Home

Previous Entry | Next Entry

It all depends on your point of view

  • Nov. 7th, 2009 at 9:00 PM

Once again I encountered an attitude that always surprises me. I was accused of attacking the Bible when I said that it contains events that, from my external point of view, can only be described as deity approved horrors. Yet this same individual did not consider it an attack when they said that someday I would be forced to kneel before God and would go to hell or when they said that loving, committed, same-sex relationships are an affront on morality.

To some degree, all humans fall prey to the bias of their own perspective. Both of us considered ourselves to be making statements which, from our own point of view, fall under the category of painful truths, not attacks.

Yet I have found that some Christians (not all) quickly jump to the conclusion that atheists are on the offensive when they say anything less than complimentary about religion. They assume that a very specific comment has a very general meaning. Often, these same Christians then go on to say things as bad or worse than what was said to them, but they do not see themselves as attacking and claim innocence if their statements are pointed out.

An much smaller subset turns this into a persecution complex. These are people who really believe there is a war on Christmas. They truly believe that they are like the early Christians and society is trying to crush them out of existence. When you point out that Christians are the vast majority in this nation, they claim that most of those people are not "real Christians" (I always imagine that followed by a trademark symbol). Fortunately, these people, despite their prevalence on the internet, are a small group.

In the end, this biased perspective no longer makes me feel angry or hurt or insulted. But it has become tiresome.

ETA: Apparently, 24% of Evangelical Christians (the single largest religious group in the US) feel like they are part of a religious minority.

Comments

( 5 comments — Leave a comment )
[info]Jacob Wintersmith [wintershaven.net] wrote:
Nov. 8th, 2009 07:52 am (UTC)
Actually, I think they have a point when say that most self-identified Christians are not "real Christians". Once upon a time, I was a Christian -- an Episcopalian, to be precise -- and I took the whole mess quite seriously. And it was quite obvious that most people didn't take Christianity seriously at all, regardless of what they might tell the Census Bureau. That includes most everyone who doesn't go to church regularly, and significant number who do. Now that I'm an open atheist, I actually feel less like a freakish minority than I did when I was Christian.

Of course, it is not even slightly plausible that the majority of less-than-serious Christians would try to "crush" the minority of Real Christians. The majority generally ignores the Real Christians. Maybe sometimes they even cast funny looks at people who take it all seriously. But "crush" the Real Christians? No.
[info]sillygoosegirl wrote:
Nov. 8th, 2009 04:53 pm (UTC)
Josh grew up Catholic and is now an atheist, but still has a tendancy to go off on a rant about how most people who call themselves Christians aren't really. Really, I think he still considers himself a good Christian, even though he doesn't believe in God or pray or attend church, because he follows the teachings of Jesus... something which the vocal religious right does not do at all in his opinion. The whole protestant notion of salvation through belief rather than good works tends to set him off. It's all really quite entertaining coming from him.
[info]big_bad_al wrote:
Nov. 9th, 2009 04:23 am (UTC)
The question of what "real Christians" are is a tricky one, and it generalizes to a question I've struggled with for a while: who gets to decide what labels people have? Should we allow people to choose their own labels, knowing that they can misuse them (the majority of people who claim to be "Christian" aren't really Christian, for instance)? or should we get to impose such labels on others, running the risk of forcing unwanted labels onto people ("you're Jewish because your mother was Jewish, and there's nothing you can say or do to change that")? I don't know; both options seem like they have terrible consequences.
[info]paperclippy wrote:
Nov. 9th, 2009 06:13 pm (UTC)
I have had people think that I am on the offensive when I say something like, "I just don't understand religion." I completely fail to see how that is any sort of attack at all, but apparently people take it that way. Kind of like how people are offended if I say that I am an atheist, like it's a personal affront to them that I exist. This is why when people ask me if I go to church (or "What church do you go to?") I tell them I'm Jewish, rather than telling them I'm an atheist.

As for the Real Christians(TM), they seem to come in multiple varieties. There are the ones who say that the fundamentalists are not Real Christians(TM) because they don't follow the teachings of Jesus WRT turn the other cheek, etc. There are the ones who say that you can only be a Real Christian(TM) if you live your life by the letter of the bible, including the old testament. (I always got the impression that the new testament negated much of the old testament, but I haven't read it so I wouldn't know.) Then there are the Mormons, who say that God/angels/etc told them that all the other Christians were not Real Christians(TM) and that they were supposed to restore the Real Church(TM).
[info]theslate wrote:
Nov. 11th, 2009 06:14 pm (UTC)
Everyone has a persecution complex. Except for me, because I'm actually persecuted. :)
( 5 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

[info]kitty_tape
Erika Rice Scherpelz

Advertisement

Latest Month

November 2009
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow