Support NeoGAF

[Monocle]

What an extraordinarily arrogant bit of baseless psychoanalysis.

Baseless, huh? Any intellectually honest person would at least admit that the OP's observations are plausible. A better counterargument would be to point out that tribalism manifests just about everywhere, not just within Christianity.

Of course, then you'd have to deal with the problem that religion overall is a uniquely potent facilitator of tribalism.

 

[shnurgleton]

Of course, then you'd have to deal with the problem that religion overall is a uniquely potent facilitator of tribalism.

So is nationalism, race, language group, economic status, etc. Singling out religion in order to push an anti-theist agenda doesn't contribute to constructive dialogue.

And that the GOP has been co-opted by Trump? Yes, of course. But long before Trump, I've been... upset... to see the GOP flagrantly stand on a platform of "evangelical Christianity" without any action or sincerity to back it up, just to get people of faith to fall in line.

I can still ascribe to my beliefs as they were intended even as other distort and warp them to their own views.

 

[ArjanN]

The weird thing is I don't think Trump is even all that religious.

He clearly isn't religious in the slightest.

Although to be fair, I actually think the majortiy of past presidents were probably just paying lip service as well.

 

[Skiptastic]

Honestly, if the Evangelical Christians believe all you gotta do is believe in Jesus and you're good to go, then that's fucked up.

I have spent my whole life in the United Methodist Church, still attend church regularly, and will be sending my son to preschool there next year. Belief in Jesus is the bedrock of the faith and the path to salvation, but I'll be damned if that gives you a free pass to do whatever you want in our church.

Jesus is supposed to be the light to your path to living a more loving and caring life, not your get out of jail free card to fuck up other people's lives and still be good.

 

[Lyn]

No one can easily resist that kind of constant and observable social assurance. I lived it; I remember it. You’re right, you’re right, you’re right, look at all these people who say you’re right, listen to the man at the microphone with power and money saying you’re right, absorb the mental gymnastics of others in order to further convince yourself you’re right, surround yourself with people who help you be even more right, fight to your dying breath against the possibility of being wrong.

I can't agree with this entirely. Christianity contains such a wide spectrum of people that I believe it is disingenuous to boil it down to this single narrative. People follow religions for a great variety of reasons.

Yes, some want to be "right" and thus surround themselves with others to reinforce that mentality. For many others though it is about having hope that there is more to this world than what we see before us. That all of this has a greater meaning. For others, it is about finding a little bit of hope and peace while they go through incredibly hard times. For others it is simply about following the teachings of Jesus and trying to emulate His behavior and help the poor/downtrodden. For many, it is about the feeling of community and being around people in a generally wholesome environment. Not to mention, not all always feels as if they are "right," but often struggle with their own faith when trying to make sense of this world or fight various temptations that consume them.

The reasons are quite vast and varied. I always feel it is important to keep things in perspective. I know it is easy to want to categorize people in such a manner, but there are approximately 2 billion Christians in the world and we need to remember that those we know or meet are only a minute fraction of the whole group.

The majority of the people in my family (immediate and extended) are evangelical Christians. As in, the sacrifice-your-life-for-others, help-the-helpless kind of Christians. And the majority of them voted for Trump. There's an incredible disconnect on display there, and it bewilders and saddens me. Once set in your religious identity, it appears to be incredibly unintuitive to turn off the "God's in control" or "His truth is my truth" area of your brain and thus make yourself less susceptible to the people who aim to manipulate you.

Being able to observe that in such a demonstrable way last month shook me. And so 2016, in its last shitty hurrah, torpedoed the last burning remnants of my Christian faith.

I know I am quoting parts of your post out of order, but I felt the other area was important to touch on first.

When it comes to politics, and I certainly do not speak for all Christians, I feel there is a greater personal conflict that many deal with and that in the end certain hurdles simply cannot be overcome. I think many are happy to lean more left and help support the less fortunate in society, but they struggle with the stance on abortion or the changing social/cultural norms that are taking more of the spotlight today than before (gender roles, LGBTQ+, etc). I don't really follow enough Christian media outlets to speak with certainty, but what few I do follow, I noticed even they were divided during the election this year. A lot did not seem to like Trump's rhetoric, but when it came to the topics I just mentioned, people quickly discarded the left as well.

I honestly do not see an answer to this problem. With how unwavering both political parties are here in the US, I can only see the divide continuing indefinitely as few people are willing to look beyond those key issues.

 

[Monocle]

So is nationalism, race, language group, economic status, etc. Singling out religion in order to push an anti-theist agenda doesn't contribute to constructive dialogue.

Religion promotes faith as a virtue and aggressively encourages ignorance and tribalistic tendencies.

That's where the "uniquely potent" bit came from.

 

[Extollere]

Welcome to atheism OP, or agnosticism, or non-religion, or whatever you choose to call it. I myself went through a rather unceremonious deconversion from Christianity some 10 years ago. Once you get used to it, it's an incredibly liberating feeling. No gods... no guilt. Just do good for the sake of doing good, value your intellect and reasoning above all else.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

All religion is weak-minded bullshit. It literally is the opiate of the masses. It is the ideological equivalent of a sort of "magic" which allows one to compartmentalize aspects of life they do not wish to confront and wish them away.

See the following examples:

You say that modern day conveniences that I take for granted might be doing destructive harm to our viability as a species on this planet?
Religious logic response: Climate change is a Chinese hoax. They just want to undermine our prosperity.

You say that we should treat all these brown people with respect and give them true equal opportunity.
Religious logic response: They are heathens, animals who are not "God's" chosen people. They should be exploited and swept aside.

You say that recreational habits, customs, and culture of brown people might just have some merit and wisdom.
Religious logic response: If you partake in, sympathize with, or value any of these things, you are a traitor to our superior way of life and deserve punishment.

So on and so forth...

 

[parrotbeak]

I think "born again" is accurate even if you're raised in the religion. From my understanding having gone to school with many evangelicals, even if your family is part of the flock and you grew up going to church, each person has to make a conscious decision to be "born again" and accept Jesus.

I also agree with much of OP's post. I was always struck by how evangelicals didn't care about "worldly" issues and were focused mainly on the afterlife.

 

[cereal_killerxx]

I mean, I'm not going to argue with you that a significant amount of professing Christians live their life in the way you describe (that being, as long as you 'believe' the basically theology, it doesn't really matter how you live your life), that's not at all an accurate description of biblical Christianity. Jesus and the Apostles stressed over and over the Christian life should be one of self denial, self sacrifice and holiness.

Like, the idea that "it doesn't matter if you cheat on your spouse" is diametrically opposed to scriptural teachings.

Agreed.


OP it sounds like you've been hurt by the church and people who claim to be "Christians." I had a similar experience when I drifted away from the church and God. I realized I was being treated better by people that were atheists or undecided in their beliefs.

 

[Astral Dog]

In know exactly what you mean op
It does not matter how morally dubious your claims are as long as you sorround yourself with yes people.

 

[Lord Frieza]

When it comes to politics, and I certainly do not speak for all Christians, I feel there is a greater personal conflict that many deal with and that in the end certain hurdles simply cannot be overcome. I think many are happy to lean more left and help support the less fortunate in society, but they struggle with the stance on abortion or the changing social/cultural norms that are taking more of the spotlight today than before (gender roles, LGBTQ+, etc). I don't really follow enough Christian media outlets to speak with certainty, but what few I do follow, I noticed even they were divided during the election this year. A lot did not seem to like Trump's rhetoric, but when it came to the topics I just mentioned, people quickly discarded the left as well.

They weren't really divided at all. At least not the Evangelical types the OP is referencing. Yeah, there was a few dissenting voices here and there, but the Evangelical vote was strongly behind Trump even going back to the primaries.

 

[RibMan]

A lot of us have experiences growing up in similar religious environments to some extent (it's a majority white male forum). Could this be an accurate explanation as to why it's so difficult to persuade certain people away from this particular institution, despite the large role it has played in promoting hatred and blocking progress?

It's important to note that although religion has been responsible for a lot of negative actions and negative thinking against humans, it has also been responsible for a lot of positive actions and positive thinking towards humans. It's the positive contributions of religion that make it very difficult for a religious individual to acknowledge any failings of their religion. We'll come back to this in a later paragraph.

Born-again Christianity, based on my observations, acts like an undo button for a Christian. It allows a person to 'undo' the sins they have committed, and gives them a second chance at life and the after-life. Obviously, the concept of spiritual rebirth exists in multiple religions: Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. It carries different names in other religions, but it largely acts the same i.e. as an undo button. After a person has undone their sins, in their eyes and in the eyes of their faith, they are better humans. This is extremely important to understand, because the core reason billions of people subscribe to religion is so that they can become better people.

It's tough to understand how the idea of becoming better can be the very same reason why people can't be reasoned with. I'll try to explain it a little differently. Religion and born-again Christianity act as human transformation devices. Religion is like a gym. The belief is that if you subscribe to it, you will become better: and If you don't, you won't. If I tell and show the world how the gym has made people better, then it is very difficult for you to tell and show the world that the gym has made people worse. You can present actual evidence that the gym trainers were screaming and shouting derogatory names at obese members. You can present actual evidence that there were signs in the gym that encouraged women to show up in more revealing outfits. You can present actual evidence that a person broke a leg due to an outdated treadmill glitching out at a high speed. You can present all of this, but the second I show a picture of a successful weight loss, then whatever you presented is meaningless because the gym made someone better.

The positive outcome of the gym outweighs (pun unintended) whatever negative outcome of that very same gym. Religion functions in the same way: whatever hatred or devolving of society has occurred as a result of religion is outweighed by whatever positive or progress of society that has occurred as a result of religion. This is why born-again Christianity is difficult to give up. Admitting to being a sinner and subsequently giving up a life of sin is viewed as the ultimate way for a person to become a true Christian. It's like admitting to being morbidly obese and then throwing out all junk food and joining a gym. You're now on the right path in life: the path to becoming better.

You touched on the communal aspect and the idea of comfort in religion. You're on the money. Religion, at its best, creates a community of like-minded people who all work together towards making a better life for themselves and for others. Religion, at its worst, creates a community of like-minded people who all work together towards making life worse for themselves and others. In either case, religion brings people together. This is comforting to people, because ever since we communicated through grunts and drawings on rocks and walls, we -- as humans -- have had the need to be with others. This is why marriage -- a construct of religion -- is about two people becoming one, this is why a choir is about multiple people becoming one, this is why Christmas is about multiple people sharing the same meal, etc. It doesn't matter if the marriage is incestuous, it doesn't matter if the choir is singing about child abuse, it doesn't matter if the meal was prepared using slave labor. It's about satisfying our sense of belonging, and there is a tremendous amount of comfort in that satisfaction.

Ultimately, this could explain why your born-again family voted for a man who has shown the least amount of empathy and compassion for humans than any other U.S. president in our lifetime. People who are part of a group that believes they are better will not need a lot of convincing to vote for a candidate who promises to make life better. Remember: they subscribe to the idea of becoming better. "Make America Great Again" is a slogan that implies there were better times. You can begin to understand how people can believe that voting for the man behind the slogan would lead to a better life for their group and others. Do I wish more people would subscribe to reality and deal in objective truths? Absolutely. But if we're being realistic, one of the most common human traits -- something we're all guilty of having done at least once in our life -- is a deliberate ignorance of reality for the purpose of fostering and pushing beliefs. This happens in politics wherein people ignore past candidate actions and instead believe the candidate is going to change everything for the better, this happens in religion wherein a congregation ignores priests and preachers raping their church members and instead believe the victims are working for the devil (whatever the hell that means), this happens in sports wherein people ignore the stats of a rival team and believe their team will win because it's their time to win, this happens in gaming wherein people ignore aggregated critic scores and instead whip out the non-existent Fun-O-Meter, etc. It's very difficult to get people to switch from beliefs to facts, because the former can be right or wrong and the latter can only be right.

Anyways, I hope some of this ^ made sense.

 

[Adam_Vania]

i've no interest in exploring "the possible reasons for the cognitive dissonance" as it mostly seems like an exercise in intellectual back-patting. people embrace cognitive dissonance in every aspect of life, not sure why religion should be different.

furthermore most religious traditions are not monolithic, discussions/debates are a longstanding part of spiritual tradition. questioning faith is something that even happens in the Bible.

i did find it interesting to discover that "Twice Born" is a term long used to describe initiates in Hindu traditions. "Born Again" in the Christian sense seems to be a more recent usage, i wonder if there is cultural bleed-over.

 

[Dai Kaiju]

.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

I don't get this "religion is no different from any other aspect of culture" point of view. It IS different in that it is rooted in its use as a tool for manipulation/exploitation by people in power, supernatural superstition, appeals to emotion, and irrationality, not to mention its resistance to any sort of ideological evolution given changes in circumstance over time. Nations, languages, cultures, and the people that compose them all evolve over time and serve utilitarian purposes. All religion supplies is ignorance and a false sense of community, since the foundation of that community is based on fear more than anything else.

 

[deadbeef]

As a Christian with a recently reinvigorated faith, I was deeply trouble by this election. I ended up not voting. Considering that a vote is a tacit approval of the policies enacted by the administration I suffered "analysis paralysis" and felt I had no choice at all. I will likely have trouble voting in the future as well. It's very troublesome.

 

[Air]

I don't get this "religion is no different from any other aspect of culture" point of view. It IS different in that it is rooted in supernatural superstition, appeals to emotion, and irrationality, not to mention its resistance to any sort of ideological evolution given changes in circumstance over time. Nations, languages, cultures, and the people that compose them all evolve over time and serve utilitarian purposes. All religion supplies is ignorance and a false sense of community, since the foundation of that community is based on fear more than anything else.

There are plenty religions that focus on the human experience. There are also a lot of sects of larger religions that focus more on treating others with respect, dignity, etc. Also, religion isn't monolithic, it's a family of different philosophies. Morality, an understanding or an appeal to understand truth, etc. The reason you can't see it is that you've created a boogeyman out of it. It's not hard. I mean, even reading your post, it's tinged with the language of someone who doesn't want to understand religion (that's fine btw, you're free to have interest in it or not).

 

[kamineko]

The majority of the people in my family (immediate and extended) are evangelical Christians. As in, the sacrifice-your-life-for-others, help-the-helpless kind of Christians.

Do you feel that this is really an apt defining characteristic for evangelicals? In my experience, their concept of "helping" is a very limited and narrow one.

I mean, they don't want Syrian refugees, they don't want immigrants, they think the poor deserve to be poor.

Evangelical Christianity seems like a cult, honestly. There isn't anything especially Christ-like about xenophobia, greed, or an absence of empathy. They would rather buy a millionaire a second mansion than help the disadvantaged (handouts!).

I grew up in the American south as an Episcopalian. I don't practice today, but it was a rude awakening the first time I went to a Southern Baptist church. The sermon was on submission and acceptance. A choice cut (which I still remember 20 years later):

"Even if your boss is a woman, you must submit. If your boss is a negro, submit!" Like women and minority employers create the most undignified situation ever for a self-respecting white man to be in. This is a community leader, talking this way, and being taken seriously.

Like cults, there is something extrascriptural about it all. The Gospels do nothing to promote these attitudes or behaviors. Also, like cults, these institutions thrive on extreme social pressures. If all your friends and family are a part of it, then to be cast out is to be literally exiled.

I'm not promoting the use of the Gospels as a guide to life, but if you claim to be Christian you might as well look at them for a minute or two.

 

[Skiptastic]

I don't get this "religion is no different from any other aspect of culture" point of view. It IS different in that it is rooted in its use as a tool for manipulation/exploitation by people in power, supernatural superstition, appeals to emotion, and irrationality, not to mention its resistance to any sort of ideological evolution given changes in circumstance over time. Nations, languages, cultures, and the people that compose them all evolve over time and serve utilitarian purposes. All religion supplies is ignorance and a false sense of community, since the foundation of that community is based on fear more than anything else.

Some religions evolve over time. Maybe not the religion that YOU specifically were exposed to in your youth, but others clearly do.

And I would argue that if religion is a false sense of community, then all senses of community can be considered false.

 

[Bolivar687]

Why on earth is this thread still open???

First the OP claims religious people are uniquely susceptible to manipulation, depicts a condescending caricature of the Gospel, deploring our "mental gymanastics," accusing us of merely masquerading under humility and sacrifice, trivializes the unmatched good we do around the world (then somehow says it's all the same as killing someone), calls it an "insidious dependency," analogizes us to drug addicts, outright calls our faith lies, rigid and ultimately hollow. Then OP returns later down thread to confirm that the post is indeed directed at the majority of Christians and not just evangelicals.

Then we have such beautiful replies telling me that I must indeed be a weak-minded addict, susceptible to "magical thinking," that's it's all "nothing but money grubbing," a "tool for exploitation," all it spreads is ignorance and it can't possibly be anything else.

I have a graduate degree, I'm a professional, I've won academic awards and competitions, yet I'm the weak-minded addict who's deluding myself?

Why? Why are these insults tolerated here? We just had a thread this week where multiple mods established that they will ban any rhetoric that offends certain groups of people, no matter how well reasoned or supported by evidence they are. Why doesn't this apply to my background, the faith and community I love, that's changed my life and inspires everything I do?

All religion is weak-minded bullshit. It literally is the opiate of the masses. It is the ideological equivalent of a sort of "magic" which allows one to compartmentalize aspects of life they do not wish to confront and wish them away.

See the following examples:

You say that modern day conveniences that I take for granted might be doing destructive harm to our viability as a species on this planet?
Religious logic response: Climate change is a Chinese hoax. They just want to undermine our prosperity.

You say that we should treat all these brown people with respect and give them true equal opportunity.
Religious logic response: They are heathens, animals who are not "God's" chosen people. They should be exploited and swept aside.

You say that recreational habits, customs, and culture of brown people might just have some merit and wisdom.
Religious logic response: If you partake in, sympathize with, or value any of these things, you are a traitor to our superior way of life and deserve punishment.

So on and so forth...

I could understand if we wanted to make a special exception to religion compared to other backgrounds because it has a greater potential for fluidity. But how are posts like this not outright banned? Posts that ignore that we have a Pope who's talked about climate change since his election, who just two weeks ago was talking about it again with Stephen Hawking at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences? Or this narrative about Christianity justifying racism, despite the fact that the Catholic Church encompasses every culture on the planet and brings their children literacy and economic opportunity, despite the fact that the scriptural justification for racism has always been weak and debunked, that the U.S. abolitionist movement was almost entirely religious in nature, that it's membership soared after the Great Awakening, that the Civil Rights movement that ended segregation is irrefutably inseparable from the Christian ministries of its leaders?

I also see so many posts justifying their insults because of their own personal experience. That, despite the presence of religion in every language and culture, their local experience somehow must be applicable to the rest.

It depresses me that all of this here is born out of something so petty as other people voting for a different candidate than you. Never mind that we've had actual self-described evangelicals coming in here explaining why they didn't vote for Trump.

I have to admit that a great deal of posts here are discussing a variety of positions in a pleasant and productive manner. But when the point of the thread is based on untenable, hurtful, obtuse stereotypes, eliciting so many toxic echoes, and is entirely refuted by first hand accounts here and other evidence, I'm honestly surprised it has resurfaced.

This treatment is irreconcilable with other discussions and I truly wish the mods would overhaul their approach to religious discussions.

 

[Adam_Vania]

I don't get this "religion is no different from any other aspect of culture" point of view. It IS different in that it is rooted in its use as a tool for manipulation/exploitation by people in power

so is inequality/racism/greed/wealth/etc. the powerful use all culture as a tool.

supernatural superstition

this exists outside religion, and in many cases, has been adopted by religions. black cats crossing your path isn't something the bible cooked up. people still like stories about fantastic supernatural stuff, look at the new star wars about to come out.

appeals to emotion, and irrationality

much like art, music, theater, etc. so yes just like other forms of culture.

not to mention its resistance to any sort of ideological evolution given changes in circumstance over time.

maybe you missed how last year The Pope, official head of the catholic church, said atheists could be saved and welcomed our future possible alien brethren.

i think religion is different from most culture in that it mostly existed before the democratization of culture -- that is, before the printing press. before any pop culture at all, really. there were no movies, no tv, no books, no nothing. in many cases no public infrastructure either for things like schools, libraries, hospitals, jails, etc.

 

[Extollere]

For me the worst part of religion is how it mitigates death as a natural and inevitable end to one's existence. Acceptance of death as the end of the self and the demise of one's own consciousness is a difficult concept to deal with, but it's one that can lead to a very healthy and empathetic existence. Sometimes I wonder if we'd be more likely to take care of each other and the world that we share if we all accepted the very finite and brief nature of life. But no. We don't have to ever think about that cuz we're gonna live with Nana and Jesus in the sky forever. The old book promised it.

 

[Skiptastic]

For me the worst part of religion is how it mitigates death as a natural and inevitable end to one's existence. Acceptance of death as the end of the self and the demise of one's own consciousness is a difficult concept to deal with, but it's one that can lead to a very healthy and empathetic existence. Sometimes I wonder if we'd be more likely to take care of each other and the world that we share if we all accepted the very finite and brief nature of life. But no. We don't have to ever think about that cuz we're gonna live with Nana and Jesus in the sky forever. The old book promised it.

Everything has two sides to every coin. If there is nothing after death, why do I care what happens to other people? Why not live my life exactly the way I want to live it and fuck everyone else? Why be retrospective about how brief life is when I've got no skin in the game?

Religion is the same way. It can be a strong motivator to improving the environment, the lives of others around you, and being a better person. It certainly has influenced my life in a positive way that has made me more empathetic to others. It can also be used as an excuse, like "IDGAF I got Jesus/Mohammed/etc. on my side so if you aren't down with him, I'm gonna fuck your shit up or just not care about you at all".

It's naive and unfair to think of it solely as one or the other, which is why I think Bolivar had such a strong reaction. Some posts and the OP itself paint Christians with an extremely broad (and, in my eyes, unfair) brush.

 

[Not]

I consider myself an evangelical Christian, and that is WHY I couldn't vote for Trump and expressed a lot of outrage and shock at so many of my friends and family members who did.

"But son, Trump has gone to church and the Lord has forgiven him for his sins, so we should too."

There seemed to be this huge disconnect that "forgiving" someone on a personal level doesn't mean they shouldn't face consequences...

... Or that, for some odd reason, we should've held Hillary Clinton to a different standard for some reason.

I'd say, if anything, these past few months have shown that a lot of Christians don't really practice what they preach or they're far more willing to bend their values to suit their personal preferences.

I'll disagree with them. The doctrines and values I grew up with I still ascribe to proudly, and it's those same values that will forever prevent me from accepting someone like Trump's widespread bigotry, hatred, misogyny, and intolerance.

Well, bravo. This is a great post.

I know I am quoting parts of your post out of order, but I felt the other area was important to touch on first.

When it comes to politics, and I certainly do not speak for all Christians, I feel there is a greater personal conflict that many deal with and that in the end certain hurdles simply cannot be overcome. I think many are happy to lean more left and help support the less fortunate in society, but they struggle with the stance on abortion or the changing social/cultural norms that are taking more of the spotlight today than before (gender roles, LGBTQ+, etc). I don't really follow enough Christian media outlets to speak with certainty, but what few I do follow, I noticed even they were divided during the election this year. A lot did not seem to like Trump's rhetoric, but when it came to the topics I just mentioned, people quickly discarded the left as well.

I honestly do not see an answer to this problem. With how unwavering both political parties are here in the US, I can only see the divide continuing indefinitely as few people are willing to look beyond those key issues.

My goal is to calmly and reasonably expose them to rational debate. To explain how the mire of "what constitutes life" has been intentionally put in place to supersede giving women more rights, how people who appreciate America's freedom of religion laws start to mistake it for freedom to be religiously intolerant, etc.

 

[Not]

Why on earth is this thread still open???

So you could have a chance to share your expanded opinion. Pretty lucky for you, right?

First the OP claims religious people are uniquely susceptible to manipulation, depicts a condescending caricature of the Gospel, deploring our "mental gymanastics," accusing us of merely masquerading under humility and sacrifice, trivializes the unmatched good we do around the world (then somehow says it's all the same as killing someone), calls it an "insidious dependency," analogizes us to drug addicts, outright calls our faith lies, rigid and ultimately hollow. Then OP returns later down thread to confirm that the post is indeed directed at the majority of Christians and not just evangelicals.

I think this is uniquely offensive to you on a level that it may not be for others, because you have the intellectual capacity to grasp everything I'm talking about and what the implications could be. Thus, you don't simply ignore it, you get angry. I think this is at least in theory a step in a beneficial direction.

I have a graduate degree, I'm a professional, I've won academic awards and competitions, yet I'm the weak-minded addict who's deluding myself?

The most dangerous people in the world historically are intelligent people who have deceived themselves. But barring that, could you not see all of that acknowledgment that you so easily bring up to substantiate your viewpoint could possibly function as the social facilitation I was describing?

Why? Why are these insults tolerated here? We just had a thread this week where multiple mods established that they will ban any rhetoric that offends certain groups of people, no matter how well reasoned or supported by evidence they are. Why doesn't this apply to my background, the faith and community I love, that's changed my life and inspires everything I do?

Because your particular group holds far more power than the socially disparaged ones that people on this forum are banned from further disparaging. The urge to view criticism as an "insult" is not conducive to rationally conveying the ways you disagree. Several posts in this thread have been able to offer opposition to the OP in compelling ways, mainly because they don't come from a place of anger.

I could understand if we wanted to make a special exception to religion compared to other backgrounds because it has a greater potential for fluidity. But how are posts like this not outright banned? Posts that ignore that we have a Pope who's talked about climate change since his election, who just two weeks ago was talking about it again with Stephen Hawking at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences? Or this narrative about Christianity justifying racism, despite the fact that the Catholic Church encompasses every culture on the planet and brings their children literacy and economic opportunity, despite the fact that the scriptural justification for racism has always been weak and debunked, that the U.S. abolitionist movement was almost entirely religious in nature, that it's membership soared after the Great Awakening, that the Civil Rights movement that ended segregation is irrefutably inseparable from the Christian ministries of its leaders?

I also see so many posts justifying their insults because of their own personal experience. That, despite the presence of religion in every language and culture, their local experience somehow must be applicable to the rest.

It depresses me that all of this here is born out of something so petty as other people voting for a different candidate than you. Never mind that we've had actual self-described evangelicals coming in here explaining why they didn't vote for Trump.

Being able to dismiss the impact of a Trump presidency as pettiness over "voting for a different candidate than you" is pretty telling. And anyway, you've missed my point. I was trying to find reasons for disconnect in this area, not attacking all Christians who have made decisions more in line with what they say they believe.

I have to admit that a great deal of posts here are discussing a variety of positions in a pleasant and productive manner. But when the point of the thread is based on untenable, hurtful, obtuse stereotypes, eliciting so many toxic echoes, and is entirely refuted by first hand accounts here and other evidence, I'm honestly surprised it has resurfaced.

This treatment is irreconcilable with other discussions and I truly wish the mods would overhaul their approach to religious discussions.

Untenable? I've offered plenty of reasoning. Obtuse? I don't think this is a helpful cap to a post mainly protesting how Christians shouldn't be called dumb. Hurtful? Apparently, that's unavoidable.

Anecdotes and emotions and testimonial justification are, in my experience, the last outposts of otherwise intelligent evangelical Christians besieged by logic and contradictory evidence.

It is an incredibly harmful practice to equate any perceived pressure against religious beliefs to prejudice against individuals based on their skin color, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, etc. I'm not calling you an idiot for believing what you believe. In fact, if I was in your situation the prudent thing to do might be to apply the observations I've laid out to your own viewpoints and thereby strengthen them by seeing what holds up and what doesn't.

It's naive and unfair to think of it solely as one or the other, which is why I think Bolivar had such a strong reaction. Some posts and the OP itself paint Christians with an extremely broad (and, in my eyes, unfair) brush.

Well, try as I may, I don't think I'll ever outgrow naiveté.

I understand that there are exceptions. I suppose I should've added a paragraph describing them in order to balance the rest of the treatise.

 

[Chaplain]

But it doesn’t matter if you donate to that shelter. It doesn’t matter if you cheat on your spouse. Because you’ll wake up tomorrow and, whether you feel good or bad about yourself, you’ll still be RIGHT. So selflessly forgive a painful grievance. Build a well in Africa. Break up the families of immigrants via deportation. Murder another human you’ve trained yourself to think is an “enemy combatant.” It’s all the same. As long as we’re sure Jesus died for us, none of it matters. The odds of death being a lot like how it felt before you were born disappear. Existentialism disappears. Distrust in the nature of your reality disappears. The idea of loved ones being gone forever disappears.

There are many things in your original post that could be discussed at length. However, I will just respond to the quote above.

1. It doesn't matter if you willfully commit evil as a Christian.

This goes against the teachings of Christ and His apostles. Jesus said only those that live as He lived were truly His followers. In the writings of the epistles, the warning is given to Christians (throughout most of the letters) that Christians who commit evil willingly don't know God, are deceived, and will not spend eternity with God.

“Cheap grace means grace sold on the market like cheapjacks' wares. The sacraments, the forgiveness of sin, and the consolations of religion are thrown away at cut prices. Grace is represented as the Church's inexhaustible treasury, from which she showers blessings with generous hands, without asking questions or fixing limits. Grace without price; grace without cost! The essence of grace, we suppose, is that the account has been paid in advance; and, because it has been paid, everything can be had for nothing. Since the cost was infinite, the possibilities of using and spending it are infinite. What would grace be if it were not cheap?...Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate." (Theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer)

These warnings are the same warnings given to Israel in the Old Testament. Nothing has changed in that regard: God continues to call all people to know Him and love their neighbor as themselves.

"Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it a man will go and sell all that he has. It is the pearl of great price to buy which the merchant will sell all his goods. It is the kingly rule of Christ, for whose sake a man will pluck out the eye which causes him to stumble; it is the call of Jesus Christ at which the disciple leaves his nets and follows him. Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock. Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of his Son: "ye were bought at a price," and what has cost God much cannot be cheap for us. Above all, it is grace because God did not reckon his Son too dear a price to pay for our life, but delivered him up for us. Costly grace is the Incarnation of God.” (Theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer)

Any person who claims to know God but practices evil (according to Jesus) has violated the purpose for which they were created for. The problem with many Christians is that they don't grow in their faith and then continue living self-focused/self-centered lives. Something that Jesus never taught. A quote that explains my point more fully:

"Faith has three main elements. In the first place, it is trust in God. It is a confidence in the trustworthiness, fidelity and reliability of God. It is about rejoicing in his presence and power, being open to his prompting and guidance through prayer, and experiencing the motivation and comfort of the Holy Spirit. It is a deep sense of longing to be close to God, of wanting to praise his name, of being aware of his presence. In many ways, this aspect of Christian faith is like being in love with someone: you want to be with them, enjoying their presence and feeling secure with them. It concerns the heart, rather than the head; it is emotional, rather than intellectual. It is the powerhouse of Christian life, keeping us going through the difficult times and exciting us during the good times. The difficulty is that all too many people seem to get no further than this stage. Their faith can easily become nothing more than emotion. It can become superficial, lacking any real depth. It seems shallow. It has not really taken root, and is very vulnerable. Yet faith can only flourish when it sinks deep roots. There is more to faith than emotion, experience and feelings, however important they may be to you. Christianity isn’t just about experiencing God—it’s about sticking to God. A mature faith is something secure, something that you can rely on. If your faith is not deeply rooted, you will be tempted to find security in something else, only to find that this alternative will fail you (Matthew 7:24–27)." (Oxford Theologian Alister McGrath)

2. As long as we’re sure Jesus died for us, none of it matters.

Having a relationship with God is not based on merit. God initiates relationships on His terms: repentance and trusting in Jesus's resurrection. The fruit of this trust should be seen in a persons transformation of character, habits, patterns, etc.

“The history of Jesus…is the unique act of God's self-giving, in which he demonstrates his deity to the world by accomplishing salvation for the world” (Anglican scholar Richard Bauckham)

If I say I love my wife, but you see me cheating on her, what I claim to believe is false. My actions should backup my beliefs. Self-giving is one of the primary things a person who proclaims to follow Jesus will exhibit. If this isn't present, then something doesn't add up.

3. "The idea of loved ones being gone forever disappears."

While true, this doesn't remove the pain that death brings into a given situation. Earlier this year, my wife came close to dying from an infection. Then in October, something happend after her heart surgery that caused her to have three grand mal seizure's, complete paralysis on the left side of her body, and then complete memory loss (she didn't know who I was).

Now, I knew in both situations that I wouldn't be apart from her for eternity because of the hope I have in Jesus.

“The heart cry of the human race is for meaning and purpose…a need to know we are unconditionally loved in spite of our circumstances, a need to know that we are not an accident of chance but people of design, a need to know that we have a future and a hope even when everything around us seems to be falling apart.” (Oxford professor John Lennox)

However, I suffered the most painful experience in my life seeing my wife go through so much pain and suffering. On my end, my heart was breaking because of our circumstances. What gave and continues to give Christians hope is that Jesus suffered with humanity on the cross and meets us in our suffering:

“When God becomes man in Jesus of Nazareth, he not only enters into the finitude of man, but in his death on the cross also enters into the situation of man’s godforsakenness…God does not become a religion, so that man participates in him by corresponding religious thoughts and feelings. God does not become a law, so that man participates in him through obedience to a law. God does not become an ideal, so that man achieves community with him through constant striving. He humbles himself and takes upon himself the eternal death of the godless and the godforsaken, so that all the godless and the godforsaken can experience communion with him.” (Theologian Jürgen Moltmann)

Being a Christian is probably the hardest thing I have ever experienced. What you described is not the life Jesus described His followers would experience if they lived for God and His kingdom.

 

[Chaplain]

Short videos that will help with many of the misconceptions that people have about Christianity:

Imago Dei: The Image of God
"I don't believe in God. I believe in science!"
What is beauty?
Are you more than your resume?
Is belief in God just like belief in Santa Claus
Chances are... tolerance isn't what we need
Chances are... you've wondered how people can believe in a God they can't see
Chances are... you're living with unfulfilled desires
Chances are... it may not be all about stuff
Chances are... you've felt like an outsider
Why doesn't God intervene to end suffering?

 

[Not]

Game Analyst, I very much appreciate your extensive refutations. I can absolutely understand your personal adherence to the faith, and both respect and commend it, especially after reading about the personal pain that you have suffered. I can't even imagine going through that with any of my own loved ones; the thought fills me with fear and hopelessness.

That said, I'm fully aware that many of the actions I described in that paragraph aren't permissible under the Christian Biblical tenets. My point was that, due to the common practical application of evangelical Christianity, it's possible that you can deliberately commit acts that go against what you believe-- and yet, due to faith itself being the most important facet of the religion, never have the beliefs that may have allowed you to justify that behavior shaken, even a little.

 

[jfkgoblue]

Aren't born-again Christians those who convert or reignite their faith later in life rather than growing up with it? The OP seems to just be talking about the religion in general.

I thought the whole thing with born-again Christians was very prominent in the US because institutions and/or clinics for alcoholism and narcotics and such are often run by the church who embed their religious agenda into it.

No, it's a catch all term for all Christians who believe in Jesus as the messiah. It's from a bible quote.

As for your second point, that's because the churches were the only ones to actually attempt to help people with their substance abuse.

As for why people are Christian

It's pretty simple, there is a lot of comfort to be had to believe in a higher that is watching over you. It's why Christianity is extremely popular among the African American community, when other people are horrible to you, having hope for a better life and a unseen power guiding you is very appealing.

 

[Guileless]

It is an incredibly harmful practice to equate any perceived pressure against religious beliefs to prejudice against individuals based on their skin color, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, etc.

Do you think your version of morality is the only one that can make truth claims which result in certain actions being considered right and good and others being considered wrong and bad? You made a thread criticizing the moral certainty of Evangelical Christianity, and you are preaching in it.

 

[Hastati]

Not, that was a beautifully written post, thank you for sharing.

It also speaks to why modern social media can be so dangerous, with its constant comforts and group affirmation-based funnelling of contrasting ideas and viewpoints into homogenized "truths" that spread like wildfire. It seems like people are very much dominated by their impulses however, and I don't find it likely that we will ever change unless we are genetically re-engineered, at which point we are no longer us.

 

[digdug2k]

As a Christian with a recently reinvigorated faith, I was deeply trouble by this election. I ended up not voting. Considering that a vote is a tacit approval of the policies enacted by the administration I suffered "analysis paralysis" and felt I had no choice at all. I will likely have trouble voting in the future as well. It's very troublesome.

What kept you from voting Hillary? Abortion? Just guessing because I heard a lot of that from former Christian friends on Facebook. One thing I regret from this election is not pushing back every time I saw a "Hillary wants to kill fetuses at 9 months!" meme go by. EDIT: But beyond that issue, I still don't understand why so many of them were writing "I hate Trump, but I just can't get myself to vote for Hillary."

 

[Guileless]

But beyond that issue, I still don't understand why so many of them were writing "I hate Trump, but I just can't get myself to vote for Hillary."

I’ve heard from a number of evangelicals who, despite their reservations about the man, ended up voting for Donald Trump because they fear that the left is out to build a world where it will not be possible to hold any prominent job while holding onto their church’s beliefs about sexuality. Discussions I’ve had in recent days with nice, well-meaning progressives suggest that this is not a paranoid fantasy. An online publisher's witch hunt against two television personalities -- because of the church they attend -- validates the fears of these Christians.

When you think that you may shortly see your church’s schools and your religious hospitals closed, and your job or business threatened in the private sphere by the economic equivalent of “convert or die,” you will side with whoever does not seem to set its sights on your conservative beliefs. If that side is led by an intemperate man who more than occasionally says awful things … well, at least he doesn’t want to destroy you.

Via

 

[Angry Grimace]

There's a million reasons why religiosity is so prevalent in the world, but I would think the biggest one is the sense of community.

 

[7DollarHagane]

This is the problem with born again Christianity. The Bible says that no one can save themselves through their own actions, and that only God knows someone's faith. Also that someone with faith the size of a mustard seed will be saved.

It's not about confessing or being born again. It's about actually having that belief and if you actually believe it, living to the fullest how Jesus described in the Bible - loving all others above yourself, even the ones that disagree with you.

 

[Lord Frieza]

Via

Basically, they want empathy without giving any to other groups. They want special rights for their beliefs over equal ones for everyone they have to deal with. I mean, yeah, sounds about right I guess, as nicely as the article writer has tried to write it and all.

 

[Guileless]

Article about Sec. Clinton's lack of outreach to evangelicals during the campaign, by Ruth Graham:

In 2008, candidate Barack Obama sat down for an interview during the primary with the evangelical magazine Christianity Today. He spoke about his conversion, his longtime church membership, and his belief in “the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.” He said abortion should be less common and that “those who diminish the moral elements of the decision aren't expressing the full reality of it.” The interview was a valentine to evangelicals, and inside it read: “I’m listening.”

This election cycle, Christianity Today made multiple attempts to request an interview with Hillary Clinton, according to Kate Shellnutt, an editor there. The campaign never responded. Of course, campaigns turn down interview requests all the time. But the Clinton campaign was the only one that didn’t reply at all. And this wasn’t the only sign this year that the Democratic candidate had no interest in speaking to evangelical Christians. She spent little energy explaining her views on abortion to them and little time talking about religious freedom. She didn’t hire a full-time faith outreach director until June and had no one focused specifically on evangelical outreach. She didn’t give a major speech to the evangelical community and never met publicly with evangelical leaders. Religious publications reaching out to her campaign with questions were frequently met with silence. Some evangelical insiders are now asking: Why didn’t Hillary Clinton even try to get us to vote for her?

White evangelicals make up about one-quarter of the electorate, a huge group to ignore in an election that turned out to be won by very narrow margins in a handful of key states... “Not to have anyone reaching out to a quarter of the electorate is political malpractice,” the Obama campaign’s 2012 faith outreach director, Michael Wear, told me. Wear, whose book Reclaiming Hope: Lessons Learned from the Obama White House About the Future of Faith in America will be published in January, wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post recently that argued that the “simple difference between Obama’s two presidential campaigns and Clinton’s 2016 campaign is that Obama asked for the votes of white evangelicals and Clinton did not”...

“I find it dumbfounding and incredibly stupid that the Democratic Party and her campaign didn’t reach out to try to engage a segment of the white evangelical community,” said Ron Sider, a theologian and founder of the progressive Evangelicals for Social Action. “Apparently they thought they could win without us.” Obama met with Sider and other Christian leaders in 2008 to discuss issues, including the rights of faith-based organizations to make hiring decisions based on their religious commitments, an issue of increasing importance to conservative Christian organizations that exclude employees who affirm same-sex relationships. This year, Sider said, “there was an effort to reach out to Hillary and have that conversation, and that effort went nowhere.”

 

[HiredN00bs]

I have a graduate degree, I'm a professional, I've won academic awards and competitions, yet I'm the weak-minded addict who's deluding myself?

We are all capable of being addicted, deluded, and completely unaware of how severely we are so. That is the very nature of delusion. And accomplished and intelligent people are not immune to it.

Is faith a reliable means to discern truth, in your opinion? Is it a reliable means to anything? Why do you believe?

 

[MattKeil]

I have a graduate degree, I'm a professional, I've won academic awards and competitions, yet I'm the weak-minded addict who's deluding myself?

If you believe in evangelical Christianity, a literalist belief system that not only can offer zero evidence for the validity of its worldview but actively attempts to impress that belief system on reality itself by forcing non-believers to adhere to its social viewpoint, then yes, I would say so. All the supposed qualifications you list are irrelevant, no matter how related you seem to think they are. Being an expert chef doesn't mean you're any good in a knife fight.

 

[deadbeef]

What kept you from voting Hillary? Abortion? Just guessing because I heard a lot of that from former Christian friends on Facebook. One thing I regret from this election is not pushing back every time I saw a "Hillary wants to kill fetuses at 9 months!" meme go by. EDIT: But beyond that issue, I still don't understand why so many of them were writing "I hate Trump, but I just can't get myself to vote for Hillary."

I've kind of side-stepped taking a real stand for any political party my whole life. My first presidential election I voted in was 1996, but before that I was kind of taken in by Ross Perot, so the idea of a third party appealed to me even at a young age. So, I've more or less been lodging protest votes ever since then. It's a cop-out I know. I live in one of the most conservative states in the nation, so voting feels quite ineffective.

I don't conflate my faith with any sort of political position. Like I said, I have a recently reinvigorated faith, but it would be more honest to say that I'm a reformed deist or agnostic, if not an occasional atheist. I understand that the issues that are made to seem so black and white are actually quite nuanced. I believe that life begins at conception, and so abortion is wrong. But capital punishment is also wrong. There are many many things wrong with the world.

I feel like being a Christian puts me at perpendicular odds with the political spectrum, if that makes sense.

I'm still figuring a lot of this stuff out, so I know this isn't a great explanation of anything, unlike some of the more eloquent posters in this thread. Sorry :/

 

[Not]

Do you think your version of morality is the only one that can make truth claims which result in certain actions being considered right and good and others being considered wrong and bad? You made a thread criticizing the moral certainty of Evangelical Christianity, and you are preaching in it.

Not the moral certainty. This is something a lot of people in this thread are misunderstanding, so it must be the fault of my original writing. I just meant to present alternatives to certainty itself, that there is easily understandable truth, life after death, and forgiveness of sins simply via accepting someone else's point of view.

It's sometimes really hard to state an opposing argument without sounding a little preachy, or that I believe with absolute sureness that my own thoughts are incontrovertibly correct. Is there a method in your eyes that could keep me from doing this in the future, or does it come down to my argument itself rather than the way I'm conveying it?

Via

I'm trying very hard here, based on my knowledge of how America treats marginalized groups compared to white Christians, to not feel that this is chiefly a result of paranoia based on a lack of exposure to real persecution.

 

[Lord Frieza]

Article about Sec. Clinton's lack of outreach to evangelicals during the campaign, by Ruth Graham:

While I think she should have had an attempt, Clinton outreaching to the evangelical community would have been pointless.

 

[tearsofash]

God's forgiveness is like crack. That's why.

Knowing you're bad, but knowing there's always something you can do about it. It's a constant push-pull and you always need your fix.

At least that's my perspective as a former Christian/forced to go to church 3 times a week/forced to go to Christian school under threat of homelessness kind of person.

 

[Not]

God's forgiveness is like crack. That's why.

Knowing you're bad, but knowing there's always something you can do about it. It's a constant push-pull and you always need your fix.

At least that's my perspective as a former Christian/forced to go to church 3 times a week/forced to go to Christian school under threat of homelessness kind of person.

There. There it is. A much more succinct way to say what I was trying to say.

 

[Guileless]

I'm trying very hard here, based on my knowledge of how America treats marginalized groups compared to white Christians, to not feel that this is chiefly a result of paranoia based on a lack of exposure to real persecution.

It doesn't hurt to try. Consider Sean Trende, writing on the election and the (once) widely-held theory that Democrats were building an enduring majority based on demographics:

Two points demand attention. The first, which “demographics-is-destiny” types typically gloss over, is that Trump received more votes from white evangelicals than Clinton received from African-Americans and Hispanics combined. This single group very nearly cancels the Democrats’ advantage among non-whites completely. This isn’t a one-off; it was true in 2012, 2008 and 2004.

Second, you may wonder why this group voted in historic numbers for a man like Trump. Perhaps, as some have suggested, they are hypocrites. Perhaps they are merely partisans. But I will make a further suggestion: They are scared.

Consider that over the course of the past few years, Democrats and liberals have: booed the inclusion of God in their platform at the 2012 convention (this is disputed, but it is the perception); endorsed a regulation that would allow transgendered students to use the bathroom and locker room corresponding to their identity; attempted to force small businesses to cover drugs they believe induce abortions; attempted to force nuns to provide contraceptive coverage; forced Brendan Eich to step down as chief executive officer of Mozilla due to his opposition to marriage equality; fined a small Christian bakery over $140,000 for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding; vigorously opposed a law in Indiana that would provide protections against similar regulations – despite having overwhelmingly supported similar laws when they protected Native American religious rights – and then scoured the Indiana countryside trying to find a business that would be affected by the law before settling upon a small pizza place in the middle of nowhere and harassing the owners. In 2015, the United States solicitor general suggested that churches might lose their tax exempt status if they refused to perform same-sex marriages. In 2016, the Democratic nominee endorsed repealing the Hyde Amendment, thereby endorsing federal funding for elective abortions. Democrats seemingly took up the position endorsed by critical legal theorist Mark Tushnet:

The culture wars are over; they lost, we won. . . . For liberals, the question now is how to deal with the losers in the culture wars. That’s mostly a question of tactics. My own judgment is that taking a hard line (“You lost, live with it”) is better than trying to accommodate the losers, who – remember – defended, and are defending, positions that liberals regard as having no normative pull at all. Trying to be nice to the losers didn’t work well after the Civil War, nor after Brown. (And taking a hard line seemed to work reasonably well in Germany and Japan after 1945.) I should note that LGBT activists in particular seem to have settled on the hard-line approach, while some liberal academics defend more accommodating approaches. When specific battles in the culture wars were being fought, it might have made sense to try to be accommodating after a local victory, because other related fights were going on, and a hard line might have stiffened the opposition in those fights. But the war’s over, and we won.​

Perhaps comparing evangelicals to the Japanese in World War II was a bit much, and helped push evangelicals into a defensive crouch. Before my Democratic friends warm up their keyboards to protest “but we’re correct,” let me say that on some of these issues I agree with you! My point here is descriptive, not prescriptive. An aggressive approach to the culture wars and the sneering condescension of the Samantha Bees and John Olivers of the world may be warranted, but it also probably cost liberals their best chance in a generation to take control of the Supreme Court. That’s a pretty steep price to pay. It may well be that Democrats would be better able to achieve their goals if they were less, for lack of a better word, fundamentalist about those goals. Henry Clay famously declared that he would rather be right than president; he at least got his way on the latter.

 

[Lord Frieza]

It doesn't hurt to try. Consider Sean Trende, writing on the election and the (once) widely-held theory that Democrats were building an enduring majority based on demographics:

So, pretty much, compromise for them, but never hold them up to compromise. Fuck over those who are lesser rights, for those who have better rights, because the latter is 'scared' of people having equal rights to them.

I mean, at the end of the day, that's what's being said, so matter how prettily it's written.