Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God...

[Amylian]

Hello,

In this semister, we have read Jonathan Edwards' Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God. I got quite attached to it, to the imagery and the rhetorical devices that Edwards use. Anyway, Edwards, of course, has been put in the book of American Literature anthology due to his influences. Also, what makes him great is how he actually scares the people in the congregation to make them believe in God's wrath.


Here are my questions, 'Are American still influenced by such sermons and do they continue to cast their influence among American societies? How come such a sermon developed what now is called 'the powerful in the world'?

Regards,
Amylian.

[blazeofglory]

God is above anger.

[Redzeppelin]

Hello,

In this semister, we have read Jonathan Edwards' Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God. I got quite attached to it, to the imagery and the rhetorical devices that Edwards use. Anyway, Edwards, of course, has been put in the book of American Literature anthology due to his influences. Also, what makes him great is how he actually scares the people in the congregation to make them believe in God's wrath.


Here are my questions, 'Are American still influenced by such sermons and do they continue to cast their influence among American societies? How come such a sermon developed what now is called 'the powerful in the world'?

Regards,
Amylian.

"Hellfire" sermons are pretty much a rarity these days; while Edwards' approach is heavy handed, it does reveal the reality that God is an entirely holy being who abhors sin (note: God abhors sin, not sinners). Today, many Christian churches have swung the pendulum to the other side, minimizing the fact that hell does exist. I think Edwards was interested in reminding people that their God is a holy God, that judgment will eventually come, and that it is only by God's grace that rebellious humanity continues to live to sin against him.


God is above anger.

My copy of the Bible indicates that God experiences emotions like we do. Hence the statement "the wrath of God."

While I appreciate your attempt to place God in a realm beyond humanity, my question is where are you getting this idea of God from? The Bible makes it clear that anger itself is not a sin in-and-of-itself; there are times when we (and God) should rightfully feel anger. If we love other people, there are things that should make us very angry. If God loves, why would he not experience anger - especially righteous indignation?

[mono]

A good choice of literature! I remember when first getting introduced to 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God' in early high school by a literature teacher; as a retired theater actress, with her strong Scottish accent, she recited the entire story at the beginning of the class. She seemed abnormally silent, and once everyone had taken their seats, she burst out amid the class with a fiery intensity - classic! :lol:
In America, I doubt someone would see such a style of preaching, as most of Calvinist and Puritanical thought has dissipated through the centuries. Jonathan Edwards worked as a colonial preacher in the 1700's and adhered strongly to Puritan and Calvinist philosophies, both of which we now consider very extremist. Let us not dismiss the idea that modern religious practices cannot get intense in various ways, but nowadays I think a worshipped Being seems more a source of comfort and warmth, rather than something to feel fearful of and full of wrath.
Personally, I think it nothing less than absurd to associate human emotions, such as anger, with an Infinite Being. In poetry, we associate emotions to non-human objects, and call it personification; even a child can interpret the elementary idea of a dead leaf, once belonging to a tree, along a cold coastline feeling sad and lonely. As ridiculous as it sounds to compare a departed leaf with an Infinite Being, at least a tree has a nervous system. :rolleyes:

[weltanschauung]

"Hellfire" sermons are pretty much a rarity these days; while Edwards' approach is heavy handed, it does reveal the reality that God is an entirely holy being who abhors sin (note: God abhors sin, not sinners). Today, many Christian churches have swung the pendulum to the other side, minimizing the fact that hell does exist. I think Edwards was interested in reminding people that their God is a holy God, that judgment will eventually come, and that it is only by God's grace that rebellious humanity continues to live to sin against him.



My copy of the Bible indicates that God experiences emotions like we do. Hence the statement "the wrath of God."

While I appreciate your attempt to place God in a realm beyond humanity, my question is where are you getting this idea of God from? The Bible makes it clear that anger itself is not a sin in-and-of-itself; there are times when we (and God) should rightfully feel anger. If we love other people, there are things that should make us very angry. If God loves, why would he not experience anger - especially righteous indignation?


http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/facist_jockitch/sm/doh.gif


God is above anger.

they'll never get it, dude. they need to be threatened and intimidated.

"" we know that the great majority of people have a strong need for authority which they can admire, to which they can submit, and which dominates and sometimes even ill-threats them. we have learned from the psychology of the individual whence comes this need of the masses. it is the longing for the father that lives in each of us from his childhood days, for the same father whom the hero of legend boasts of having overcome. and now it begins to dawn on us that all the features with which we furnish the great man are traits of the father, that in similarity lies the essence, which so far has eluded us, of the great man. the deciveness of thought, the strength of will, the forcefulness of his deeds, belong to the picture of the father; above all other things, however, the self-reliance and independence of doing the right thing, which may pass into ruthlessness. he must be admired, he may be trusted, but one cannot help also being afraid of him. we should have taken a cue from the word itself; who else but the father should in childhood have been the great man?

without doubt it must have been a tremendous father imago that stooped in the person of moses to tell the poor jewish labourers that they were his dear children. and the conception of a unique, eternal, omnipotent god could not have been less overwhelming for them; he who thought them worthy to make a bond with him promised to take care of them if only they remained faithful to his worship. probably they did not find it easy to separate the image of the man moses from that of his god, and their instinct was right in this, since moses might very well have incorporated into the character of his god some of his own traits, such as his irascibility and implacability. and when they killed this great man they only repeated an evil deed which in primeval times had been a law directed against the divine king and which, as we know, derives from still older prototype." (freud, moses and monotheism)

[blazeofglory]

In point of fact all we are doing is making a periphery of God within a domain of or dimensions of our understanding. Your God is your creation, the repercussion of your understanding of the Bible or any particular myths, a little subtler than what we generally read in fairy tales, and nothing over and above. However I attribute God to something much subtler and refiner.

It is natural that we spin ideas of God from the fringe we see. We can not see beyond the margins of our scriptures, and our parental or ethnic ideas. We are circumscribed

[JBI]

In point of fact all we are doing is making a periphery of God within a domain of or dimensions of our understanding. Your God is your creation, the repercussion of your understanding of the Bible or any particular myths, a little subtler than what we generally read in fairy tales, and nothing over and above. However I attribute God to something much subtler and refiner.

It is natural that we spin ideas of God from the fringe we see. We can not see beyond the margins of our scriptures, and our parental or ethnic ideas. We are circumscribed

Oh, you connoisseur of God, fine refined taste - now you are saying that you are better at reading the Bible, because you can see something there that isn't. I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous - find the scripture that supports your claim, or don't make an argument - really you are the one imagining this domain, so stop calling other interpretations base for not seeing it, unless you can back it up with scripture. As it is, your God seems a watered down version of the Rambam's god, with less spice, and more new-age pseudo-philosophy, to try and take it into the 21st century, where it really cannot "exist" outside of a different "dimension".

[joseph90ie]

.....

[Wintermute]

My copy of the Bible indicates that God experiences emotions like we do. Hence the statement "the wrath of God."

Hi Red,

Why would it get angry if it already knows what is going to happen? And, the fact that this is going to happen is a direct concequence of decisions it alone made. Perhaps it is getting angry at its self?

Yours,
Doug

[weltanschauung]

Oh, you connoisseur of God, fine refined taste - now you are saying that you are better at reading the Bible, because you can see something there that isn't. I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous - find the scripture that supports your claim, or don't make an argument - really you are the one imagining this domain, so stop calling other interpretations base for not seeing it, unless you can back it up with scripture. As it is, your God seems a watered down version of the Rambam's god, with less spice, and more new-age pseudo-philosophy, to try and take it into the 21st century, where it really cannot "exist" outside of a different "dimension".

is that really what he said?
i read something else.

the image of god is manmade, men made god in their own image, and so is scripture. god never picked a holy pen to write anything, everything ever written is written with human hands, using human views and human concepts, which are obviously limited and tendentious. we can only see a limited part of the etromagnetic spectra (colors) and only hear a limited spectrum of sounds. what we see and what we hear is not what is happening, its a version of it, a human version. from the things we are able to perceive using our senses, we are able to formulate probability patterns and fix conditions for events, that is called science.
'backing up" with scripture doesnt provide indisputable truth since its just paper written by men; paper written with the light of creativity and not with the light of science.
why are we here, and where are we going? nobody knows, and the "bibles" provide us with very unsatisfying answers. not just limited and tendentious, but also highly questionable and imposing views of reality. from my limited senses i generally formulate conclusions that contrast significantly with what is written in the "bibles", so for me, with my limited power of judgement, its easy to disconsider untrustworthy sources of probability patterns (events).
with this critical view in mind, its not difficult to realise what is this "god" most humans talk about, and it certainly isnt that of the "bibles". that is just a dramatis personae created in order to personify certain traits. that is not the demiurg of the universe. that is just a huge man, designed to impose fear and perpectuate the views of a few men that came before us. who is silly enough to believe that the world was created in 7 days, and that god was planting trees in paradise? and that the whole humankind came from one man and a woman that was made from this man a few thousand years ago, who is this silly?
the bible is made of poetry, not of reality.

imagine yourself living 2 thousand years ago, at the epitome of your society's ignorance regarding everything, nature and men. if a comet falls from the sky, what are you gonna think? what is that? youve never seen that before, you dont know what it is. but wait, you do. that is god, and he's angry with us, we did something wrong. but what? it must be something, otherwise, what would be the cause of this tragedy here? we have angered our maker. uh-oh.
how could we know a star exploded 7 billion light years from us, and the debree has been traveling in space since then, wandering aimlessly, then it finally got caught in our planets gravitational pole and fell. we dont know that, we know god is angry. let's write about this.
"24 Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens. 25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land."
we are sinners, god must have done this to us because we have been doing things in the wrong way. it must be, there isnt any other reason.
"7In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

theeeeere you go. lets tell this to our children, so that they may not be striken with such horrifying punishment.

[blazeofglory]

"Hellfire" sermons are pretty much a rarity these days; while Edwards' approach is heavy handed, it does reveal the reality that God is an entirely holy being who abhors sin (note: God abhors sin, not sinners). Today, many Christian churches have swung the pendulum to the other side, minimizing the fact that hell does exist. I think Edwards was interested in reminding people that their God is a holy God, that judgment will eventually come, and that it is only by God's grace that rebellious humanity continues to live to sin against him.



My copy of the Bible indicates that God experiences emotions like we do. Hence the statement "the wrath of God."

While I appreciate your attempt to place God in a realm beyond humanity, my question is where are you getting this idea of God from? The Bible makes it clear that anger itself is not a sin in-and-of-itself; there are times when we (and God) should rightfully feel anger. If we love other people, there are things that should make us very angry. If God loves, why would he not experience anger - especially righteous indignation?

You seemed to have seen God through a Biblical lens.

[cfh]

;)
Hi Red,

Why would it get angry if it already knows what is going to happen? And, the fact that this is going to happen is a direct concequence of decisions it alone made. Perhaps it is getting angry at its self?

Yours,
Doug

it seems that amidst the dicussion of complex themes we almost were launched in to a discussion of pre-determination vs. free will

it is also presumptuous to assume that the majority of protestant sermons serve up warm fuzzies without acknoledging what God abhors and the immediate dangers there-in.

[Bookthief]

Ahh, I remember this story. It intrigued me deeply.
And I enjoyed reading every bit of it...

[Lady Marian]

Why would it get angry if it already knows what is going to happen? And, the fact that this is going to happen is a direct concequence of decisions it alone made. Perhaps it is getting angry at its self?

Knowing the future does not necessarily prevent emotional responce to it. We all knew the Twin Towers were going to collapse as we watched them on TV on 9/11, but that didn't prevent us from grieving and being angry when they finally did fall.

[Redzeppelin]

You seemed to have seen God through a Biblical lens.

Is there another valid one to look through in order to make statements about the character of God? Since I'm a Christian, isn't that the most logical thing for me to do?

[Moshu]

I read "Sinners in the Hands of An Angry God" for school, and being a Christian, I was faced with the question, "would this be a good resource to give to a non-christian in attempt to witness to them?" I found this very thought provoking, but I don't think I would do that, because I would want their first view of God to be one of Him as a loving Father.
I also read the 70 Resolutions of Jonathan Edwards and found them very convicting and spiritually challenging. They are basically 70 statements and standards he set for himself to live by, that he resolved to read every week and tried to live them to the fullest. I think I could scarcely even think of 70 Bible-based covenants to live by, much less keep them all. And at the end of the week, if he felt he had not fulfilled them, he would repent and seek God's forgiveness. This was very thought provoking for me.

[mono]

I read "Sinners in the Hands of An Angry God" for school, and being a Christian, I was faced with the question, "would this be a good resource to give to a non-christian in attempt to witness to them?" I found this very thought provoking, but I don't think I would do that, because I would want their first view of God to be one of Him as a loving Father.
Even not as a Christian, I can definitely that Christian worship and the perception of a Supreme Being has changed greatly since 18th century American. Edwards defended Calvinism, which revolved a lot around a Supreme Being having complete control and an objective approach of/on everything in existence, but it also preached of humans' inevitable approaching salvations, without their ability to manipulate it.
Taking human impotence and vice into account, Jonathan Edwards added fuel to the fire, no pun intended, of making his God an angry one, and very vengeful, despite any human being's inability to improve their salvation. Not only does it seem strange, to me, to attribute human emotions to a Supreme Being in a fictional story, but to punish so severely individuals bound to such treatment, despite their attempts at redemption, seems a lot like training a dog to chew shoes, then punish it for chewing up its trainer's shoes.
(sorry, a bit of a rant on Calvinist thought :D)

I agree with you, Moshu, that if one, in contemporary times, wanted to teach a child or one newly exposed to Christian thought, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" would likely associate a negative connotation with their God, unless one desired to preach fearing their God, and to act virtuous in the dread of punishment. After learning other Biblical stories to provide a foundation, perhaps, it may seem interesting to learn different Christian thought, such as in historical contexts, but, I feel, for most readers, Jonathan Edwards seems more enlightening for literary and historical purposes than for religious ones.

[Moshu]

but, I feel, for most readers, Jonathan Edwards seems more enlightening for literary and historical purposes than for religious ones.
Yes, I agree, although I think we can definitely find many nuggets of truth in his words, Jonathan Edward's works are perfect for uncovering the worldviews of the revivalists in the Great Awakening and seeing how they compare to the beliefs in our day.

[grotto]

Is there another valid one to look through in order to make statements about the character of God? Since I'm a Christian, isn't that the most logical thing for me to do?

Not an argumentative or abusive post, just as a thought and a question.

Is there another valid lens to look through? Yes!

Is it logical because you are a Christian? No, not in my eyes, I see this as a closed viewed statement.

What is wrong with entertaining a different view? What is wrong with considering other views that don’t agree with yours? Doesn’t entertaining ideas that differ from ones own lead to personal growth? Isn’t “ignoring” what else may be living in ignorance?

There were many apples on the tree, not just the one.

[Redzeppelin]

Not an argumentative or abusive post, just as a thought and a question.

Is there another valid lens to look through? Yes!

Is it logical because you are a Christian? No, not in my eyes, I see this as a closed viewed statement.

What is wrong with entertaining a different view? What is wrong with considering other views that don’t agree with yours? Doesn’t entertaining ideas that differ from ones own lead to personal growth? Isn’t “ignoring” what else may be living in ignorance?

There were many apples on the tree, not just the one.

My friend, you miss the point. blazeofglory commented that I see God through a "biblical lens" - and my response is that that is the only way to view Him. If God is merely subjective in nature - that is, based upon what I think, feel, or speculate that He is - well there is no end to the distortions and misrepresnetations of Him that I can arrive at. If I intend to understand God, then the only way to do so is through the lens of the book that purports to describe His character. What other "lens" do you suggest that allows me to have some sort of guide against which to measure my own ideas of who He is?

And frankly, I'm a little tired of the hypocritical idea that because I believe my veiw is correct that that is a sign of a "closed" view. How do you know I haven't considered others and found them lacking in cohesion and logic? Simple answer: you don't. Most people who talk about being "open minded" generally are just as "closed" as they accuse Christians of being - except that since they believe THEIR view is the correct one, that they are simply more "open" in holding it. If you're so open, why not consider the veracity of my view? What's limiting about viewing God through the only work that purports to establish His character? Isn't that what I should consult if I wish to make statements about who God is? Isn't that what I would do for a human being? Consult a book that describes this individual? Or should I simply stick with my own ideas and beliefs about who this person is?

Please, let's not "lecture" me on personal "growth" - I find such things flatly patronizing - especially since you know nothing of the spiritual and intellectual paths I've walked to arrive at my current position. For all you know, I could be a 90-year old theologian who spent the first 30 years of my life as an atheist, who then converted to Islam, and then found Christianity. I could also be a scholar who has studied and explored various world religions, mytholgies, philosophies and even perhaps entertained their viewpoints. If these things were true, wouldn't your admonishment on personal growth seem a little inappropriate at that point?

PS: If my tone comes across as harsh in any way, please accept my apology. I do not intend it thus, but sometimes - especially when I am tire - it happens. I understand that your question was put forward in good faith.

[grotto]

My friend, you miss the point. blazeofglory commented that I see God through a "biblical lens" - and my response is that that is the only way to view Him. If God is merely subjective in nature - that is, based upon what I think, feel, or speculate that He is - well there is no end to the distortions and misrepresnetations of Him that I can arrive at. If I intend to understand God, then the only way to do so is through the lens of the book that purports to describe His character. What other "lens" do you suggest that allows me to have some sort of guide against which to measure my own ideas of who He is?

And frankly, I'm a little tired of the hypocritical idea that because I believe my veiw is correct that that is a sign of a "closed" view. How do you know I haven't considered others and found them lacking in cohesion and logic? Simple answer: you don't. Most people who talk about being "open minded" generally are just as "closed" as they accuse Christians of being - except that since they believe THEIR view is the correct one, that they are simply more "open" in holding it. If you're so open, why not consider the veracity of my view? What's limiting about viewing God through the only work that purports to establish His character? Isn't that what I should consult if I wish to make statements about who God is? Isn't that what I would do for a human being? Consult a book that describes this individual? Or should I simply stick with my own ideas and beliefs about who this person is?

Please, let's not "lecture" me on personal "growth" - I find such things flatly patronizing - especially since you know nothing of the spiritual and intellectual paths I've walked to arrive at my current position. For all you know, I could be a 90-year old theologian who spent the first 30 years of my life as an atheist, who then converted to Islam, and then found Christianity. I could also be a scholar who has studied and explored various world religions, mytholgies, philosophies and even perhaps entertained their viewpoints. If these things were true, wouldn't your admonishment on personal growth seem a little inappropriate at that point?

PS: If my tone comes across as harsh in any way, please accept my apology. I do not intend it thus, but sometimes - especially when I am tire - it happens. I understand that your question was put forward in good faith.

I apologize if you felt I was lecturing, I can assure you I meant no patronization of any kind. I am neither a theists nor an atheist, I have no axe to grind with any organized religion and I do not belong to any organized dogma, but, for what it’s worth, I was raised a devout Catholic with the ritual strict European upbringing along with the usual religious schooling until I reached high school.

I made no assumptions; I was only asking a question. True, I do not know your history, nor do you know mine. If you had come to your final decision of what is right for you by means of viewing all the worlds religions and had come to the conclusion that what you speak is your truth, then indeed you have looked through many lenses.

I do not claim that my view is correct, for what it’s worth, I have never claimed to believe in anything. I have swapped many lenses in my life and I have finally learned that I no longer need the lens of any particular faith. I only know to question all, and I will continue to do so.

I never trust anyone who says they have the answer so yes, at times I do like to poke at the bubble and the bubble most spoken on these forums is of Christianity, so there is a lot of poking that can be done. As for “blazeofglory”, I was not defending him; he is as free to speak as you and I are.

Once again, I apologize, I meant no attack on your beliefs although; I guess I stand as guilty as any one. There in lies the true problem with the written word, without body language and tone of voice; no one can ever be sure what was meant in the reading.

[Redzeppelin]

I apologize if you felt I was lecturing, I can assure you I meant no patronization of any kind. I am neither a theists nor an atheist, I have no axe to grind with any organized religion and I do not belong to any organized dogma, but, for what it’s worth, I was raised a devout Catholic with the ritual strict European upbringing along with the usual religious schooling until I reached high school.

I made no assumptions; I was only asking a question. True, I do not know your history, nor do you know mine. If you had come to your final decision of what is right for you by means of viewing all the worlds religions and had come to the conclusion that what you speak is your truth, then indeed you have looked through many lenses.

I do not claim that my view is correct, for what it’s worth, I have never claimed to believe in anything. I have swapped many lenses in my life and I have finally learned that I no longer need the lens of any particular faith. I only know to question all, and I will continue to do so.

I never trust anyone who says they have the answer so yes, at times I do like to poke at the bubble and the bubble most spoken on these forums is of Christianity, so there is a lot of poking that can be done. As for “blazeofglory”, I was not defending him; he is as free to speak as you and I are.

Once again, I apologize, I meant no attack on your beliefs although; I guess I stand as guilty as any one. There in lies the true problem with the written word, without body language and tone of voice; no one can ever be sure what was meant in the reading.

No worries -:)

Understood - and I did not take your views as any attack, per se. What bothers me is that I seems fashionable to go after a Christian "lens" but not to go after other "lenses." If I were a devout Muslim - would you still give me the same advice? If I was a stringent atheist, would you still tell me that my view is rather "closed"? If I was a serious Jew, would you advice me against "limiting" my view of who God is to my belief system?

Ultimately, either all contradictory views of God are wrong, or one is right - but they can't all be right - so why am I "closed" if I reject the lenses that clearly contradict my own? Are others of differing beliefs (Islam, agnostics, atheists, Jews, Hindus, etc) under any such burden to alter their sense of "rightness" and take on other alternative "lenses" as much as the Christians in these forums seem to be advised to do?

That's my real issue.

[grotto]

No problem. Rest assured, I poke at all ism’s not just Christianity. I do disagree on one point however, I don’t think any of them are “all right”, but I do think they all have some right in them and that is what I look for. I have studied a lot of religions but I am not a scholar, just some one who once was seeking a path and my own search brought me to a different conclusion than yours, no better, no worse, just different.

Christians get the brunt here because they seem to be the most prolific in this forum, other forums, not so much. For what it’s worth, I have a better time poking in the Eshanga forum. My only advise has been to keep asking why and never settling for an outside answer as the only truth, that has been what has worked for me, so that is what I will keep doing.

Best wishes to you and yours.