Comments on Do Churches Insult God?

Go to A New ChurchAdd a commentGo to Do Churches Insult God?

To answer your question, Imijri . . .
Yes, Imijri, it is relatively mild here in Southeastern Virginia! 

posted by archiew on April 17, 2004 at 7:06 AM | link to this | reply

Well, Imijri
Well, Imijri, with the stomping, holloring, singing and dancing in the aisles, warmth should come naturally during worship services!  

posted by archiew on April 17, 2004 at 6:57 AM | link to this | reply

You must live in a nice, warm climate, lol!  Up here in the frozen and/or soggy northeast, worshipping in the natural is very limiting, as a rule.

posted by Imijri on April 17, 2004 at 6:53 AM | link to this | reply

Eric-Charles:

Thanks for the comments.  I never thought of it in quite that way, but what you wrote makes sense and seemed to turn on yet another light inside my head.  Thanks again!  

posted by archiew on April 11, 2004 at 6:39 PM | link to this | reply

Church Insults Are Ideological

Institutional churches have from the beginning assigned their own ideological premises to God. This goes back to the Mosaic era and has never changed. Never mind the obvious contradictions between the notions of humanity and philosophy of Jesus Christ.

Mosaic Israel was one of the most racist nations in world memory; a blatant contradiction to Jesus' emphasis on the universal nature of God's Kingdom. Yet, institutional-Christianity (which never has been very "Christian") has always opted for the Mosaic formula. It's simply a more marketable philosophy because it's so conspicuously narcissistic. While Jesus preached self-denial, love thy neighbor as thyself and love thine enemies, it's easier for humanity to go along with a Mosaic model that preached an eye for an eye, the destruction of cultures that don't meet with ones personal approval, and subjugating people when it seems politically expedient. The history of the church in America is replete with evidence that Christians embrace Moses far more easily than they embrace Jesus.

The notion of Manifest Destiny was around long before John O'Sullivan gave it a name. The Puritan ideologues that governed in the Colonies saw themselves as the newly-chosen people of God, and were therefore led by the example of the biblically-chosen people Moses claimed to lead. Under that scheme, they were entitled to to commit genocide against some peoples and to enslave others in the name of their God; in the purpose of creating a homogeneous Citadel for God on Earth.

Nothing has really changed since then, except the expanse of the Citadel. It is no longer a city with borders. It is a city that encompasses the world.

posted by Eric-Charles on April 11, 2004 at 10:55 AM | link to this | reply