong.

  But you believe that every "believer" is ultimately wrong, so I'll take that with a pinch of salt.
  Ultimately, we'll all find out, for we are all destined to die eventually - helpless victims to that sure fate.

  Regardless of how YOU would phrase things, it was phrased the way it was phrased.
  IMHO it IS pretty simple:
  Love God and love your neighbour (with all that that entails). Love IS the law.
• 

  StinkyPantz

  Bradley, could you possibly not use so many big words so that those of us that aren't as intelligently inclined as you can read and understand your post?

  -obfuscates: To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand

  -cornecopeia (cornucopia): An overflowing store

  -sanguinary: Accompanied by bloodshed

  -ostensible: Represented or appearing as such

  -allegorical: that kind of language which says one thing, but means another

  Come on now, think of us little folks. We wanna be involved in the grown folks conversation, too?
• 

  startingover

  Borgfree said

  God gave the first couple just one law, we do not know why, exactly, but we can assume it was to see if they would be trustworthy before giving them eternal life. They failed that simple test, the one tree was not necessary for their food, they already had everything else in that paradise to use for food. They believed a liar, and wanted to be like God themselves.

  If, at that point, God would have just excused them, what would have been the result to the entire universe? We can only guess. As it turned out, according to the bible, many of the angels rebelled against God and followed the liar. Had God not lived up to His word in carrying out His sentence on that first couple, He too would have been a liar.

  I parroted the words about the "liar" for alot of years, but now when I read the account from the Bible, I can't seem to see how the serpent was a liar, unless you buy the WT 1000 year day thing, and that only acocunts for part of it. It all falls apart for me from there on.

  One more thing...How am I supposed to get any work done when you guys keeps posting all this stuff I just have to read?