Most followers of a religion believe that God or the gods are the originators of their belief system. In my more pensive moments I doubt them – by your fruit you shall know them and all that! Perhaps we can imagine what happened in prehistory! As early man formed communities, the rivalry within eventually manifested with everyone looking for ‘the other’ to blame. After a period of time the community centred this blame on one of the weakest or non conforming members of the group. This evil victim was then murdered as the violence of the community was unleashed. Following this blood thirsty ritual a new sense of unity peace and prosperity seemed to fall upon the community.’How come?’ they asked. Their only explanation was that their victim by his death had brought the peace. He was now recognized as a god, who dispensed peace – and so the dying god was born along with ‘sacrifice’ and its ability to appease the anger of the gods who were responsible for the regular crises ( famine ,drought,sickess etc.) within the community. I believe that all sacrificial religious thought evolved from such a mindset – a god who needs to be appeased by the death of a victim. Are we through our religious rituals,practices and disciplines, today continuing such an ancient myth. Was Jesus death such a death or was it radically different indeed dismantling such a belief system? Does Divine Love demand self sacrifice? Now there’s a question that could have many practical repercussions in the life of a Yeshua follower!
What are the roots of religion?
February 17, 2010 by Dylan Morrison ~ the Prodigal Prophet
Writer Dylan Morrison 
Human awareness of a Creator scripture tells us in Ps 19 in verses 1-4 comes from the wonderment of creation. It is evident everywhere. These verses tell us that both the heavens and the firmament declare Gods glory, to the ends of the earth, to the extent, that even those who have never heard of Jesus are without excuse. People have said to me in the past, “what about the person living in the deepest jungle who has never heard of Jesus how can God send them to hell for rejecting Jesus. My reply is, God will never condemn anyone who has never heard of Jesus for rejecting Him (Jesus). God will condemn those who reject Himself (God) because they knew of Him through the wonder of His creation, but chose to continue living a life displeasing to Him. I have spoken with native American Indians who tell me their forefathers were aware of “the Creator” long before Europeans landed in America? How could this be so? Well, if we look at Ecc. 3:11 NKJV, we are told that God has put eternity in our hearts. Now, if we turn from God, to religion, we see all sorts of corruptions of belief. Some of the stuff you mentioned such as human sacrifice to “the gods” is what results if we stray form Gods Word or indeed have never heard it to begin with. Today, almost globally, we have the Word of God to tell us how to live and how to please Him, and not ourselves. It is not so much that love demands sacrifice, its more, that sin had to be dealt with. We in our fallen nature, were in the impossible position, that we could not pay the penalty for our own sin. The perfect Sinless Sacrifice was Christ. He paid the price,He died in our place, the Father was satisfied, we not go free, if we repent from our sin, and accept the Sacrifice that Jesus made in our place. Sorry to ramble on a bit, but those are a few thoughts. Regards, Follower.
Thanks prodigalfollower for your comments.I totally agree that the Divine speaks loud and clearly through nature for those who have ears to hear and eyes to perceive – it has to since all things are ‘in God’ as the mystics claim. Not pantheism i.e. God is everything but panentheism i.e. God is in everything – a very important but subtle difference.My own journey has been one of many stages.I understand your belief system well as I used to live within it myself for many years.It gave me a certainty and comfort but eventually took on the feeling of an ill fitting suit.The pieces of the jig-saw that had portrayed God in a certain light no longer fitted.It was as if the Divine was breaking out of my Evangelical/Charismatic jig-saw – no graven images and all that.I’ve found that if I try define God in a conceptual prison He just walks out through the locked door.This conceptual approach to ‘faith’ is I believe the weakness of all Western orientated religion.Truly we can say what God is not but we can’t pin Him down. I now find myself catapulted into a deeper view of Divine Love.I no longer believe God does or will condemn anyone to an eternal punishment ( bad translations of the word aeonian to blame for this) Indeed I believe its a travesity of His nature that only feeds my self righteous ego – (‘I made the right decision about Jesus -you didn’t!’ type of stance) I believe that God has already reconciled the world to Himself.I don’t accept an ‘us or them’ anymore.I do not believe that at some stage in the future the Divine switches of His compassion and puts on the Judges wig to banish us forever. This issue be and has been discussed endlessly since Christianity started with both sides throwing out proof texts – a dangerous way to promote truth I believe.In my post agnostic experience I found that Divine Love invaded me – no choice on my part!This is the kind of God that I wish to explore on the pages of this blog.I realise that you and many other readers won’t agree with my conclusions but I can only make known what I have experienced in both my old and new worlds.Blessings be upon you and yours.
Mimesis sounds radical at first, but proponents such as Girard would maintain that it can be found in the Bible. It’s facinating how the conservative/fundamentalist response (predictably?) tends to be to reject this outright and repeat their evangelical mantra, ignorant and frankly uninterested in it’s origins (could this theology like all others be mediated via human minds/ concerns/ ideology?). The bible did not drop out of the sky. It’s not a magic book written in God’s spare time. It contains various theologies. Paul, Luke, Moses ( the traditional authours) did not write in a theological/ cultural vaccum. The bible itself is subject to influence as much as any other text. It is also subject to interpretation like any other text. We must be humble therefore when we make absolute claims about what it ‘teaches’. We all could be in error, to deny this is either hubris or radical arrogance.
My my, how easily we tend to divide into camps and identify with how we see others. Fundamentalism seems this past decade or more to be something of a label to be avoided. Why has this happened? Perhaps acts of extreme violence by one belief system against another such as NYC, Mumbai, London etc. We quite rightfully want to distance ourselves from such extremities of action. But is this really what a fundamentalist is. I for example, consider myself a fundamentalist christian. Lets look closer as to what a fundamentalist is. Simply put, I consider myself a fundamentalist, because I adhere to the fundamentals of the christian faith without which, it is impossible to be saved. IE, repentance of sin, acceptance of the sacrifice Jesus made for me on the cross, that if I believe in Him I may go free, because of this act. As for scripture dropping out of the sky, I wholeheartedly agree. I believe that scripture is a miracle of Gods revelation to us through recorded writings. As such, I believe it to be the inerrant Word of God. To subtract from Gods Word, and replace it with our own beliefs/revelations is in my humble opinion, not only forbidden, but dangerous. How did the different belief such as the christian cults occur? Could it be, that their founders decided that certain pieces of scripture were not literal? I know of at least one cult leader who was a “non hell” believer. Now today because of “meddling with scripture” we have belief systems, that deny the deity of Jesus. If we cherry pick scripture, could there be a possibility of us wandering down the same path? I myself believe in the biblical doctrine of hell. Its not a popular doctrine by any means, but that doesn’t make it false. There are myriads of scriptures I could quote to show why I believe it. Anyway, to quote Chuck Missler, ” the liberal church, the most dangerous cult on earth” Hope no one is offended, but these are just a few of my thoughts.
The problem with this definition of fundamentalism (which to be fair is historically acurate) is that it implies that there is no controversy over what the ‘fundamentals’ are. Take for example the death of Christ as a sacrifice, this is only one of many biblical metaphors (why priviledge it above all others)? Why an inerrant bible? This is a very modern concept (19th Century). What about the synoptic problem? All the historical inconsistencies in the synoptic gospels alone! Does this mean it is a merely human collection of documents? Not necesarily. I am agnostic regarding Hell. The biblical evidence is not as clear cut as some would suggest. There is no Hell in the OT, and when we look at the etymology of the words lazily translated Hell in the KJV NT there is a nuance in meaning. Gehenna is clearly an allusion to the valley of Hinnon and therefore metaphorical. Would it be just to damn for all eternity for finite sins? Lastly, I think the cults that take the bible too literally are just as dangerous/ in error as those who reject it outright. Christians in South Africa justifying Apartheid, supporting the genocidal activities of the Israelis because God gave ‘them’ the land. Slavery, subjugation of women, polygamy- these are ‘literaly’ what the OT allow. Also, two separate accounts of the creation of mankind in Genesis alone ( which one is it- man and woman come from the dust of the earth or woman from man’s rib)? Can it literally be both? Everyone ( fundamentalists / liberals) has there own fundamentals that they can justify biblically so an speak to scripture alone does not settle the issue. Blessings
Hi Simon, I’ve never heard of the second account of Eve also being made from the dust of the earth. Could you give me the chapter and verse please? Just curious, thanks, Follower.
I havn’t claimed that there is a ‘second account of eve being made from dust’. The issue is not what they are made from but the chronology, the two accounts are very different and if read independently could lead to divergent understandings of what ‘happened’. 1:27 humanity is created in god’s image. It is explicitly stated that they are created male and female. There is no hint of a time lapse. Both male and female constitute humanity. Then in 2:7 the male alone is created from the dust ( no sign of a female counterpart) in 2:18 God thinks a helper is needed for ‘man’. None of the creatures were ‘suitable’ helpers. God then makes the woman from the rib of the man. She is presented to the man as his helper. There is a radical difference here. In 1:27 the image of God is reflected in a male and female humanity. The woman is not an afterthought or the solution to the man’s problem of loneliness. She is not mans helper but a full bearer of the imago Dei. In the second account she is produced after an undisclosed time lapse where the text implies that alternative helpers are explored/ sought. She is then manufactured from the man’s rib. Is this the same story? Can it be harmonized? Maybe, but a more objective Reading of these separate accounts leads to a different doctrine of humanity that cannot be overlooked. So it does not spell out the material used in 1:27, but nevertheless they are radically different accounts.
Ok Simon, thanks for that. I see what you are saying now. Forgive me for my misunderstanding. Unfortunately without the scripture verses that you were referring to in the first post, I got a bit lost. I really don’t see a problem there. Not for Almighty God anyway. We finite created beings have a problem in thinking outside time, but for God who is outside time, and can see the end from the beginning, I don’t see a problem in the text as it is written. Thanks again, and regards, follower.
I respect your humble and Christlike spirit. Although we have some hermeneutical differences I admire your commitment to truth. I certainly don’t claim to be infallible. And I agree with you that our God is infinitely bigger than any of our doctrines or theological comitments. Blessings.
Sorry for the typing errors, I meant appeal to scripture ( stupid predict a text)!
Simon I am familiar with the points you are making. However I will look at only one that you make. You state’Take for example the death of Christ as a sacrifice, this is only one of many biblical metaphors (why priviledge it above all others)?’ The reason evangelicals see it as above all others is because in the words of Peter: ‘For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God’. Yes we believe that Satan was defeated, our old nature died with Christ on the cross and it reveals how great his love was to us, but far and beyond this as the Sunday School hymn states:’There was no other good enough to pay the price of sin, he only could unlock the gate of heaven and let us in.’ Call me ignorant,modern or premodern, but the view I’ve stated seems most reasonable to me . Peace and grace. Andrew
Andrew one thing puzzles me regarding the atonement theory that you have outlined.
If Jesus was God and asked us to forgive our enemies without preconditions how come His Abba ( also God) needed a blood sacrifice in order to forgive fallen mankind?
The point I was trying to make was that Christ dying for our sin can be understood in other ways than as a sacrifice. Does God have a vindictive blood lust that requires satisfation? Why not just forgive? Stressing this one metaphor of atonement makes God look very pagan to me. Infinite mercy, grace and love and the demand for propitiatory sacrifice seem problamatic to me. But I accept that I could be wrong. Thank you for your kind tone. Blessings.
Simon, I don’t believe God has a vindictive blood lust but I believe that he is righteous, true and loving-so much so that it cost the life of son on the cross to satisfy his justice.
I appreciate your honesty in that you admit that you may be wrong. I am probably a simple soul and what I learnt as a child seems to make more sense than what I’ve seen and heard in the many different movements since the 1970’s be it in the Shepherding, Kansas City Prophets, Toronto, Signs and Wonders or Emerging Movements.
What I learnt as a child was what Jesus, Paul, Peter and the others taught us in the New Testament. I’ll admit there are some things that are hard to understand but there is much that is plain and I have no good reason to doubt its validity.
There is something wonderful about childlikeness Andrew – there should be lots more around the Christian community.I don’t believe the intellectual side of things take away from radical trust in God’s love.I cannot accept that Peter wrote everything claimed to be written in his name for example I suggest that St Jerome may have had a hand in some of Peters hell and brimstone text due to his mistranslation. Paul as a mystic and philosopher regarding the meaning of the Christ event is definitely a hero.I sense that some believers are afraid to step out of the dogmatic boat in case they sink – I wonder what St. Peter would say about that!!
Hmmm no would be my answer. I still struggle with the atonement, one thing I know is there remains no more sacrifice for sin. Done, finished, I don’t have to walk around self loathing. I believe in me as the piece of amazing art that I am, and I charge forward with confidence knowing that god doesn’t look at me as a wretched sinner but as his beloved child!
Totally with you on that one Marcie. The Atonement, or Oneness, however it is perceived must be experiential within the fractured psyche otherwise its just a divine judicial position with very little reality behind it. Most of us faith folk believe so much, but it’s mostly theory. The mystical path leads us out of the conceptual world to a felt psycho-spiritual experience of Truth. Thankfully faith/trust operates in the heart Self and not in the belief systems of the conscious mind.