Evangelical Christians superiority complex???

[headache]

Let me try to explain this, I work with a few young Christians which is fine, great I have absolutely no problem with religion (FWIW I am an atheist married to a RC, my DC raised RC) I am happy for anyone who finds comfort in religion the work is a hard enough place and if religion brings you peace great.

What I do find strange is that they seem to have this superiority complex that unless you are a Christian you are a lesser person. Jim wouldn’t do that he’s a Christian, Sues a lovely person she’s a Christian etc. In addition, their whole personality/life is based around being a Christian, attending lots of events etc and they will only socialise with other Christians. They have said they won’t marry someone who is not a Christian and they don’t agree with gay/trans people. They also seem very intolerant of other religions which I found very surprising as I thought Christianity was about peace and love. With it being Eid recently I was talking about it and was immediately shut down yet they talk constantly about Christianity.

I was brought up culturally Christian, went to Sunday school etc and it wasn’t never like this so is it evangelical churches or just these few or a new thing?

Not trying to catch you out - but a serious question relating to your statement below.
I think God is right about everything & He wrote the Bible, so I think the Bible is right about everything.
How do you understand the Exodus 32:14 text I posted above?

Certainly on a superficial reading it could be construed as God loosing His temper and then changing His mind - but when you read the whole in context the purpose of this episode becomes more clear.

The key to understanding this is what happened before the quote cited.

YHWH urged Moses to get down from the mountain to where the people were (v7). There was no purpose in this whatsoever, except that He intended for Moses to stand as an intercessor for the people.

His anger was real and totally justified. But in the outpouring of Moses self-denying intercession a powerful prophetic statement was made to all present (and to all who have read the account) of God’s heart’s desire to demonstrate mercy rather than judgement (James 2:13), even in the face of the most extreme provocation, through the action of an intercessor.

The notion that God changed His mind and calmed down is extraordinarily anthropomorphic and simplistic. It’s understandable, but spectacularly misses the point.

The foreshadowing of a future Servant of YHWH, denying Himself and standing in the gap to save an undeserving people from their just destruction is clear. Moses is a prophetic type of a future Mediator and Intercessor - “…Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath”. (1 Thessalonians 1:10b).

A lot of human beings wrote the Bible, giving their accounts of their understanding of God and it contains a lot of workings-out and internal disagreements and developments over time. A lot of what is in the 'primary history' (Genesis-Kings) is myth, some of it myth borrowed from other traditions - Noah being a classic example. Being myth does not mean it isn't 'true', most of it isn't 'factual' or 'scientific' or 'historic' as we have come to define those words in the last couple of hundred years.

@DeanElderberry
I think there are a number of people on this thread (obviously not you) who believe the Bible is 'literal truth' and written by God.
My view is that the early parts of the OT clearly should be read with your comments in mind.
The fact that the Pentateuch is clearly created from a number of different sources, illustrated by different names for God and different (sometimes contradictory) narratives underlines this.

@LeaningOnTheEverlastingArms
Rather passive aggressive 'superficial reading' comment I feel. Actually I think the meaning of that passage is absolutely clear and shows God changing his mind having been scolded by Moses. If you chose to interpret the text in a more convoluted way to fit your agenda then that's really up to you.

My comment wasn’t intended to be “passive aggressive”. I’m rather disappointed to have it viewed that way.

Of course you’re free to interpret the passage as you see fit. As a student of the scriptures, I’ve read into the commentaries extensively. My understanding of the passage is therefore partly informed by the consensus of opinion I see there.

I don’t see anything convoluted in going back into the context to get a clearer picture of what’s being said. To my mind that’s preferable to taking an arbitrary ‘snapshot’ of the text. This is standard ‘good practice’ in Biblical exegesis.

As a student of the scriptures, I’ve read into the commentaries extensively. My understanding of the passage is therefore partly informed by the consensus of opinion I see there.

As an M.Theol graduate I can assure you I've read commentaries extensively too. I was also taught never to refer to the NT when discussing the academic interpretation of OT texts.

@Namechangedatheisti understand “repented” in a different sense. The Hebrew word here isn’t a perfect translation (v v basic level Hebrew here from theology degree many moons ago).
the way I understand it is like your friend steps out in front of a car and you shout “you’re going to get hit by a car!” and so your friend rushes to the pavement. It doesn’t mean you were wrong because they didn’t factually get hit by a car. It was a warning. The same here.
just because I take the Bible as a whole to convey literal truth, doesn’t mean that there aren’t expressions in there & turns of phrase like we have idioms today.
hope that makes sense!
I totally think the Bible should be studied in context, so you can’t extrapolate God threatening X against a certain group to mean he threatens X against you today, but I believe it is literally true so when it says Y about every living person, it is the case

My purpose here wasn’t to present an academic thesis.

I was merely responding to the question posed by another poster “Didn’t the Old Testament God lose his temper sometimes and then feel sorry afterwards” as it applies to this passage.

I don’t think Mumsnet is ready for an academic treatment of scripture!

That was all very interesting, thank you - I’m a bit disappointed that nobody responded to my previous questions about the Garden of Eden. I asked:

This is really interesting - so do you believe that God created Eve from Adam’s rib because he wanted company? I want to be clear that I’m not taking the piss. I’m genuinely curious & thinking aloud.
I wonder what God’s plans were for perpetuating the human race before having that idea, because presumably Adam had viable sperm when he was created.
Incidentally, the idea of putting barbs on cat penises was pretty vicious.

Everything in Genesis gets presented twice. Eve shaped from Adam's flesh leaving each incomplete without the other is one version, Male and female created he them is another. See also 'in his own image' and 'from the dust of the earth'.

You may not recognise the type of evangelicals described above, but there are whole churches with these views, here in the UK as well as in the US where they are more extreme. Not to say all evangelical churches are like this - not at all - but some are. And worryingly more men training to be priests, even in the Church of England, are now being ordained holding these views. They then tend to work in large urban churches that hold these views but don't advertise them openly at all, places llike St.Helens, Bishopsgate, St. Ebbes in Oxford, and many others. Also worrying is to what extent sexist views may be taught in church schools - not in most of them, but it does exist.

I agree. That comment was made in response to one I made about our old friends. In fact they run a small church together - and they definitely have very strong views about the respective roles of men and women and have a fervent belief that they are right.

Try Northern Ireland.

It isn't just evangelicals who have that sense of superiority though. In all but one of the church services I've been to (C of E, US Presbyterian, Jehovah's Witness so a small sample), in all but one event (weddings, funerals and a school related service) there has been something about the poor people who don't know Jesus and how miserable they must be.

The smugness is mind blowing.

I abhor the whole male headship concept. Misogynist patriarchal crap is what it is.

Me too! And no real evidence for it, though they claim there is.

I don't think we can claim to know all about God by just looking at scripture. It tells us a lot of things about God, but not everything. Just as if you read letters I'd written to relatives and friends over the years and claimed that you knew all about me from them and without getting to know me personally.
I do think God is ultimately unknowable, and should be. For his ways are not our ways and his thoughs are not our thoughts. We see through a glass darkly, one day we shall see in full. And actually, once you strip away your ideas, preconceptions, things you think you 'know' about God and enter into the vast unknowing, there glimpses of God's glory and love can be found. But it involves a 'letting go' which makes a lot of people uncomfortable. What if we let go of all our notions of God and let God reveal Godself to us in whichever way God sees fit? What then? What wonders might we see? The possibilities are wide open and infinite.

Re the Bible.... it is whole library, not one coherent book, and needs to be considered as such, I think. I don't think for a minute that Paul, when he was writing to the Romans, thought 'Hang on a minute, in two thousand years time this might be read by Christians around the world, I need to be careful what I say.' He wrote in response to specific issues in specific churches. Of course what he says (and what the rest of the Bible says) carries universal truths (social justice, how we should treat each other and so on), but a lot of the detail is context specific (women covering their heads, not wearing make up / jewellery etc). It would be like someone reading letters from my grandparents to me when I was a kid encouraging me to do my piano practice and thinking they too need to learn the piano. My grandparents also used to write things like how wonderful creation is and how that shows God's creativity; more universal things rather than the specifics of piano playing. I think the Bible should generally be read in the same way, and I'm not sure it was ever intended to be read otherwise. Not that I'm claiming to know God (!) but I would hope God's not worrying about whether we baptise kids or adults, or whether the bread and wine IS the real presence or not, and is probably more concerned about how we love and treat each other and share the good news of the gospel.

The only people I know like this are the American Christians who I lived amongst as a student. They were not like any Roman Catholic or Church of England/ Ireland people I’d ever met.

God created Eve so that Adam had a companion. He said in Gen.3:18 "The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” (NIV).

This wasn't a spur of the moment decision after making Adam, it was God's plan all along. All the other creatures clearly had mates for reproduction (for those creatures who do need mates biologically) and Adam was no different in terms of reproductive apparatus, as you say.

Aztecs, Incas, Druids, Carthaginians, Ancient China (4,000 years ago), Babylonians, Caananites & Phonecians (sacrificed babies to their god Baal)

The most recent examples of human child sacrifices were done to appease the Goddess Kali during Colonial India. The British put a stop to it.
In addition there was the practice of Sati/Suttee when a widow had to jump into her dead husband's funeral pyre to be burned to death.

See also https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2018/june/new-evidence-of-ancient-child-sacrifice-found-in-turkey.html

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, before the Resurrection, Abraham, Noah, Moses, Adam and Eve, and all the righteous were in the Limbo of the Fathers (limbus patrum) where they remained until “in his human soul united to his divine person, the dead Christ went down to the realm of the dead.

He opened heaven’s gates for the just who had gone before him” (CCC 637).

I think in general organised religion is not a force for good. The relationship between an individual and their deity of choice is one thing, but the moment human beings start getting together, whether in faith, in politics or in ethnicity, they start thinking in 'us vs them' terms and then all the bad traits we possess come out. Organised faiths of all stripes across the world have implemented mass killings of those who are 'other', the oppression of women and the persecution of those who are gay or lesbian. It isn't a record to be proud of, it's just tribalism in nicer clothes and with pretty rituals. Evangelical Christianity is particularly bad in terms of divisiveness and oppression, because it is hardline and black and white in its thinking. Well, I say thinking - it's more not thinking, it's replacing thought and consideration with belief. Very dangerous, just as it is in politics and any other ideology.

@pointythings "Organised faiths of all stripes across the world have implemented mass killings of those who are 'other'"

as have many large non-religious organisations such as the Cambodian Communist Party,
The Chinese Communist Party under Mao Tse Tung.
Haiti under "Papa Doc" Duvalier.
Soviet Union under Stalinist Communism.

"the oppression of women and the persecution of those who are gay or lesbian"

Gay people were persecuted under the Nazi regime. In Nazi Germany, women were subject to doctrines of Nazism by the Nazi Party (NSDAP), which promoted exclusion of women from the political and academic life ...

The Congo, a secular state, has an appalling record of women's rights. While today legal reforms have granted Congolese women more equal rights, including the right to freely decide how they earn a living, many women still face obstacles in accessing political power, economic resources, and basic services.
Even today women still face gender-based violence on a regular basis.

You can't lay all the ills of the world at the door of religion.

@tigerstripesarefab if you had read my post properly, you would have noticed that I included political ideology in my list of collective forces for evil. But you didn't.

So what is your answer, anarchy?