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?

No, education. Teach everyone to never stop thinking, questioning and challenging. Teach everyone that there's no us and them. Teach everyone to respect difference, as long as there is lawful behaviour, consensus and consent. Make laws based on the principle of 'do no harm'. Never let faith override thought, whether that be faith in a deity, a political party or a tribal identity. Always remember that we are all human and that none of us are inherently 'lesser' or 'sinful'.

I have no issue with people wanting to belong to a group. That's normal. But that doesn't mean it's OK to indulge in group think.

@pointythings "I have no issue with people wanting to belong to a group. That's normal. But that doesn't mean it's OK to indulge in group think."

Well, good luck in trying to eradicate that (group think) when it is created by human nature as set out in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

"Make laws based on the principle of 'do no harm'. "

So how does that square with :

Laws supporting abortion?

Killing animals for food?

"Blood"sports

Assisted Dying

Telling children about the ToothFairy, Father Christmas and reading them "Fairy Tales"

and at what age are humans supposed to engage in all this "thinking"?

I never said it was going to be easy or straightforward - life isn't black and white.

But we know that banning abortion leads to the death of women, so we need safe, legal abortion. How we legislate that is a matter of collective responsibility.

Killing animals for food is something humans have always done - we are omnivores, that's biological reality. We can choose to be vegan or vegetarian and we can and should reduce meat consumption, but again banning isn't helpful. Again, shades of grey.

Blood sports should be banned - it's killing for fun.

Assisted dying - well, I'm from the Netherlands and my grandmother had an assisted death. It can be done well and can be an enormous benefit to people who are living unbearable lives. The cruelty and harm are also in forcing people to live when they do not wish to do so. It isn't a black and white situation.

And this is what I mean by group think - it's always zero sum and does not take into account the complexities of real life. Extreme ideologies (again, whether political, religious or otherwise) are particularly prone to this kind of thinking.

If women are more careful not to get raped you mean? Or not to have medical complications?

"we need safe, legal abortion."

No, we need women to take responsibility and do some of this "thinking" that you are talking about and stop playing victim.
We are told that women nowadays have a say as to what goes on with their bodies. If women were more careful what they did with their bodies maybe we wouldn't have so many unwanted pregnancies?

So women who are pregnant as a result of rape haven't been "careful what they did with their bodies" @tigerstripesarefab ? Or is that because of their "unwise choices"?

@tigerstripesarefab I had time to read your reply to me before it was deleted, but rather than try to reply from memory, I would just like to thank you for illustrating the OP's point about the superiority complex of some believers so perfectly.

It isn't even just rape, @Uricon2 . It's:

• Contraceptive failures
• Non-viable pregnancies (these are currently what is killing women in the US)
• Domestic violence situations

Then there is the fact that rape is routinely used as a weapon of war, currently much in evidence in Sudan.

I was also shocked by the way the deleted posts put all of the blame and responsibility on women - the misogyny was astonishing.

There is of course no perfect 'no harm,' approach to abortion, but indulging in coercion and reproductive slavery is not the answer.

Quite @pointythings , I also saw the deleted posts. It is ironic considering one of that posters earlier comments included the line

Even today women still face gender-based violence on a regular basis.

OP I could have written this. I work with some young Christians and have heard such gems as "We are the good ones" and "We're just trying to help people as we know where they're going". I.E non believers going to hell.
There's a lot of talk of having proper marriages as they usually don't even kiss before marriage and how this means they are a good person.
It makes me extremely uncomfortable to be preached at but I try to not get drawn into conversation.

Do evangelical Christians actually believe in the literal interpretation of the garden of Eden? What about evolution?

I just can't comprehend that people would be smug and righteous when they believe in a talking snake and a woman made from the rib of a man rather than scientific fact.

Some evangelical Christians absolutely do - they're called Young Earth Creationists. They have a museum somewhere in the US.

But they're an extreme branch even for evangelicals. I'm far more concerned about the ones who seek to deny the rights of women and gay people - male headship, casting out their own children when they come out as gay, also not vaccinating. They're completely convinced that they are right and everyone else is wrong. I don't get it - I'm an atheist, but I'm fully aware that my belief that there is no God is a faith position and therefore cannot be seen as objectively true.

That's arrant nonsense, and a rather "superior" attitude as well.

One of the ironies of the position some Evangelicals take regarding women is how far it is from the actions of Christ recorded in the Gospels they regard as infallible. Encouraging Martha (affectionately) to leave her household tasks and listen to His teaching, the dialogue with the Samaritan woman at the well (an outsider as well as female) are two examples that are so unusual in the context of their time that they actually add credibility to the Gospel narratives. The saying " they couldn't make it up" might apply.

As has been pointed out upthread Paul, the usual justification for discriminatory treatment of women, was usually writing in very particular circumstances to new churches in response to issues arising, not a coherent theology or dogma (outside Romans) Deacon Phoebe and Lydia the purple seller hardly fit the mould that is put forward as desirable for women in some Evangelical circles, either.

It really isn't. Your post, if you will recall, blamed women fully for unwanted pregnancies. That is the oppression of women that extreme manifestations of faith are known for.

You also essentially said 'well, just use contraception then' - when (I hope) you know that there is no such thing as a 100% perfect contraceptive. I have three sets of friends who were doubling up on contraception and yet there was a pregnancy. It happens.

You mentioned the prohibition against sex outside marriage as something that could protect against unwanted pregnancy. Well yes, it can. However, a substantial subset of the women who have abortions are married and already have children. Sex is part of a committed relationship (or marriage, in your case). So what happens when both partners do not want any more children, but the woman cannot tolerate hormonal contraception, is refused sterilisation because 'the little woman might change her mind', her partner refuses to have a vasectomy or use condoms 'because it doesn't feel good' and yet - wants sex? Your solution would be for that woman to carry any unwanted pregnancy resulting from that scenario to term, even if her partner walks away leaving her and any previous children in poverty.

Then there's the issue of non-viable pregnancies. This, as I mentioned before, is what is killing women in the US. There is a woman in North Carolina who has been living with a dead foetus inside her because doctors are too scared to act - it might be considered an abortion. Women in similar situations have died of sepsis as a result of the kind of legislation you would love to see.

If you add it all up - the women who are raped, the women whose contraception fails whether in or outside marriage, the women whose babies die in utero - that's an awful lot of women needing safe, legal abortion.

And this is why religious voices should have no say in legislation. None. At. All. Because you are incapable or unwilling when it comes to seeing the complexities of real life. That's not suepriority from me, it's me telling it as it is.

@tigerstripesarefab I also read your deleted posts (reported one with a particularly egregious comment about rape which was quickly deleted) You have no high moral ground to claim here.

In some cases both.

I have already said that there is a degree of personal responsibility that women should accept nowadays.

When I was a teenager going out dancing didn't necessarily involve drinking. But if you did you could go to a club and leave your drink on a shelf and come back and drink it without ill effect. No-one "spiked" drinks.
Men acted like gentlemen and if they offered to walk you to the bus-stop that's what they did. They also waited until you were safely on the bus before they left you.

Since then I have been married and divorced.

When I first started socialising again I was appalled at the behaviour of both men and women.
Men were no longer gentlemen and if they bought you a drink they thought it entitled them to go back to your place for " coffee" ie sex,

So where had this drop in standards come from?

IMO it was from woman who wanted to be "liberated" and act like men when it came to sexual behaviour. They were inviting strange men back to there home for sex, because they thought it was "cool".

It sends out totally the wrong message to men.

In a perfect world a woman who chooses to gets drunk and therefore has poor judgement should be put in a taxi and sent home by friends. But we aren't in a perfect world and there are always men that will take advantage. So women need to be vigilant.

Have a look at the Ched Evans case and you'll see what I mean.

@pointythings Your post, if you will recall, blamed women fully for unwanted pregnancies.

I did no such thing and you know it.

You also essentially said 'well, just use contraception then' I never said that

Did you not see the word "maybe" in it.

You have basically just elaborated on the post that got deleted @tigerstripesarefab , that women are somehow "asking for it".

OK, 13 year old raped by their biological father and pregnant? Abortion available yes or no? Straight question.

I've reported that post because it implies that it is possible for women to be to blame for being raped. That's Andrew Tatespeak right there.

I'm not answerable to you and why is my response so important?

OK please yourself.

That's your opinion, which you are entitled to have.

What a shame. This unfortunate thread has now descended into an abortion vs prolife debate, under the guise of attacking a particular denominational grouping of Christians. Peak Mumsnet.