The leaders within organized religions have made people believe in images
of angry gods demanding all sorts of sacrifices «as no one can live up to what that image wants of us».
Long's reasoning is certainly in keeping with images
of the angry God of Mt. Sinai.
Are you speaking more of a John Edward s «Hands
of an Angry God» type of sermon?
This analogy should only be used if it is clear that the concentration camp commandant is not an example
of an angry God the Father but of the devil - it is the devil and evil and sin that causes Jesus's suffering not (directly) God.
Oh, the Calvinists could make perfect sense of it all with a wave of a hand and a swift, confident explanation about how Zarmina had been born in sin and likely predestined to spend eternity in hell to the glory
of an angry God (they called her a «vessel of destruction»); about how I should just be thankful to be spared the same fate since it's what I deserve anyway; about how the Asian tsunami was just another one of God's temper tantrums sent to remind us all of His rage at our sin; about how I need not worry because «there is not one maverick molecule in the universe» so every hurricane, every earthquake, every war, every execution, every transaction in the slave trade, every rape of a child is part of God's sovereign plan, even God's idea; about how my objections to this paradigm represented unrepentant pride and a capitulation to humanism that placed too much inherent value on my fellow human beings; about how my intuitive sense of love and morality and right and wrong is so corrupted by my sin nature I can not trust it.
If only born - again Christians go to heaven, then the piles of suitcases and bags of human hair displayed at the Holocaust Museum represent thousands upon thousands of men, women, and children suffering eternal agony and the hands
of angry God.
We are sinners in the hands
of an angry God, and there is nothing we can do to appease Him!
If Jesus is any guide, we are not sinners in the hands
of an angry God, but are children facing the wrath of angry sin.
This comes from Jonathan Edward's famous sermons, «Sinners in the Hands
of an Angry God.»
College students, introduced to Edwards via other routes than the sermon on «Sinners in the hands
of an angry God,» can set Phyllis McGinley right.
If you will read again «Sinners in the hands
of an angry God» you will note that the emphasis lies not on hell but on the terrible uncertainty of life.
We know now that lighting and earthquakes are the sign of a living world, not the sign
of an angry god.
This necessary distance in personal relations does not prove that we are sinners under the curse
of an angry God.
This is a Puritan sermon, and I don't think there's been any sermon in the history of America that has more shaped our collective religious imagination than «Sinners in the Hands
of an Angry God.»
Not only did «Sinners in the Hands
of an Angry God» help fuel the religious revival known as The Great Awakening, but more than 250 years later, its impact is still reverberating in the Western Church.
The point I just wanted to make is that I do not believe my God is the «Hand
of an Angry God» deity but, for those that do believe that God operates as such this month has given them prime usable examples.
Remember me saying that I do not follow the «hand
of an angry God» view of God?
Got to admit, I've groan to love Jonathan Edwards and his Sinners in the Hands
of an Angry God sermon.
So while you are saying there is not a God and I am saying that God is a God of peace and mercy, instances such as two natural occurrences happening back to back will lend more to the «hand
of an angry God» sects of Faith than both of our words put together.
What if the thing we most need to repent of is our idea that God is angry and hates us, that He sees us vile, disgusting creatures (Sinners in the Hands
of an Angry God anyone?).
cried I, thou Redeemer of souls, and save me, or I am gone forever; thou canst this night, if thou pleasest, with one drop of thy blood atone for my sins, and appease the wrath
of an angry God.
Personally I believe the idea
of an angry god comes from things that in ancient times that were inexplicable, like earthquakes and storms.
Again, that is «hand
of an angry God».
It is because
of an angry god living in there.
Kirsten: You talk in your book about how what atheists are railing against is sort
of the angry God paradigm versus the loving God paradigm, and you're actually in agreement with them about that, and could you explain that a bit?
(Sinners in the Hands
of an Angry God)
Jonathan Edwards embellished this image with his Sinner in the Hands
of an Angry God sermon which doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell to resonate among post enlightenmental; age of reasons - why post-literate neo-oral constituency.
Furthermore, there is a kind of embarrassment in talking about sacrifice in catechesis, not only because it is seen as something negative in itself but also because it can conjure up what is often seen as the Protestant view
of the angry God who seeks blood to be appeased and is only fully appeased when Jesus dies on the cross, shedding His blood in our stead.
Not exact matches
In his book,
Angry White Men, which came out in 2013 but seems even more relevant now, Kimmel surveys the growing rage among neo-Nazis, gamers, right wing talk radio hosts and men's rights activists who define their masculinity and manhood in terms
of dominance and power and who believe in their «
God - given right» to rule the world.
athiests are
angry at those who follow
god, because we pay the same taxes, but your orginazations take a tax exempt status, commit illigal acts, but telling the followers how and who to vote for (violation
of NPO status), then you b ** ch and moan when seculars want you taxed.
I most commonly hear the thought that atheists are
angry at
God, had unanswered prayers, lost their way, need a support structure for their faith, etc. but I never hear anyone address the root of the cause for most atheists: there is no empirical, indisputable evidence for any god — and that matte
God, had unanswered prayers, lost their way, need a support structure for their faith, etc. but I never hear anyone address the root
of the cause for most atheists: there is no empirical, indisputable evidence for any
god — and that matte
god — and that matters.
This is a religion based on an
angry god who's going to put most
of the people on this Earth in Hell for eternity.
Yours are not the words
of any
god, but
of bitter,
angry men.
Completely twist it: By talking about their families... ACTUALLY THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT
angry jealous space
gods, who actually are love, except when they are drowning people for ignoring them, or turning people into pillars
of salt...
What could be more horrifying than a
god who with the temper
of an
angry two year old and responds by slaughtering innocents?
A
God of wrath, certainly, an
angry, punishing
God, yes.
«Non-believers» can sometimes be
angry when fervent believers believe so very fervently that they insist everybody ELSE believe as fervently as THEY do, and then they want our government to enforce that fervent belief by making our kids pray in schools to your concept
of a
god.
yeah, children
of non-believers don't get taught that
god is an
angry, petty, vituperative being.
There are two types
of Athiests; Scientist athiests who shed no emotions talking about rational concepts or lack
of proof; and
Angry Athiests, whio consistently feel the need to mock other faiths, and post incessantly any time someone mentions the word
God or Jesus.
The only thing Im
angry about is morons like you trying to make a
god out
of thin air then trying to make everyone beleive as you do.
Christians actually get
angry when people don't talk about their particular version
of god before they die.
Instead
of walking around all
angry at the world, it is much wiser to think positive and have hope that in the end justice will prevail for all
Gods creation.
this is so much more real and fits so much better with the image
of a kind and loving
god... thumpers would have u believe that
god is the
angriest, most spiteful, micro controlling, bitter, nasty character ever put out to this world... we must remember that the
god thing is supposed to produce caring, inclusion, peace and love ~ not murder, hatred, exclusion and bullying..
the natural cycle would be for man to grow up Stop Believing In
Gods All Together.They said that it's stupid for any one to say theres no
god They have no proof.Ok After Going Crazy i called them PHONY For never getting mad or
angry OR CURSING.Then I Insulted Joseph Smith for being a HABITUAL LIAR.After Telling them That evolution is right.And Their Religion Is RIGHT NEXT TO SCIENTOLOGY In Made Up Horse Crap Then kicking them out.I Started To Think (NO Not about
god He doesn't exist) But
of science He said no one can proof there's no
god.
If anything
God was
angry that they made his son's statue out
of flamable materials.
God was very
angry with the people that he caused three days
of darkness on the earth...
Here's an old post I did about the concept
of atheist's being
angry at
god though, since I guess that applies — though I think this was more tongue in cheek even if it didn't go across perfectly:
You Said: «What if I were so
angry that the Lord didn't help me, that I going on a violent rampage in the name
of god, referencing this player in my testimony?»
Sort
of caught in the tension between believing and not believing, being
angry at
God and not knowing if I CAN believe in
God.
But, before he described what righteousness is, James clearly states what it is not: «My dear brothers and sisters, take note
of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become
angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that
God desires.»