Please educate me about Evangelical Christianity

[rousseau]

As with every self identification label, there is a very wide spectrum of those who choose the label.

Your basic Christian evangelist is one who feels a need to tell others about Christianity, with the hope others will come to believe Jesus is their Savior. Generally, a lot of cultural baggage will come along with this. Evangelical religions are a contrast to those where one is born into the belief system, and later conversion is a fairly rare thing.

Back in the 90s, I had many friends who were in a small evangelical church. The land they owned was too small to build a conventional church, so they held worship services in the chapel of a nearby Episcopal School. They turned their land into a vegetable garden which gave all the produce to a local food bank. Their evangelism was very low key. Members were active in prison ministries, where they conducted religious services for inmates and scheduled visits with inmates who did not get visits from friends or family. This was not taken lightly. The drive to the state prison is 3 hours, one way. Their other projects were sponsoring refugees from Sudan and helping them settle in the area. I can honestly say, I've never met so many kind hearted and generous people in any church.

The church itself was supported mostly by a small group of well off parishioners whose monthly tithes covered the expenses, mainly the salary for the minister and a small staff. Since there was no actual church building, a youth program was not really practical and even the Sudanese families preferred churches which offered Sunday school classes. Eventually those supporting the church went to their reward, whatever it might have been and the church was no longer financially viable.

Reminded me of this Onion article..

Local Church Full Of Brainwashed Idiots Feeds Town’s Poor Every Week

 

[rousseau]

Never judge a human by his or her label.

Bingo!

I judge them by whether they worship that label or value it above human well being, as most strains of Christianity do.

It sounds like a bit of a contradiction to me between I judge them and if they don't value human well being. If you're adamant about human well-being, shouldn't others be universally approached with understanding, rather than judgement?

 

[Angry Floof]

I judge them by whether they worship that label or value it above human well being, as most strains of Christianity do.

It sounds like a bit of a contradiction to me between I judge them and if they don't value human well being. If you're adamant about human well-being, shouldn't others be universally approached with understanding, rather than judgement?

For fuck's sake. Everyone judges. If you have a human brain, you judge in some way. But do you judge people by superficial or inhumane standards? Do you judge them by their behavior or character or effect of their actions or intellectual honesty?

I judge inhumane ideology as inhumane. I judge zealotry as zealotry. I judge people by their behavior, including their willingness to consider whether their world view is humane. I judge people by whether or not they are willing to look past the ends of their noses at what their choices and beliefs contribute to the world we all have to live in.

Valuing the magical group identity above the well being of others will always be a source of suffering and atrocity in our world. It will always contribute war, conflict, prejudice, hate mongering, and us vs. them animal brain fear aggression.

You can use your human ability to judge mindlessly and reflexively or you can do it realistically and intelligently. You can base your judgements in knee-jerk, pop culture derived or religion derived superficial standards or you can rub some brain cells together and consider actual character, behavior, and harm to others. Why is this rocket science?

 

[rousseau]

I judge them by whether they worship that label or value it above human well being, as most strains of Christianity do.

It sounds like a bit of a contradiction to me between I judge them and if they don't value human well being. If you're adamant about human well-being, shouldn't others be universally approached with understanding, rather than judgement?

For fuck's sake. Everyone judges. If you have a human brain, you judge in some way. But do you judge people by superficial or inhumane standards? Do you judge them by their behavior or character or effect of their actions or intellectual honesty?

I judge inhumane ideology as inhumane. I judge zealotry as zealotry. I judge people by their behavior, including their willingness to consider whether their world view is humane. I judge people by whether or not they are willing to look past the ends of their noses at what their choices and beliefs contribute to the world we all have to live in.

Valuing the magical group identity above the well being of others will always be a source of suffering and atrocity in our world. It will always contribute war, conflict, prejudice, hate mongering, and us vs. them animal brain fear aggression.

You can use your human ability to judge mindlessly and reflexively or you can do it realistically and intelligently. You can base your judgements in knee-jerk, pop culture derived or religion derived superficial standards or you can rub some brain cells together and consider actual character, behavior, and harm to others. Why is this rocket science?

The problem from my perspective is that if the conditions of others people's lives were different they could be you, and not who they are. If they had the right education, intellect, background etc they might not think the way they do, but because of a combination of background and biology they are who they are.

If we can, on one hand, make statements like 'people are unfortunate and a product of their circumstances' so we should grant them economic freedom, but then say 'they aren't unfortunate, and not a product of their circumstances' when it comes to them doing things we don't like, there's a contradiction there.

But in either case my point is largely that I don't know if anyone benefits by coming from a place of judgement rather than understanding. Shaming someone who doesn't think how you want them to think will likely be counter-productive.

 

[southernhybrid]

I try not to judge people because I don't think we have free will, or at least not much free will. We are all influenced by genetics, how we were raised and other environmental influences. One of my sisters is still a Christian, but I'm not sure if she identifies as an evangelical. She gets upset when I try to discuss religion with her, and I think she still worries that I'm going to hell. Ya know what? That's her burden, not mine. She suffers from anxiety and has had bouts of depression. She was constantly bullied by our father, so it would be wrong for me to judge her. Sometimes she drives me nuts, but I still love her and usually enjoy our conversations.

And, I know some really good Christians who don't judge me for being an atheist. Or course, I won't judge you for how you feel either Floof. We have all had different experiences and interactions that lead us to feel a certain way. Besides, I was a nurse for 42 years and the my number one rule for caring for people was never to judge them, and treat them all equally. Sometimes that's hard. I wish all nurses and doctors would remember that rule. I also wish that all Christians would remember my favorite Bible verse. To paraphrase, don't judge other people or you too will be judged. I know some Christians have weird interpretations for that simple rule, but it's pretty clear to me. Besides, we all interpret fiction or poetry in different ways.

Even the 92 year old woman who thinks we atheists have been inspired by Satan is a decent person. She's just been brainwashed her entire life and doesn't know any better. Not everyone is able to discard those crazy things that they've been taught to believe.

If your religion can't be used in a positive, loving way, then it's better to discard it.

 

[Angry Floof]

For fuck's sake. Everyone judges. If you have a human brain, you judge in some way. But do you judge people by superficial or inhumane standards? Do you judge them by their behavior or character or effect of their actions or intellectual honesty?

I judge inhumane ideology as inhumane. I judge zealotry as zealotry. I judge people by their behavior, including their willingness to consider whether their world view is humane. I judge people by whether or not they are willing to look past the ends of their noses at what their choices and beliefs contribute to the world we all have to live in.

Valuing the magical group identity above the well being of others will always be a source of suffering and atrocity in our world. It will always contribute war, conflict, prejudice, hate mongering, and us vs. them animal brain fear aggression.

You can use your human ability to judge mindlessly and reflexively or you can do it realistically and intelligently. You can base your judgements in knee-jerk, pop culture derived or religion derived superficial standards or you can rub some brain cells together and consider actual character, behavior, and harm to others. Why is this rocket science?

The problem from my perspective is that if the conditions of others people's lives were different they could be you, and not who they are. If they had the right education, intellect, background etc they might not think the way they do, but because of a combination of background and biology they are who they are.

If we can, on one hand, make statements like 'people are unfortunate and a product of their circumstances' so we should grant them economic freedom, but then say 'they aren't unfortunate, and not a product of their circumstances' when it comes to them doing things we don't like, there's a contradiction there.

But in either case my point is largely that I don't know if anyone benefits by coming from a place of judgement rather than understanding. Shaming someone who doesn't think how you want them to think will likely be counter-productive.

I disagree. Shaming is a powerful force. I do agree that often it's used badly and hurts people for no reason, but shaming absolutely does influence people to think about what they are contributing to in the world and especially those whose world view values shaming outgroups for the most stupid and inhumane reasons.

And yeah, it's true that everyone does the best they can in their circumstances, and so sometimes someone like me pointing out the inhumane nature of the culture they mindlessly propagate ends up landing squarely within their circumstances.

I know there's a common belief that arguing with people over their beliefs doesn't do any good, but that's false. It's completely false. An individual feeling on the spot at having their treasured ideological identity challenged might dig in deeper temporarily, but seeds are still planted, and in the age of social media, any exchange that challenges people's assumptions and indoctrination is potentially seen by a great many people who are not personally involved in the discussion and so have an emotional distance, which means they are in a position to be more open to changing their minds or at least being curious about something they never questioned before.

The world needs gadflies and dissenters.

 

[Angry Floof]

I try not to judge people because I don't think we have free will, or at least not much free will. We are all influenced by genetics, how we were raised and other environmental influences. One of my sisters is still a Christian, but I'm not sure if she identifies as an evangelical. She gets upset when I try to discuss religion with her, and I think she still worries that I'm going to hell. Ya know what? That's her burden, not mine. She suffers from anxiety and has had bouts of depression. She was constantly bullied by our father, so it would be wrong for me to judge her. Sometimes she drives me nuts, but I still love her and usually enjoy our conversations.

And, I know some really good Christians who don't judge me for being an atheist. Or course, I won't judge you for how you feel either Floof. We have all had different experiences and interactions that lead us to feel a certain way. Besides, I was a nurse for 42 years and the my number one rule for caring for people was never to judge them, and treat them all equally. Sometimes that's hard. I wish all nurses and doctors would remember that rule. I also wish that all Christians would remember my favorite Bible verse. To paraphrase, don't judge other people or you too will be judged. I know some Christians have weird interpretations for that simple rule, but it's pretty clear to me. Besides, we all interpret fiction or poetry in different ways.

Even the 92 year old woman who thinks we atheists have been inspired by Satan is a decent person. She's just been brainwashed her entire life and doesn't know any better. Not everyone is able to discard those crazy things that they've been taught to believe.

If your religion can't be used in a positive, loving way, then it's better to discard it.

I agree with all of that. Every Trump supporter, within their personal bubble of existence, is a decent person, a good neighbor, etc., believing they are on the side of right. And if they have no free will over their choice to follow blindly instead of questioning, then I have no free will over my choice to expose them to the reality of what their ideology gives rise to in the world beyond their noses. If you're gonna say "there's no free will" to excuse one behavior, then you can excuse anything and you might as well turn off your frontal lobes.

And honestly, I don't care if you judge me for what I believe. I'm ok with what I believe. It's keeping people on the topic of judging ideas that is annoying, and that's not personal.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

There is a big difference between the kindly and inoffensive Christians who do good works and feed the poor and the toxic and stupid Christians who support offensive political candidates and religious con men/pastors and minsters. We have far too many of these sorts of toxic cultural warriors, filling too many heads with bad religious ideas.

 

[Angry Floof]

There is a big difference between the kindly and inoffensive Christians who do good works and feed the poor and the toxic and stupid Christians who support offensive political candidates and religious con men/pastors and minsters. We have far too many of these sorts of toxic cultural warriors, filling too many heads with bad religious ideas.

I think the source of offensive Christianity lies in not just the more abused and distorted teachings, but the combination of horrible ideas plus the human sociology and psychology of group identity. Those benign, good hearted Christians contribute to the wider tribe of Christianity.

And they often quickly become not-so-benign or goodhearted when you ask them if the well being of their tribe of seven billion should be more important to them than that tribal label, if their humanness - because it's real and we all share it - should be valued more than religious ideology.

Religious people worship and identify with their ideological labels, not God. Test it out if you don't believe me. Ask them to throw away a label, which is decidedly NOT a god, right? and ask them to do so because the label has been poisoned against humanity and by continuing to carry it, they contribute to that poisonous tribalism. I mean, God is not a label, right? Wouldn't that be blasphemy or something to assert such a thing? Yet, the label is what they cling to and will consider questioning that label as meaningless to be no less than an attack on them personally and their God.

They need that label, that group identity, that cultural (tribal) narrative. That's what is actually at play in the social and psychological dynamics of at least mainstream denominations of Christianity, if not all forms bearing that name.

As I said, test it out. Ask your Christian friends if they worship the label, the ordinary human tendency to tribalism, and not actually God. Ask them if the label equates to God, etc. You won't find a single one that will value humankind above that ordinary human (not at all divine) behavior of carrying group identity labels.

 

[rousseau]

For fuck's sake. Everyone judges. If you have a human brain, you judge in some way. But do you judge people by superficial or inhumane standards? Do you judge them by their behavior or character or effect of their actions or intellectual honesty?

I judge inhumane ideology as inhumane. I judge zealotry as zealotry. I judge people by their behavior, including their willingness to consider whether their world view is humane. I judge people by whether or not they are willing to look past the ends of their noses at what their choices and beliefs contribute to the world we all have to live in.

Valuing the magical group identity above the well being of others will always be a source of suffering and atrocity in our world. It will always contribute war, conflict, prejudice, hate mongering, and us vs. them animal brain fear aggression.

You can use your human ability to judge mindlessly and reflexively or you can do it realistically and intelligently. You can base your judgements in knee-jerk, pop culture derived or religion derived superficial standards or you can rub some brain cells together and consider actual character, behavior, and harm to others. Why is this rocket science?

The problem from my perspective is that if the conditions of others people's lives were different they could be you, and not who they are. If they had the right education, intellect, background etc they might not think the way they do, but because of a combination of background and biology they are who they are.

If we can, on one hand, make statements like 'people are unfortunate and a product of their circumstances' so we should grant them economic freedom, but then say 'they aren't unfortunate, and not a product of their circumstances' when it comes to them doing things we don't like, there's a contradiction there.

But in either case my point is largely that I don't know if anyone benefits by coming from a place of judgement rather than understanding. Shaming someone who doesn't think how you want them to think will likely be counter-productive.

I disagree. Shaming is a powerful force. I do agree that often it's used badly and hurts people for no reason, but shaming absolutely does influence people to think about what they are contributing to in the world and especially those whose world view values shaming outgroups for the most stupid and inhumane reasons.

This isn't borne out by my experience and observation. To me it seems like most politically active people consistently shame the opposition, and all it does is lead to division and polarity. The left is constantly trying to 'fix' the right by being understood, while not seeking to understand the right themselves. Where the right is doing the same and trying to fix the left by being understood, while not seeking to understand them either. To me that's the power of seeking to understand. If this shaming worked in changing the world-view of those who are diametrically opposed to us, all of our ails would have been solved by now, because everybody is doing it.

What I see shaming do more often is force group-think, and for in-group members to fall in line and not question authority. Most ideologies are fairly persistent and consistent for the very fact that if people question them they're met with hostility because the new viewpoint is obviously wrong. This can be pernicious because those who believe they're in the right might not be seeing the complete picture themselves.

And yeah, it's true that everyone does the best they can in their circumstances, and so sometimes someone like me pointing out the inhumane nature of the culture they mindlessly propagate ends up landing squarely within their circumstances.

I know there's a common belief that arguing with people over their beliefs doesn't do any good, but that's false. It's completely false. An individual feeling on the spot at having their treasured ideological identity challenged might dig in deeper temporarily, but seeds are still planted, and in the age of social media, any exchange that challenges people's assumptions and indoctrination is potentially seen by a great many people who are not personally involved in the discussion and so have an emotional distance, which means they are in a position to be more open to changing their minds or at least being curious about something they never questioned before.

The world needs gadflies and dissenters.

I agree that this is false, but if your goal is planting seeds I think you're going to be much more effective by appealing to someone's self-interest, than treating them negatively. I've been there, done it - corrected people and humiliated them publicly (albeit unknowingly) and it accomplished nothing but severing the relationship, and any further chance of influence I once had.

People tend to listen and open up to you if you make them feel good and comfortable, which is again why I believe seeking to understand others before criticizing them is so important.

 

[rousseau]

I try not to judge people because I don't think we have free will, or at least not much free will. We are all influenced by genetics, how we were raised and other environmental influences. One of my sisters is still a Christian, but I'm not sure if she identifies as an evangelical. She gets upset when I try to discuss religion with her, and I think she still worries that I'm going to hell. Ya know what? That's her burden, not mine. She suffers from anxiety and has had bouts of depression. She was constantly bullied by our father, so it would be wrong for me to judge her. Sometimes she drives me nuts, but I still love her and usually enjoy our conversations.

And, I know some really good Christians who don't judge me for being an atheist. Or course, I won't judge you for how you feel either Floof. We have all had different experiences and interactions that lead us to feel a certain way. Besides, I was a nurse for 42 years and the my number one rule for caring for people was never to judge them, and treat them all equally. Sometimes that's hard. I wish all nurses and doctors would remember that rule. I also wish that all Christians would remember my favorite Bible verse. To paraphrase, don't judge other people or you too will be judged. I know some Christians have weird interpretations for that simple rule, but it's pretty clear to me. Besides, we all interpret fiction or poetry in different ways.

Even the 92 year old woman who thinks we atheists have been inspired by Satan is a decent person. She's just been brainwashed her entire life and doesn't know any better. Not everyone is able to discard those crazy things that they've been taught to believe.

If your religion can't be used in a positive, loving way, then it's better to discard it.

I agree with all of that. Every Trump supporter, within their personal bubble of existence, is a decent person, a good neighbor, etc., believing they are on the side of right. And if they have no free will over their choice to follow blindly instead of questioning, then I have no free will over my choice to expose them to the reality of what their ideology gives rise to in the world beyond their noses. If you're gonna say "there's no free will" to excuse one behavior, then you can excuse anything and you might as well turn off your frontal lobes.

And honestly, I don't care if you judge me for what I believe. I'm ok with what I believe. It's keeping people on the topic of judging ideas that is annoying, and that's not personal.

I don't think the 'no free will' argument is there to excuse behavior per se, but is instead a condition which should cause us to reflect on the source of the behavior.

If someone does something obviously bad and against social norms, they need to be corrected, but how we approach correcting them matters. Our impact is more important than our intent.

Take an article like this one:

This school replaced detention with meditation. The Results are stunning

Common wisdom for a very long time was that kids who misbehaved needed to be punished. Wasn't working. As soon as someone thought to treat them humanely it actually caused behavioral change.

 

[Angry Floof]

I try not to judge people because I don't think we have free will, or at least not much free will. We are all influenced by genetics, how we were raised and other environmental influences. One of my sisters is still a Christian, but I'm not sure if she identifies as an evangelical. She gets upset when I try to discuss religion with her, and I think she still worries that I'm going to hell. Ya know what? That's her burden, not mine. She suffers from anxiety and has had bouts of depression. She was constantly bullied by our father, so it would be wrong for me to judge her. Sometimes she drives me nuts, but I still love her and usually enjoy our conversations.

And, I know some really good Christians who don't judge me for being an atheist. Or course, I won't judge you for how you feel either Floof. We have all had different experiences and interactions that lead us to feel a certain way. Besides, I was a nurse for 42 years and the my number one rule for caring for people was never to judge them, and treat them all equally. Sometimes that's hard. I wish all nurses and doctors would remember that rule. I also wish that all Christians would remember my favorite Bible verse. To paraphrase, don't judge other people or you too will be judged. I know some Christians have weird interpretations for that simple rule, but it's pretty clear to me. Besides, we all interpret fiction or poetry in different ways.

Even the 92 year old woman who thinks we atheists have been inspired by Satan is a decent person. She's just been brainwashed her entire life and doesn't know any better. Not everyone is able to discard those crazy things that they've been taught to believe.

If your religion can't be used in a positive, loving way, then it's better to discard it.

I agree with all of that. Every Trump supporter, within their personal bubble of existence, is a decent person, a good neighbor, etc., believing they are on the side of right. And if they have no free will over their choice to follow blindly instead of questioning, then I have no free will over my choice to expose them to the reality of what their ideology gives rise to in the world beyond their noses. If you're gonna say "there's no free will" to excuse one behavior, then you can excuse anything and you might as well turn off your frontal lobes.

And honestly, I don't care if you judge me for what I believe. I'm ok with what I believe. It's keeping people on the topic of judging ideas that is annoying, and that's not personal.

I don't think the 'no free will' argument is there to excuse behavior per se, but is instead a condition which should cause us to reflect on the source of the behavior.

If someone does something obviously bad and against social norms, they need to be corrected, but how we approach correcting them matters. Our impact is more important than our intent.

Take an article like this one:

This school replaced detention with meditation. The Results are stunning

Common wisdom for a very long time was that kids who misbehaved needed to be punished. Wasn't working. As soon as someone thought to treat them humanely it actually caused behavioral change.

That's a program and an idea that I promote and have been doing so for many years now. Very weird that you would use that as an example to show me ... what, exactly? I don't shame children or punish them for being human. I shame religious ideologues, the very people who seek to shame and punish children and actively fight against such programs and pull them out of schools and prisons due to backward religious zealotry.

So are you suggesting that religious zealots are innocent children? Because, again, even if none of us has free will, then I have no free will in choosing to challenge inhumane ideas and depraved religious world views.

But on the off chance that I do have free will and can choose after all, I choose the humane view, even if it gets under the skin of people like you who for whatever reason just can't abide criticism of depraved ideologies.

If I don't have free will, and have no say in what is influencing me to speak the truth and have the wherewithal to challenge religious stupidity, then I am thankful for those influences, whatever they are.

What a relief to know that, without a choice in where I stand or what I speak out about, the universe lands me on the side of intellectual honesty and not on lazy avoidance of social discomfort.

Either way, you've strayed so far in whatever misrepresentation of my comments in your head that it doesn't really matter. It's like you have a personal stake in misrepresenting me. Meh. Keep droning in that shifting goal post narrative for all I care.

 

[steve_bank]

One of the Evangelical response to questions about Trump's morality, 'We know he is immoral, but god works in mysterious ways. God sent Trump to help Christians'.

That is representative of Evangelical thinking.

 

[rousseau]

That's a program and an idea that I promote and have been doing so for many years now. Very weird that you would use that as an example to show me ... what, exactly?

It demonstrates that humane treatment tends to affect change, and inhumane treatment only instills hatred and fear. Which goes back to the original point that if religious people are acting awful, it'll probably only make it worse if they're treated inhumanely by outsiders. Probably something most people at this forum need to etch on the wall a few times.

I don't think no one can change because they don't have free will, but they're more likely to change if approached from a perspective of hope and love.

Anyway I'll wrap it up there, thanks for the exchange and enjoy your weekend.

 

[Bronzeage]

As with every self identification label, there is a very wide spectrum of those who choose the label.

Your basic Christian evangelist is one who feels a need to tell others about Christianity, with the hope others will come to believe Jesus is their Savior. Generally, a lot of cultural baggage will come along with this. Evangelical religions are a contrast to those where one is born into the belief system, and later conversion is a fairly rare thing.

Back in the 90s, I had many friends who were in a small evangelical church. The land they owned was too small to build a conventional church, so they held worship services in the chapel of a nearby Episcopal School. They turned their land into a vegetable garden which gave all the produce to a local food bank. Their evangelism was very low key. Members were active in prison ministries, where they conducted religious services for inmates and scheduled visits with inmates who did not get visits from friends or family. This was not taken lightly. The drive to the state prison is 3 hours, one way. Their other projects were sponsoring refugees from Sudan and helping them settle in the area. I can honestly say, I've never met so many kind hearted and generous people in any church.

The church itself was supported mostly by a small group of well off parishioners whose monthly tithes covered the expenses, mainly the salary for the minister and a small staff. Since there was no actual church building, a youth program was not really practical and even the Sudanese families preferred churches which offered Sunday school classes. Eventually those supporting the church went to their reward, whatever it might have been and the church was no longer financially viable.

Reminded me of this Onion article..

Local Church Full Of Brainwashed Idiots Feeds Town’s Poor Every Week

For the most part, they were well educated upper middle class people. When I look back at that time, I remember a group of people who believed they were blessed and this obligated them to try to make life better for others.

 

[southernhybrid]

So are you suggesting that religious zealots are innocent children? Because, again, even if none of us has free will, then I have no free will in choosing to challenge inhumane ideas and depraved religious world views.

But on the off chance that I do have free will and can choose after all, I choose the humane view, even if it gets under the skin of people like you who for whatever reason just can't abide criticism of depraved ideologies.

If I don't have free will, and have no say in what is influencing me to speak the truth and have the wherewithal to challenge religious stupidity, then I am thankful for those influences, whatever they are.

I agree that you and I will also react based on my genetic and environmental influences. Religious zealots aren't children. I see them as damaged adults who have been manipulated by sociopaths. Now that we know a lot more about the brain thanks to neurologists and technology, I see psychopaths and sociopaths as victims of a brain disorder. That doesn't mean that the rest of society shouldn't be protected from them. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't speak out against their harmful ideologies. That doesn't mean that if they commit a crime, they shouldn't be imprisoned. But prisons should be humane places where inmates are given the opportunity to be medically treated if they are mentally ill, or rehabilitated when possible. People can change due to new environmental influences. Some people will always be a threat to society, and they must be separated from the rest of us, but again, they should be treated humanely, imo.

Perhaps the reason that it's easy for me not to. hardly judge individuals is because not only was I raised by well meaning evangelicals, but I live in an area where they are quite common. I've cared for many patients who held very strong religious beliefs. I could love my patient, while hating the ideology they held.

My only nurse friend is a Trump supporter and a conservative Christian. The woman is a mess. She has made many bad choices in her life. She was widowed when she was in her 50s. etc. etc. She is also a loving, compassionate person. She and my parents were victims, so I don't judge them harshly. But, that's just me. I too am a product of many influences. I am so much like my mother. I used to be amused because her book shelves were full of Christian apologetics, while mine were full of books on atheism, and primatology. We were both seeking truth. We both had a desire to learn. She was just attracted to a Christian message. It was true to her. Why? I have never understood why, but she was able to change her mind about a lot of things, as she aged. She accepted that gay folks wanted the same type of relationships that straight folks do, once she got to know at least one gay person. She eventually believed that her god would never send a person like me to hell. I've never judged or blamed my mother for who she is. I know about the difficult childhood she had growing up in the Great Depression, for example. I know that she can be very naive.

I don't care if anyone judges me either. Sorry if that comment bothered you. My point was just that I don't judge or dislike people who disagree with me, if I see other good qualities in them. I can't help but dislike some people for many reasons, but I try not to judge them because they too have been influenced by things that I have not. Still, I too am human so there are times when I'm going to think of someone as a hateful bitch or a disgusting asshole. My intellectual side understands that they have little or no control over who they are, but at the same time my emotional side feels that they are awful people.

For example, I hate Trump. He's done harmful things to the country. He's a corrupt, liar who only cares about himself and his power. That's my emotional side. My intellectual side realizes that he is a malignant narcissist and he also exhibits symptoms of hypomania. Those are mental illnesses. He was raised by a horrible racist, so that also has influenced him and his behavior. He has learned that he can easily manipulate evangelicals so he uses them to satisfy his own selfish desires. This is unfortunate for the country, but humans have a long history of sometimes allowing evil men to rule over them. Now, if we were more like Bonobos and less like Chimps, maybe things would be different.

So, I can hate him and feel sorry for him at the same time. I don't want him to suffer. I want him out of the WH. I want him to get help for his mental problems. But, my emotional side would feel satisfied if he were to suddenly die of a heart attack. Of course, if I were an evangelical and Trump suddenly died, my religion would have taught me to say, "It was god's will that he died and we should never question why god does things. That is a very stupid way to see things, but some people are unable to view it any other way.

Can a Christian lose their beliefs? Of course. I am an example of that. I had a neighbor who suddenly became an atheist after the death of his two year old son. He had prayed and begged his god to save the child's life. When it didn't happen, he realized there was no god. But, some people would grieve and simply say that it was god's will that the boy died and now he was in a better place. Why is that? I think it's because we are all products of our genetic and environmental influences. You don't have to agree with me, but that's how I see it. That's what has allowed me to be a nurse for 42 years who never judged her patients, even the few that I disliked.

I know we have gotten off topic, but I think it helps to at least understand why evangelicals believe what they do. They can't help it, and unless something happens to influence them, they will likely take those beliefs to their graves.

 

[J842P]

That's a program and an idea that I promote and have been doing so for many years now. Very weird that you would use that as an example to show me ... what, exactly?

It demonstrates that humane treatment tends to affect change, and inhumane treatment only instills hatred and fear. Which goes back to the original point that if religious people are acting awful, it'll probably only make it worse if they're treated inhumanely by outsiders. Probably something most people at this forum need to etch on the wall a few times.

I don't think no one can change because they don't have free will, but they're more likely to change if approached from a perspective of hope and love.

Anyway I'll wrap it up there, thanks for the exchange and enjoy your weekend.

Perhaps, Megan Phelps Roper is a more pertinent example.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVV2Zk88beY[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Angry Floof]

I guess I'm just waiting for someone to notice that in this internet age, just talking about the inhumane and stunted nature of religious ideology and culture, regardless of your tone or the words you choose, just putting the ideas out there, is how we can effectively challenge our deeply ingrained cultural tolerance and appeasement of religion for no other reason than it's religious.

Holding power accountable as well as pointing out where power imbalances invite abuse and where people in power positions do take advantage and do abuse have been characterized here as unfair and generally bad treatment of religious individuals.

Shaming is a powerful tool or weapon that cuts deep into our ancient social animal brain and will never go away, and ignoring this just allows those who use it as a weapon to control and abuse others to continue to do so. Shaming is just one approach among myriad approaches to challenging backward religion. It's turning that weapon back on abusers. Shame is not going away. The dynamics of shame are in our complex social mammal DNA, and our sapience and intelligence allow us to recognize that and do something conscious and positive to mitigate abuse.

We're also intelligent enough to make excuses for people who use shame to abuse vulnerable people, unfortunately. And it blows my mind that people here on this freethought discussion board would characterize challenging abusers as the "bad" form of shaming while excusing abusive ideologies as "they're just cute little humans being human, leave them alone!"

I don't claim to be the best communicator, but surely someone's brain is not too busy protecting a status quo to understand the point of my posts.

I've never, ever cornered anyone to challenge their beliefs or abused or tricked anyone who wasn't in the conversation by their own volition. I simply exist in a technologically connected world where I have the freedom and ability to add my criticisms of religious belief and culture to the world of information that most of us are now exposed to. Taking that as a personal attack is not only irrational but contributes to further abuse by religious people and organizations by maintaining a status quo of protecting inhumane ideologies that have real consequences. "Be nice or we'll mischaracterize your views" is about as ignorant, dishonest, and stupid a response to that as you can get, although I understand that it does have the effect of satisfying a desire to view oneself as good and a "nice" person. I'd rather be aware and truthful myself.

 

[steve_bank]

To be fair atheist Soviet communism. Maoism, current atheist communist China, and NK are mot exactly bastions of freedom and tolerance.

All rigid ideologies become oppressive.

 

[rousseau]

"Be nice or we'll mischaracterize your views" is about as ignorant, dishonest, and stupid a response to that as you can get, although I understand that it does have the effect of satisfying a desire to view oneself as good and a "nice" person. I'd rather be aware and truthful myself.

I don't think anyone is trying to mischaracterize your views, they just have a different opinion that understanding tends to have a consistent, positive impact. Both goals are the same - minimizing the impact of harmful ideology - but in our opinion the better way to do so is to seek to understand on some level, even if we're up against unconscionable behavior.

Maybe you're right and that's not true, maybe your approach works better. I have no idea how I'd even quantify that. Although I do think it would be wise for anybody - not just you and myself included - to consider their impact as well as their intent. I see so many people online who sincerely want to affect change, intent, but where their actions and words just drive the wedge further, impact. I think in a lot of cases people are just angry and consider their 'opposition' the 'other' and not worthy of their respect. And so often what looks like social justice ends up just being an attack and expression of anger, rather than a sincere desire to affect change.