I'm interjecting. Truly, my apologies.
But are you sure you need to rage against God? Or is your anger toward His human representatives?
I'm of the mind that under any circumstances represented
nearly accurately by the Bible or its adherent tradition, rage against both is fair. Though it sounds flippant, this is the way God wants it. What happens in our world is the natural result of existence.
What I mean by that is well-represented in a couple of the places in the Bible. To look at it with a sense of allegory or metaphor, we might say that sin entered the moment Eve considered the Serpent's argument.
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. (Genesis 3.5-6)
When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, she
chose to defy God. At this moment, sin is possible, and does not await the picking. This independence might be what fuels God's anger in Genesis 3.22, when He fears that humans can become His equal. But the power to
choose, as opposed to
obey undermines God's authority in the simple fact that choice is a response to the internal while obedience is a response to the external.
But it seems the God Who Knows either A) Did not foresee this disobedience, or else B) Foresaw it, and chose that it was good. Thus, it would seem that when God sent His Only Son to save humanity, he was sending His Only Son to save humanity from His Blunder (A), or His Will (B). God was either unable or unwilling to prevent this breach of obedience. In the case of (A), and assuming that God hoped to keep harmony with humankind, it demonstrates that God can, indeed, make mistakes. In the case of (A) and God's indifference toward harmony with humankind, we then see that this fall from grace was God's will. In the case of (B), well, it was God's Will, period, and designed to go this comparatively poorly from the start. Even with this simple example, I think it's fair to wonder what the hell God was thinking, and perfectly acceptable to be upset at the fact that He has never particularly cared to answer.
As to God's people ... well, they dig their own damn grave. I'm sorry to put it that way, but it's a matter of appearances versus a matter of inner reality. There are, I know, at least a handful of Christians who are living damn near right who we never hear from because they know
how to preach the Word. They realize that they are the living manifestation, and that only that living manifestation can communicate. They rarely evangelize as we might recognize from the culture at large because they know that such chatter only adds to the discord. They don't pay attention to the preacher when he tells them how to vote because God told them to trust in what is right, and not what people say is right. These sorts of things. However, if these people composed the majority, or even a visible segment of the Christian body social, the absurd notions that God gives a rat's behind about Marilyn Manson or King Diamond, or the gender of your sexual partner, or what kind of novels you read, or how much leg you show, or anything so petty when compared to the African famine would simply not trouble the rest of society. I'll paraphrase Bill Maher to say that
I would certainly try to be a Christian, if only they would first.
Among Americans, I cannot say I've ever had to vote against a Muslim-derived repression, or a Wiccan-derived repression. But in my day Christianity has sounded off on virtually everything having to do with freedom: written word, music, television, theatre, intoxicants, dancing, attire, medicine, crime, and families. And they've been
wrong, for reasons that sometimes escape me,
every time!
* Music: Don't tell me I can't listen to this because the word Satan is on the album.
* Written word: How does it violate your right to free religion that this or that book is allowed publication, distribution, or a station in a public library? Yet I've heard this asserted several times in my life.
* Television: Why does the censor make it come out, "___-damn!" Or, "Jesus H Baldheaded ______!" Truly,
why can I not show "Anal Aviators" on CBS at 8am on Saturday morning? (Specifically, why do laws exist preventing me from doing so?) And then there's Wildmon, Wildmon, Wildmon!
* Theatre: Run
Hair or
Rocky Horror Show or
Lips Together, Teeth Apart in a town with a loud conservative voice. It's always fun to listen to the church-people whine about sin and degredation and homosexuality and nakedness and all that dumb stuff.
* Intoxicants: I live in the United States of America; such a point of argument should suffice, but that's not fair. I am born and raised beneath the spectre of prohibition; it worked so well as a Constitutional Amendment that they had to revoke it and carry it on in the name of Commerce. Why is it illegal in some states to be able to see into a tavern from the outside? Why should I not drink liquor on Sunday, though that rule seems to have slipped by the wayside on a cultural level at the wholesale level. Why is caffeine on the no-no list for so many faithful in this country? (Specifically, I don't see how the two go hand in hand: caffeine and faith in God.)
* Dancing: Quakers don't dance, they rhythm. This is the best explanation I've ever heard; I accept it wholeheartedly. On the other hand, some of the same prohibitions maintained against dancing today by some churches are the same prohibitions that invented the Charleston, because technically, it wasn't a dance. (A point of form ... hey, the slaves didn't make that rule.)
* Attire: Why the heck do we still have separate dress codes? Why is ... oh,
her, right there! Why is her skirt "too short" for school or the workplace? Why does the law say that clothing is optional in Eugene, Oregon? (Specifically, why is it written in to begin with? For what reasons could this
not be the natural assumption, that clothing
is not required?)
* Medicine: I'll throw the slider at abortion: Specifically, why was a cancer-fighting drug illegal? Why did American minds have to travel abroad to work with this drug? Why was the fact that it goes in a cocktail that causes a miscarriage the reason it is illegal? I have to admit, it wasn't the atheists crying foul.
* Crime: I am not the person at this board; nor the nationally-syndicated, corpulent-windbag radio host; nor the California-based, nationally-syndicated columnist; nor one of the many, many people in this country who point out the rising crime rate as evidence of the necessity of prayer in public schools.
* Families: Again, I live in the United States of America. I don't know where to begin with what is wrong with religion and family. Especially American religion. It helped make "Family Values" a hot-button political issue. That and an idiot named Quayle.
Please, Randolfo, do not take me wrong: what I am attempting to summarize for you is the simple fact that over the course of my life, the Christian voice has consistently disagreed with me for reasons more directly related to an idyll than to what I've been able to discern from my own observation and experience. Consider these couple of ideas, please: It took the liberals to moderate me; it took the Clinton administration to turn me back into a liberal. In a like vein, I would apply the slightly-vicious tag:
It took Christianity to make me a realist.
In the end, I think it's fair to hold some resentment toward the human representatives because they've made such a stinking mess of it, on the whole. Consider the sometimes ugly idea of
The world would be better off without Christianity. Calls to mind some chilling ideas. When I feel that way, I know very well it is impatience, but it isn't particularly chilling because it is merely a notched-up version of the crux of the problem:
I would, all things told, prefer to be indifferent to Christianity the way I'm indifferent to Hinduism. I also, all things told, would appreciate it very much if Christianity would allow that condition to exist. People have often told me, of Christianity: Don't throw Baby Jesus out with the bathwater. I assure these persons, wherever they may be, that I have taken it to heart. Again, it's a little vicious, I admit, but it's worth noting that I have not fled these loving shores, despite the threat I perceive in Christianity. But I've hammered the point over and over at Exosci that something is wrong if the "proper" Christians aren't shushing the idiot-fringe of the evangelical wing. For instance, I dismissed two Kingdom Hall evangelists a couple of weekends back, as politely as I could, for they, too, were exceptionally polite and also sensitive to the reputation that preceded them. In the end, the five or so minutes we spent while I smoked on the porch was as much as I could give them, and a little more just for good measure. Why? They were exceedingly polite, and the German gentleman seemed quite amused at his companion's failure to get the hint that they were being rebuffed. I respect that gentleman's perspicacity. He operated on the principle that they have been kindly rejected, and it's best to leave now before the younger one put another dent in the reputation and therefore evangelical credibility. (And the younger one did, but it was generally cute, as parts of the conversation whizzed by him. I mean, how often do you get to swap Catholic jokes with a Jehovah's Witness? Really?)
But this sort of thing is needed on the cultural stage, too. And that the wiser voice does not restrain the misguided notion, that the appearance of apathy dwells on the excited brows of the gathered faithful (have you read my Jesus-Fair bit?), and that the reasons I've heard expressed justifying idiocy like censorship in values alleged to be Christian ... it is, I think, fair to be more than a little upset at the human representatives of God. I mean, it's just my opinion based on my own perspective, but perhaps that's part of the point. Maybe all the difference in the world would have been the presence of a single advocate of this religion who could present it without representing a snake-oil reality. At no time have my experiences with Christianity accomplished what it would seem any reasonable Christian would hope for. I would say it was a disappointing revelation, but, frankly, I was focused on other miseries--some self-invited. But I can think of at least one depressing song lyric off the top of my head--Reznor, I hurt myself today to see if I still feel. Hurting oneself is often part of the learning process, and I'm not necessarily talking about drugs or sex or ... well, okay ... sex and what the "normal" relationship can do to the brightest of minds (well, not bright enough, apparently). But on such occasions that I would hurt myself and drag others down with me, when I finally came around and realized how I was behaving ... there were no gods or devils; no burden of confession. There was me, and the people who love me. Obviously they do or else they wouldn't still be around. And suddenly I was hurting myself less and less, until now it's pretty much an elective thing. And I do feel that Christianity limits that sense in people; I did not ever feel it while I answered to the God of the Christians. I was too worried about God to make sure I wasn't hurting myself. And I see the same thing happening to a macrocosmic--as such--through the culture. I sometimes wonder if those people ever realize when they're hurting themselves, and how hard it is to stop hurting oneself. And when I look at the difference between how I felt then and how I feel now, I want nothing more than to rip those stale myths out of that poor soul's conscience and give them the chance to stand up to their own self for a change, instead of burying it back in God's shadow.
And, Randolfo, I wanted to explain again that this tantrum of mine is not directed at you specifically; I know little of you or your ideas at present. But I came across an inch-wide opening and truly needed to unload a mile or two. Or something like that.
Your question to Tetra was a springboard waiting for me to double-jackknife right into the yogurt, as the saying went. Thanx much for that.
And thank you ... and you ... and you ... and everyone who has to put up with me tonight .... 
--Tiassa
