Welcome, Guest [Log In]
BURNING ANGER... BITTERNESS... HATRED...
If you've heard my story, you've undoubtedly heard me speak about the anger, bitterness and hatred I once harbored towards Christians. It was pretty bad, let me tell ya. For many years, I did all I could to cause as much grief as possible to as many Christians as would talk to me. I loved to rub in their faces the fact that I was a porn producer, and to use that conversation to progress into theological discussions about parts of the Bible that made no sense to me.
...like Hosea 13:16 where, supposedly under God's command, unborn babies were ripped from their mothers wombs. The exact text goes like this:
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
Where does a thinking person go with a scripture like that? Christians usually had no response to the venom I'd spit after rambling off that passage, mostly because that scripture, as others like it, aren't discussed from the pulpit. It almost seems as if words streaming from a pulpit are as far as the average Christian "studies". I used to refer to such individuals as little birdies sitting with their mouths open waiting for "mommy birdie" to fill them up. In this case "mommy birdie" was their religious leader. If their Pastor or Sunday School teacher hadn't prepared them to answer such questions, hadn't told them what to think about such matters, they were not prepared for my rehearsed venomous rhetoric.
I'd pepper the person with whom I was arguing with questions about Dionysus and other "gods" like him. Dionysus lived 500 years before Christ, was said to have been born of a virgin on December 25th, performed miracles, was called the "King of Kings", the "Alpha and Omega" and was resurrected from the dead after he died. Mithra, who was popular in Persia 1200 years before Christ, was said to have been born of a virgin on December 25th, had 12 disciples, performed miracles, died and rose again 3 days later. Christianity, I argued, was not unique and was in fact a copy of previous belief systems.
For these arguments most Christians have no answers. Like their ignorance of the text of Hosea 13:16, many people have never heard of Dionysus or Mithra.
Since surrendering my life to God I've discovered there are answers to these questions. I've been searching them out. But we're not here to talk about those answers right now. If you'd like great scholastic research on such things pick up a copy of Lee Strobel's The Case for the Real Jesus (which is an entirely different book than The Case for Christ). It relies on researched scholarship to address these claims. Very good book. I highly recommend it.
The anger, bitterness and hatred I harbored was mostly based on experiences I had growing up a Pastor's son, watching the hypocrisy and politics that went on amongst leaders and members of the congregations my father pastored. If that was God, I reasoned, I wanted no part of Him.
But the nature of God and the nature of those who claim to follow Him are often mutually exclusive, aren't they? I didn't allow for that. Such an elementary concept didn't occur to me until late in my porn career.
Childhood experiences were only part of my problem. I was deeply disappointed that the entire belief system I'd been taught since childhood had been reduced to so much bullshit, at least in my mind (pardon the language, dear constant reader... I'm certain God has heard it before). Switching that disappointment to intense anger was a very short road.
The amazing year since I surrendered my life to God and have pursued to strengthen my relationship with Him has been quite the learning experience, to say the least. My mind has been rewired in many ways. Circuits have been replaced. Traffic has been re-routed. You get the picture, I'm sure. In a real, living, non-cliché way I've discovered that God really is love. Pure love. He's this perfect parent who wants nothing but good for His children. Ya know what I mean, Vern? That learning process continues. I love Him more each day. On a daily basis, I discover something new about his nature from my experiences in... ordinary life.
Letting go of all the anger and bitterness is part of the process of getting to know who God IS. I'm happy to say, those two things are mostly gone. Mostly. There are flare ups from time to time, and perhaps there always will be. But the hatred? I can honestly say the hatred is gone for good.
How was I able to let that hatred go? By making an attempt to see others as God sees them... as he sees me. Despite my garbage, baggage, sin... God loved me. He never let go. He looks at me with even more fondness than I look at my son. I know there is nothing my son could ever do to make me love him any less, and how much more so can the same be said about how God cares for each of HIS children? I've said before, if someone disliked my son I think I'd have a hard time liking that person. How can I dislike God's sons and daughters and expect Him to be happy about it? I've discovered that letting go of hatred is mostly a choice. I've made that choice. I've adjusted the perspective from which I look at others, and have happily discovered I really love people.
----------------
I like watching people. I like studying them. In doing so, I've been really encouraged by the movements I see happening amongst Christian communities all across this country. I see hypocrisy and judgmental attitudes being addressed from the pulpit, and I notice that when people realize they don't HAVE to be that way, when they are "given permission" to lay such things down by someone they trust and respect, all that crap is gladly abandoned. Even though it's self evident, it's as if we sometimes need to have someone tell us "that's okay".
I think to myself, "Perhaps all that crap has existed in this world for so long only because people assume they HAVE to be that way. Perhaps such behavior has been handed down from one generation to another, and when people find out it's okay to break that cycle it's like a burden is lifted from their shoulders and they are free to love everyone, regardless of where they are... it sure seems as if things are changing for the better. It sure seems as if people are finally starting to discover what freedom in Christ really means. It sure seems as if Christians are beginning to realize they really CAN try to follow the example Jesus set with his life."
Or maybe, just maybe, it was my eyes that were out of focus all along?
----------------
How can I do anything but love God's kids?
Michael wrote on October 17th 07 at 10:34PM
God is good that is for sure, but sometimes church ain't. It is church that "helped" keep my isolated and in denial for so long. I hate church sometimes and all the crap. But, on the other hand, God is good and He does have some champions in his church.
Michael
www.the-confessions-of-a-porn-addict.blogspo
Michael
www.the-confessions-of-a-porn-addict.blogspo
Suricou Raven wrote on October 19th 07 at 01:56PM
There is a 'good' christianity. But, I see it has the same problems as the 'bad' denominations point out. All of the bad stuff - the distain for non-believers, the oppression, the violent homophobia, the subjugation of women and their relegation to wife and baby-maker - it all has a biblical basis, and often a biblical requirement. When a Christian or a denomination manages to argue its way out of all those, then it may become easier to live with, and it may do more good in the world overall - but it is not *as* christian as the hateful and hated churches. Those are the ones that most closely adhere to the bible.
nimrand wrote on October 23rd 07 at 09:08PM
Suricou,
I completely disagree with your last statement. What you get from the Bible all depends on how you interpret it. Today, the Bible is often interpreted by Christians as the infallible, literal word of God, without considering its historical context. A passage we read today often means something very different to us than it did to those who read it when the text was written. Without understanding that historical context and considering how it may affect the meaning the text, one can't properly interpret its intended meaning or that meaning's place within the greater truth. Furthermore, it is also very common today to quote stand-alone Bible verses, which often takes the verse even further out of context.
Are there violent, even hateful passages in the BIble? Yes. But, to believe that hatred is the key message of the Bible would force me to ignore the vast majority of the Bible, the parts that say do not judge others and that parts that speak of grace, self-sacrifice, and radical love. Its a shame that the Bible is so often used to do just the opposite.
I completely disagree with your last statement. What you get from the Bible all depends on how you interpret it. Today, the Bible is often interpreted by Christians as the infallible, literal word of God, without considering its historical context. A passage we read today often means something very different to us than it did to those who read it when the text was written. Without understanding that historical context and considering how it may affect the meaning the text, one can't properly interpret its intended meaning or that meaning's place within the greater truth. Furthermore, it is also very common today to quote stand-alone Bible verses, which often takes the verse even further out of context.
Are there violent, even hateful passages in the BIble? Yes. But, to believe that hatred is the key message of the Bible would force me to ignore the vast majority of the Bible, the parts that say do not judge others and that parts that speak of grace, self-sacrifice, and radical love. Its a shame that the Bible is so often used to do just the opposite.
nimrand wrote on October 23rd 07 at 09:50PM
Also in response to Suricou's statement, Christians holding "conservative" beliefs often claim authority for their interpretations by implying that their's is the "authentic" interpretation that is the same as it has always been. But, a study of religious history reveals that this is completely false. No Christian today believes the same way as a Christian 2000 years ago, or even a Christian 200 years ago.
I remember an example where a recent Christian publication included an article with a translation of a scripture that used the term "spirit" in place of what is usually translated to "Holy Spirit." Someone called in claiming this translation was somehow promoting a devil's perversion of the scripture. The publisher had to explain to the person that at the time that the verse was originally written, the idea of "Holy Spirit" and Trinity hadn't been conceived and therefore the original text had used a word that roughly translates to today's English word "spirit."
Christianity, like any belief system, changes over time much more than most Christians realize or admit.
I remember an example where a recent Christian publication included an article with a translation of a scripture that used the term "spirit" in place of what is usually translated to "Holy Spirit." Someone called in claiming this translation was somehow promoting a devil's perversion of the scripture. The publisher had to explain to the person that at the time that the verse was originally written, the idea of "Holy Spirit" and Trinity hadn't been conceived and therefore the original text had used a word that roughly translates to today's English word "spirit."
Christianity, like any belief system, changes over time much more than most Christians realize or admit.
Suricou Raven wrote on October 26th 07 at 05:06AM
Christianity has had its more violent and oppressive moments in history, but in a religion implimented on such a large scale variation is not surprising.
I consider the lack of stability a strong argument against the factual validity of Christianity. Were there actually a One True God, I would expect to see the corresponding true church or religion dominant by a wide margin, because they would actually *have* divine aid. Instead there are hundreds of religions, and the ones which at first glance appear to be dominant today are on closer investigation divided into thousands of sects with widely differing theology.
Further, if there was a one true God, He should be *stable* - perfection does not change. If God says an act deserves execution, then it deserves execution. It always did, and it always will. God should be able to make purely practical changes, to reflect changing conditions and society. But on matters of morality, its fixed. No exceptions, because by definition any change away from a perfect morality will make it imperfect.
This applies equally to a church: If a church changes its position on any moral issue, then it cant be acting upon the unchanging divine guidance. If any religion's consensus once said that homosexuals and witches must be killed, but now says homosexuals should live and witches probably dont even exist, then its changed. It conflicts with its past self, so it was either wrong then or wrong now, and may as well be just random.
I am surprised that Christianity is as peaceful as it is now - in a religion for which one of the central ideas is that only Christians are saved and all others damned to eternal suffering, why are Christians willing to tolerate heresy that could cost salvations? They should be trying to silence all those who threaten the faith. Its the argument that helped justify the Inquisitions - that causing suffering on earth is easily justified if it sends others on the path to Heaven. Yet today, most Christians have the view that everyone should have the freedom to believe and even to preech whatever they want. In the name of freedom, they will allow others to spread religions that they believe will send all who convert to Satan's playground. It just makes no sense - why so tolerant?
I consider the lack of stability a strong argument against the factual validity of Christianity. Were there actually a One True God, I would expect to see the corresponding true church or religion dominant by a wide margin, because they would actually *have* divine aid. Instead there are hundreds of religions, and the ones which at first glance appear to be dominant today are on closer investigation divided into thousands of sects with widely differing theology.
Further, if there was a one true God, He should be *stable* - perfection does not change. If God says an act deserves execution, then it deserves execution. It always did, and it always will. God should be able to make purely practical changes, to reflect changing conditions and society. But on matters of morality, its fixed. No exceptions, because by definition any change away from a perfect morality will make it imperfect.
This applies equally to a church: If a church changes its position on any moral issue, then it cant be acting upon the unchanging divine guidance. If any religion's consensus once said that homosexuals and witches must be killed, but now says homosexuals should live and witches probably dont even exist, then its changed. It conflicts with its past self, so it was either wrong then or wrong now, and may as well be just random.
I am surprised that Christianity is as peaceful as it is now - in a religion for which one of the central ideas is that only Christians are saved and all others damned to eternal suffering, why are Christians willing to tolerate heresy that could cost salvations? They should be trying to silence all those who threaten the faith. Its the argument that helped justify the Inquisitions - that causing suffering on earth is easily justified if it sends others on the path to Heaven. Yet today, most Christians have the view that everyone should have the freedom to believe and even to preech whatever they want. In the name of freedom, they will allow others to spread religions that they believe will send all who convert to Satan's playground. It just makes no sense - why so tolerant?
leowife2036 wrote on November 2nd 07 at 03:37PM
The "church" is full of imperfect people with freedom of will and choice. We all sin and fall short, the arguement is not about what is "right and holy" by people's standards, but the sacrifice Christ made and the gift of the Holy Spirit. God desires for us all to strive to be sin free, however His grace is sufficient. Look at David, a murderer, adulterer, lier... was called a man after God's own heart because of his own repentant heart and realizing that he was wrong in his actions(David that is) As the Bride of Christ the "church" needs to stop judging the heart of people, that is God;s job and start meeting the real needs of those that do not know the grace, love and mercy that is intended for us to experience. I can speak with authority on this because I was once an adulteress, lier, thief, addict... and now am free from the chains I put on myself by the love and grace of God.
ramon wrote on November 4th 07 at 03:45PM
Hateful and Hated?
Josh wrote on November 8th 07 at 03:10PM
Dude, thanks for posting this- I really appreciated it and it opened my eyes to some things I've been considering in my own life.
-Josh
-Josh
nimrand wrote on November 8th 07 at 10:07PM
Suricou,
The church is not infallible, and at times has participated in or even instigated some pretty awful things, the inquisition and crusades being among them. There is a complicated web of social, economic, and political causality behind these events, so I cannot place the blame solely on Christianity or the church. Nevertheless, it must share some of the responsibility.
The trouble with morality is that it must be a constant struggle to stay to the path, or one can easily stray from it. One of the ways that sometimes happens is one becomes so sure of one's understand and righteousness that one comes to believe that one comes to believe that one has the right to judge or persecute those who don't agree with you. But, to do so contradicts the very principles one is trying to uphold. I believe this is exactly what has happened many times in the church's history. For a more elaborate explanation, one can read "When Religion Becomes Evil" by Charles Kimball, a book that I found to be very thoughtful and pertinent given the world's state of affairs.
Much of the instability that you reference can be seen as the imperfection of humankind and its understanding of God's message, not the imperfection of God. But, I would also say that perfection is more complicated than you suggest. Morality, for one, can't exist in a vacuum. Should the basic principles be the same? Yes, but we must not confuse these principles with rituals or applications of principles. Furthermore, the execution of the principles must and do change, both because humans didn't get it exactly right in the first place, and because circumstances change.
Not all Christians believe in the exclusivist, hell-fire-and-brimestone point of view that you refer to, and I have found over the years that there is very little in the Bible to support it. Much of it is in the book of Revelations, which was the most controversial inclusion in the Bible when it was canonized. There are also only a very small handful of verses in the gospels the uphold the exclusivist's view of Christianity, like the "no one gets to the father but through me" verse, and even then there is more than one way to interpret it. There is also significant scholarship to suggest that these particular verses are late additions to the scriptures.
But, all this is far less important than one simple fact: Jesus said that the two most important commandments was to love God and to love all people, and it is on these commandments that all the prophets and law hang. The majority of the gospels involves Jesus elaborating on this principle in numerous parables and teachings. So, it is that message that I take to heart by first recognizing that I must love all people, and then it is through that lens that I seek to understand everything else.
The church is not infallible, and at times has participated in or even instigated some pretty awful things, the inquisition and crusades being among them. There is a complicated web of social, economic, and political causality behind these events, so I cannot place the blame solely on Christianity or the church. Nevertheless, it must share some of the responsibility.
The trouble with morality is that it must be a constant struggle to stay to the path, or one can easily stray from it. One of the ways that sometimes happens is one becomes so sure of one's understand and righteousness that one comes to believe that one comes to believe that one has the right to judge or persecute those who don't agree with you. But, to do so contradicts the very principles one is trying to uphold. I believe this is exactly what has happened many times in the church's history. For a more elaborate explanation, one can read "When Religion Becomes Evil" by Charles Kimball, a book that I found to be very thoughtful and pertinent given the world's state of affairs.
Much of the instability that you reference can be seen as the imperfection of humankind and its understanding of God's message, not the imperfection of God. But, I would also say that perfection is more complicated than you suggest. Morality, for one, can't exist in a vacuum. Should the basic principles be the same? Yes, but we must not confuse these principles with rituals or applications of principles. Furthermore, the execution of the principles must and do change, both because humans didn't get it exactly right in the first place, and because circumstances change.
Not all Christians believe in the exclusivist, hell-fire-and-brimestone point of view that you refer to, and I have found over the years that there is very little in the Bible to support it. Much of it is in the book of Revelations, which was the most controversial inclusion in the Bible when it was canonized. There are also only a very small handful of verses in the gospels the uphold the exclusivist's view of Christianity, like the "no one gets to the father but through me" verse, and even then there is more than one way to interpret it. There is also significant scholarship to suggest that these particular verses are late additions to the scriptures.
But, all this is far less important than one simple fact: Jesus said that the two most important commandments was to love God and to love all people, and it is on these commandments that all the prophets and law hang. The majority of the gospels involves Jesus elaborating on this principle in numerous parables and teachings. So, it is that message that I take to heart by first recognizing that I must love all people, and then it is through that lens that I seek to understand everything else.
Caleb wrote on November 12th 07 at 03:53PM
I agree totally with nimrand. This is especially pertinent when you realize that the relationship between the Jews and God was covenant, not legal. The difference is that God, the God of the universe and therefore a superior being, saved the Jews from slavery and came to the patriarchs, none of whom had any merit for such an action. After demonstrating his power, God offered them a covenant relationship in which he would be their one and only God and, to show their love and gratitude for him, the Jews would adhere to a set of guidelines.
Also, I think that it's interesting that you pointed out that certain laws in the Torah required death. That is only true of murder. In all the others, even if death was a valid punishment, the victims always had the ability to forgive the criminal completely. That is why not all adulterers were stoned and why dishonoring children were not killed wholesale.
Also, I think that it's interesting that you pointed out that certain laws in the Torah required death. That is only true of murder. In all the others, even if death was a valid punishment, the victims always had the ability to forgive the criminal completely. That is why not all adulterers were stoned and why dishonoring children were not killed wholesale.
Amy wrote on December 1st 07 at 10:09PM
There is a Christian apologist named Ravi Zacharias (sp?) who speaks at Universities across the nation. Recently he spoke at Harvard to a standing room only crowd.
If you want to be challenged check him out. I listened to his Georgia Tech question and answer session a few weeks ago online. These academic intellectuals really thought they were "ready" for him. After his first few responses to their questions, lets just say, they began to approach him very respectfully and rather timidly. It was amazing to discover there are really Christians who KNOW why they are Christians.
If you want to be challenged check him out. I listened to his Georgia Tech question and answer session a few weeks ago online. These academic intellectuals really thought they were "ready" for him. After his first few responses to their questions, lets just say, they began to approach him very respectfully and rather timidly. It was amazing to discover there are really Christians who KNOW why they are Christians.
