God an Abuser? Believers Co-dependent?

[Bloodblister Bob]

Seems to me that the relationship Christians have with their God is very like a co-dependent relationship with an abusive father or spouse.

When questioned as to why their allegedly all-loving God routinely allows bad things to happen to them, Christian believers, like abused children or spouses, go to irrational lengths to defend God's actions. They even go so far as to blame themselves for their suffering, even though God supposedly loves them and is in complete control.

And, like abused co-dependents, they do this because they're simply terrified of being without his "love".

This relationship (although an imaginary one, in my opinion) seems very unhealthy indeed.

[ClassWarrior]

1. No, organized religion's the abuser.

NGU.

[cosmik debris]

2. I have been campaigning against defining the beliefs of others,

Now you are trying to define the beliefs of Christians through your jaded prism. It is not fair, nor accurate. Quit it -- please. If you want to know what Christians believe, ask them, don't tell them.

[Bloodblister Bob]

5. I know what Christians believe, because I have asked them.

My observation is the result of much sincere discussion with Christians, not something I just decided to believe because it makes me feel good.

Yes, I know that not all Christians believe the same way, but their excusing of horrific events, that they themselves believe God controls, seems quite pervasive. The comparison to abusive human realtionships is unavoidable.

[cosmik debris]

6. You are making gross generalizations

that are offensive to many Christians. If being offensive is unavoidable, by all means, carry on. But be prepared.

[Lerkfish]

12. I think your analogy is interesting...

And it certainly applies to people like Pat Robertson (as an example)

I would only point out that your first post made it clear you were including all christians, but in this post, you admit you know not all christians believe that way.

You were right the second time.

If you are truly interested in faith, belief and how it relates to hardship, May I suggest two things to read....the Book of Job, and "When bad things happen to good people"

I think Job will conjure up as many questions as it answers, but its an intriguing treatise on the very thing you're discussing. Job's friends display the gamut of human attempts to rationalize hardship within the framework of belief. If you'll note when reading, they are overlooking the possibility that hardship can merely happen for no reason at all. Job is an allegory, but it contains many truths and many questions.
I find that nonbelievers seem more distracted by blame when it comes to belief and hardship...they feel the christian must blame God or themselves. But really, hardship is not about blame at all. Its about reaching a point of peace, surrender and understanding that things our outside our control, and moving forward from that point. Whether believer or nonbeliever, that is the enlightenment that comes from suffering. Whether your point of peace comes from the Bible, the Koran, Buddha, or simply a still moment within yourself, it is something ALL humans must either learn or be buffeted by.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

8. In actuality,

Bloodblister didn't define their beliefs. He compared the outward appearance of their beliefs to a psychological phenomenon. There's a difference. It's a legitimate exercise.

Among others, Mark Twain did it regularly and frequently and to good effect.

[cosmik debris]

10. And when I compare religion to superstition

Because "the outward appearance of their beliefs" compares to a psychological phenomenon, is that a legitimate exercise? I believe it is, but Christians find it quite offensive.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

11. And that's not ypur problem

It's theirs. As Robert Heinlein once noted "An insult is like a drink. It affects one only if taken."

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lerkfish]

16. your argument for civility is appreciated, by me at least.

thanks.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

17. Didn't check the profile

I try to take things at face value.

Good point, though. Certainly not arguing against civility.

[Lerkfish]

15. however, if one wishes to force a drink down another's throat...

someone who did not ask for it...is it unreasonable to expect offense?

There is apparently a great need for some people of belief or philosophy A to redefine those of belief B in the worst possible terms. They rationalize to themselves they are "doing it for their own good" or trying to enlighten or proseltyze them.
The thing is, though, if that other person has not enquired of you, you are not enlightening them, you are attacking them with the cudgel of your own belief/philosophy, with the intent to either drive them away or batter them to submission.
That is not a free exchange of ideas or an attempt to achieve understanding.

[sui generis]

18. I disagree

We should be able to talk about anything among progressives without taking offense.

Anything at all.

Viewing this as battering people into submission or attacking with a cudgel of belief is silly. If I want to talk about how the stereotype of fried chicken came to be associated with African American culture, it's because I genuinely want to know, not because I have an agenda, or because I want to offend anyone. However here on DU some people would automatically assume that I am 1. White 2. Redneck and a Bigot and 3. Had an agenda. and would go out of their way to let me know. If everyone who is "good" believes you to be bad, does that make it so? Sometimes, even on DU that is the case.

Remember, non-christians forget that for many christians their identity is deeply invested with their faith, and that stating anything at all about their faith is presumed to be an attack on their identity. That's really what all the fuss turns out to be before all the hair pulling and scratching starts.

Both sides need a little to be simultaneously more and less sensitive.

[Lerkfish]

20. no, you're actually agreeing with me...

I phrased my post in such a way to point out both sides are at fault, for both flamebaiting and taking offense. Tis why I said "side A": and "side B".

I have also responded in threads from atheists demanding christians not define them in certain ways, that its insulting to say they have "beliefs".

:shrug:

I think ultimately, issues should be discussed rationally, but attempts to define other groups by highly negative broad stereotypes is counterproductive. And none of us are without sin in that regard.

however, to define christianity as an abusive parent to a slave or child, is using inflammatory rhetoric to be intentionally caustic.

The same topic could have been discussed rationally with a different tone, and hackles would not have been raised...for example:

Seems to me that the relationship Christians have with their God is very like a co-dependent relationship with an abusive father or spouse. I think this part is fine

When questioned as to why their allegedly all-loving God routinely allows bad things to happen to them, Christian believers, like abused children or spouses, go to irrational lengths to defend God's actions. They even go so far as to blame themselves for their suffering, even though God supposedly loves them and is in complete control. this is the beginning of the problem, here. this is setting up a straw man arguement to define the actual beliefs and then shoot them down as irrational, instead of asking how christians view the first analogy. This is bad for open discussion because the OP has already labeled anyone who might disagree with his assertion as "irrational"...in fact, the OP misunderstands the views of many christians, but to phrase it this way precludes participation without having to backtrack and attempt to correct...this twists anyone of belief into sounding too defensive, and the combative tone can shape the rest of the discussion down a nonproductive path

And, like abused co-dependents, they do this because they're simply terrified of being without his "love". now the OP is going beyond making observations and fabricating arguements for others, he is assigning negative emotional internal motivations as a way to denigrate those of belief, again without complete understanding. Also, it has the added twist of making it so anyone who argues against this misperception can be easily cast as falling into the "abused co-dependent category..this preemptively dismisses the point of view of others before they even have a hearing of how they REALLY believe instead of how the OP thinks they believe

This relationship (although an imaginary one, in my opinion) seems very unhealthy indeed.
and there we have the value judgement...unhealthy. This is the real point of the OP-- wishing to define believers as sick, mentally and morally sick. So ask yourself, is this really a topic starting post? Or is it a facade for flamebait, or simply passive aggressive license to insult at will?

FURTHER, I edited to add: Its obvious the OP poster is truly not interested in discussion, because he has ignored my attempts to elevate the discussion by offering insight into how some christians think, in posts #12, and post #9....both discussive posts which have NOT been replied to in this thread.

see? the purpose is not to discuss, but to denigrate...if I was wrong then my other posts would have been responded to.

[sui generis]

21. thanks lerkfish

great analysis -

I guess I'm of the mind that not everyone is as well considered before they state something, or even be a bit mischievous in knowing better (on occasion I have been known to push a button here and there myself O8).

I've just found myself in the crosshairs sometimes defending that I don't actually beat my wife very often, and I don't even have a wife, so I tend to make greater allowances with less judgement, on a good day, with adequate caffeine levels.

You are entirely correct that it could have been phrased better or at least redacted a bit after additional input from fellow DU'ers. I can't say that he's making a point trying to coerce anyone else. He may just be being honest about what he thinks in a highly abstract sense - forgetting that real people take that abstract very personally and make negative inferences from that.

That's all I'm saying - we all need thicker skin.

[Bloodblister Bob]

27. No "Straw Man" Here

Dear Lerkfish - I am in no way "setting up a straw man argument". My observations about co-dependence/abuse in the Christian/God relationship is based upon experience. As I stated previously, I've spent a lot of time (probably way too much time) discussing and debating Christianity with Christians. At least they professed to be Christians, so I assume they were, and we know that Christians wouldn't lie.

I suppose the thing I enjoyed most about your indirect response to me was how you chided me for making a "value judgement", wishing to define believers as being "mentally and morally sick". This is amusing to me, as a nonbeliever, because the very essence of Christianity is the making a very big value judgement: All other faiths and belief systems are incorrect. Period. And let's not even get started about how "morally sick" Christians declare some people to be.

And as for not all Christians believing the same thing, and my making generalizations about Christians as a whole, etc., I can only say that with the dark and disturbing political climate in the US today, those who lie down with dogs definitely rise up with fleas.

In my opinion.

[Lerkfish]

29. I notice you do not respond to my other posts, which are more

discussive.

is there a reason for that?

what is your intention in this thread?

[cosmik debris]

31. I believe his intention is best expressed by his actions

He started the thread with an insult based on subjective observation of a small minority of Christians. In short, he is flame baiting. For Zeus' sake, let the thread die.

[Bloodblister Bob]

33. Everything about belief or non-belief is subjective...

What are we supposed to do, discount our own subjective experiences because we're not perfect? Nobody does that, nor should they.

The apparent abuse/co-dependency syndrome between Christians and their God is certainly nothing I had in mind before I became involved in discussions about Christianity with Christians. The similarity between the believer/God & victim/abuser relationship simply dawned on me one day during one such discussion. I can't help that, you know? My mind just sort of puts things together, and there's not a lot I can do about it.

If my experience amounts to an "insult" to Christians, well, I got it from Christians, so there you go.

I don't see why some here are so combative about this. I thought perhaps this was a venue for freethinkers, but instead I sense a knife at my throat.

[Bloodblister Bob]

32. I responded where I thought it most appropriate to do so. n/t

[GrpCaptMandrake]

22. So therefore no one should opine

about matters of faith/superstition unless a "believer" gives them permission? I hardly think that a rousing endorsement of the Marketplace of Ideas.

In these sorts of discussions, one may not achieve "understanding." The most one may hope for is to reach a point where one merely says "Well, that's how they are, and there's no rational explanation for it. It's faith, not reason."

[Lerkfish]

23. you misunderstand my point...noone should set up straw men

claiming to be the views of others and then shooting them down without really wanting others to voice their real views.
that is fundamentally different from opining on the nature of their views.

I can say: "Fred only likes short women, therefore I think Fred is bigoted against short people." but I may be making a mistaken assumption about what kind of woman Fred likes...he might like ALL women, but since I'm being presumptious and inserting my version of what I THINK Fred believes, then my following conclusion is unfair to Fred.

However, if FRED says "I only like short women" THEN I can express an opinion about his assertion....

do you understand the difference? the OP is defining believers how he wishes to, and then FROM HIS OWN DEFINITION, judging them negatively.

If he was truly interested in discussion, he would have responded to my other posts telling my views as a believer. Instead, he's only interested in framing believers negatively.

[papau]

14. Amen

:-)

[beam me up scottie]

19. Oh, so you agree with Cosmik ?

That trying to define others is not fair nor accurate?

And that if you want to know what others believe, that you should ask them and not tell them?

[nashville_brook]

3. master/slave

there are varieties of religion that enforce a master/slave relationship. makes you wonder.

[atommom]

4. Not all Christians I know are like that, but it seems that people

who are like that are getting a lot more press lately, and exerting a lot more power over our government. The RW has taken some of the least tolerant and humane aspects of Christianity, and blended them into politics. It seems unhealthy to me, too ... the fundamentalists' puritanism and repressiveness lead them to be unsympathetic and cruel to other people, in the name of God.... while the politicians that encourage them are really only interested in preserving their own power.

[sui generis]

7. mostly "literalist" and "fundamentalist" views

come across this way.

I've always thought it odd that physical suffering for petty sins is the hallmark of ultimate holy love, or that some arch deity would "give his only son" for our conceits.

Also don't much care for the whole killing firstborns thing, plagues, turning people into pillars of salt, boiling them in eternal lakes of fire, casting out of heaven, etc.

But to be fair, enlightened modern religions have to a great extent gotten away from all of that medieval divine retribution crap. I still don't "get" christianity as a whole; it has never appealed to me to follow a "lord", but that's just lil' old anti-authoritarian me taking things to extremes.

If I turn out to be wrong and wake up dead one morning in front of some pearly gates, I still would turn around and flap away, because there is no excuse in this universe for the misery and pain that humans live through every day that you can phrase in the form of a test of faith, and I'd flip him off on the way down too.

[Lerkfish]

9. good and bad things happen to good and bad people...its the vagaries

of the happenstance of interrelated causalities.

Whether you believe in God, or not, surely that is visibly obvious.

Christians who believe that God punishes or rewards nonbelief/belief in this life are overlooking the book of Job (which I highly recommend for believer and nonbeliever...its a treatise on how we react to hardship), the teachings of Christ himself, who tells us the rain falls on the just and the unjust.

I have dubbed the types of faith as tinkerbell faith and iron faith.

Tinkerbell faith is what some believers have -- they feel if they just believe strongly enough, they will find a good parking space or not suffer hardship (for example). the downfall of this notion is that ultimately, ALL of us face some hardship or another, good or evil. Tinkerbell faith requires one to make dangerous assumptions: it implies that only bad people suffer, and only good people are rewarded. Therefore, when good people suffer, they must wrestle with the incorrect concept that they have "done something to deserve it". Tinkerbell faith withers in the presence of adversity, because it based on an unsupportable premise: that the good are rewarded in a quid pro quo in this life, and that bad will be punished in this life. A simple eyes wide open look around you will prove that incorrect.

Iron faith is faith, no matter what befalls us. I point to a good biblical example: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the furnace. The king threatened to throw them into the furnace if they did not renounce their God and bow down to him. The king said, if your God is so powerful, he will rescue you (intending for that not to happen)
What they said in response was, essentially "you should know, King, that our God is able to deliver us from this furnace, but even if he does not, we will not denounce him to you. This is the essence of true faith, one that is not dependent on outcome, but which is adopted because it is belief of the faithful that it is the right thing to do, regardless of how the chips may fall.

Now, for a more pragmatic and non-religious take on things, it is not our character which protects us from hardship, it is hardship which shapes our character. How we react to and cope with hardship is what either blunts us from usefulnes or hones us to a sharp point. The grinding wheel spins constant. It is only our attitude (angle) to that grinding wheel that determines whether we sharpen or dull our edge.

thanks.

[trotsky]

24. Doesn't really do much to address the conundrum, does it?

As you note, "good" and "bad" things can happen to people no matter how "good" or "bad" they are. OK.

Your explanation, in a nutshell, is that "bad" things are good because they build character if we allow them to.

So what about people who only deal with "good" things and never get a chance to develop this character? What about someone born to a wealthy family, raised in the finest luxuries, lives off a trust fund, never works, never has any big problems or difficulties, marries, raises a family, lives to a ripe old age, and dies in their sleep?

Do they undergo the same character-building experiences as a child who develops leukemia and dies a painful death at the age of 8? Or the parent of such a child?

[Lerkfish]

28. well, I'm not saying bad things are good.

I"m saying we develop character from dealing with bad things. As in all things, there is opportunity and choice from circumstance. Both good and bad things offer us choices. Even someone who never experiences hardship, still must make choices. If they are wealthy, they can choose how to employ that wealth, whether to reach beyond themselves and help others, or not.

If it helps, I think you are getting at the point that life is inherently "unfair", in that not all people suffer or benefit equally. Not all people have the same length of life, and not all people are endowed or granted beneficial things to the same degree.

you are correct. I think, though, that you might be thinking that makes God cruel. But if you don't believe in God, does that make the universe cruel, or merely that stuff happens?

I think stuff just happens. If you mean to make the reality that hardship happens inequitably from life to life, a proof that God is cruel, I don't think so. I personally think a believe in God (or whatever philoshopy helps you) can buouy you over the harder waves, and churches and groups can offer assistance and solace in tough times.
Otherwise, there is no real advantage to the believer or unbeliever during hard times. Adversity is SEPERATE from worthiness, or value of each person.

This is why I find tinkerbell faith dangerous to a person's beliefs because it is building on sand. If one believes that being good prevents adversity, one will always be disappointed.
Better to have iron faith, and if it your choice to follow God, that you do so irrespective of what befalls you.


Not sure how to clarify that further.

[trotsky]

30. No, of course I don't think god is cruel.

But to those that believe in a god, the problem of evil/suffering can never be resolved without an appeal to faith. Ultimately you have to accept that things are the way they are because god made it so.

Now, an interesting way of analyzing this problem is to suggest that an omnibenevolent god would likely want to make the universe with the minimum amount of suffering that's still adequate to teach life lessons to the creatures who have to endure it. (Assuming, of course, that that is the reason why suffering must exist.) So the argument becomes, is the suffering in this universe clearly at a minimum? Personally, I think the answer has to be no.

Unless the god believer thinks that suffering *is* at the minumum possible amount, he or she must then acknowledge that god apparently doesn't care, doesn't see, or can't do anything about extra, unnecessary suffering that doesn't serve a purpose. (Making god, well, NOT god.) Or god is just a sadistic asshole.

[kwassa]

25. very nice, Lerkfish

[freestyle]

26. Depends on how involved and in control you think God is.

In the Bible, which is what I am most familiar with, there is a clear progression from the very direct involvement of God in the Old Testament to the primarily educational and evangelical role of Jesus and the Apostles to the accessible if you choose to access it leading of the Holy Spirit.

At this point, I think we are fundamentally on our own with opportunities to plug in if we so choose. We either learn the lessons of many religions and the tenets of ethics and live in harmony with each other and the planet, or we don't. Also, there was never any promise that belief offered protection from the travails of nature and of life, just a source of peace and guidance.

[Brentos]

34. I agree with freestyle.

God originally treated mankind very physically and slowly nurtured them from physical to spiritual understanding, and after Jesus, won't be back until the second coming. God does not cause things to happen. God set up the physics of the universe, and now they are chugging along nicely.

Think of it as a parent (as God is to us)

During a child's early years, a parent is very physical with a child. Holding them, pulling them back from a busy road, spanking as they start to get older, and begin to teach them (hopefully) morals and life lessons so that when they are ready to go off on their own, they have internalized all of the lessons (fire=ouch) and don't need physical reinforcement of these ideas anymore.

This is how I see God treating mankind with post-Jesus mankind being as a young adult leaving home and having to survive the world with that which their parent instilled in them.

Disclaimer: I am offering this as explanation based on the Bible and some extra-biblical sources (including my own brain). This is not an attack nor blind defense of anything. It is not intended to insult, nor to accept insult, just to continue discussions with those truly interested, not those who wish to attack or use Christianity to attack.

[NAO]

35. Can you be co-dependent with an imaginary friend?

I think you have to have two personalities to have an abuser/co-dependent relationship. You cannot have just one person who has an imaginary friend.

[SlackJawedYokel]

36. Self-inflicted co-dependence? nt