#fundamentalist & evangelical christian communities are doing the same things

[autistichalsin]

Those of us who were raised near Evangelicals (like me who grew up in a largely Evangelical/Fundamentalist community) or in the cult themselves (many of my friends growing up) have been trying to warn you all for YEARS not to underestimate them, and our warnings went ignored because "no one is that evil" or "they're just stricter Christians, they wouldn't actually do that."

The exact same reasoning used when we tried to warn you 20 years ago how evil Republicans were, which isn't a coincidence because they are the same people.

So let me break it down for you, and if any of this sounds too harsh, feel free to talk to literally any exvangelical, who will back this up.

Yes, they are cartoonishly evil. I know, I'm going to get hate for saying this. But if you ignore this point, none of the other points will make any sense. This is the framework you have to use. This is cartoon villain levels of evil.

Evangelical Christianity is, first and foremost, a death cult. They want your deaths, they want their own deaths. Birthdays are a celebration of being one year closer to going home to Jesus- no more and no less. They crave death like a suicidal person, but they would never actually commit suicide because it's "a sin," so instead they long for a rapture where they die and go to heaven while the rest of us go to hell. That is their ideal world- no world at all.

You have to understand that the root of evangelism is nihilism. NOTHING in this life matters at all, except for accepting their interpretation of God and Jesus so you can enter heaven. Your work, your relationships, your family, only matter if they are in service of God and Jesus, and not at all on their own merit. God/Jesus are the only thing that objectively matters. Which leads to...

Other humans only matter if they worship your same iteration of God and Jesus. Other Christians are liars at best and will go to hell. If your entire family dies, it's just God's will, no need to be sad- it's actually a beautiful thing because they're with Jesus now. It's why you will never persuade them to support abortion even in cases where the mother's life is at risk. If she's a good Christian, she'll know there is nothing more beautiful than to die while birthing another soldier of God, and if she's not a Christian, she deserves to die and go to hell as punishment for rejecting scripture. It's why you'll never persuade them that school shootings are worse than being queer. School shootings just send Their Own to heaven, and the nonbelievers to hell, but being gay sends everyone to hell, even themselves for tolerating it. If you don't believe in their God, the best thing you can ever be to them is a potential convert, and the worst is a test sent by God himself that they CAN'T fail lest you go to hell. Leading to...

Tolerance is cruelty to them. If you tolerate "aberrant" lifestyles, you are dooming them to hell, and yourself too. That's why they claim it's oppression to be told to tolerate others. They think only oppressing the "lesser" people will motivate them to become Good Little Christians, and avoid hell. And they think they themselves will go to hell if they are too tolerant to those outside the group.

They are pro-Zionist not because they support Jewish people in any way, but because they think it'll bring about the End Times. They want Israel to exist because they think it leads to the End Times where Jews will either convert or die. They support Zionism because they hate the nonconvertable Jews and want to convert the ones who will- that simple. Palestinian Christians are, to them, just cannon fodder sacrificed in the name of bringing about the End Times. (And of course, other peoples' Zionism isn't even the same as supporting Jewish people either, but it's especially duplicitous here).

Don't take this to mean they care about their own all that much. They see them as closer to human, but still ultimately just a soldier for God. Their deaths aren't a tragedy but a reward/celebration. They will subjugate the women in their congregations with glee, they will hatecrime queer people, and white evangelicals hate POC even if they have shared beliefs. They will tell their children to their faces they will only love them if they are the perfect Christians.

They think an Evangelical who commits rape or child molestation is still a better person than a nonbeliever who spends every minute of every day working for charity. Remember, nothing matters but accepting Jesus, so the former is fine, but the latter not only doesn't accept Jesus, but they're providing support to potentially the wrong people, which "deprives" them of the chance to be converted by an Evangelical who would capitalize on their suffering.

They know Trump isn't a Christian. They know he espouses exactly zero Christian values. They don't care because he is going to end abortion in this country and because his policies primarily make people they hate (IE non-Evangelicals) suffer. He's a flawed weapon they'll never stop using and adoring for that reason.

Similarly, they don't think climate change isn't real. They know it is. Rather, they want the Earth to become uninhabitable, and many people to die, to bring about the End Times. Then they get to go to heaven, and the rest of us sinners get to live on a ruined world as punishment for our "sins." Yes, they want to destroy the planet just so they can go to heaven in 10 years instead of 40. They are that staggeringly selfish. That's what a lifetime of being taught only Evangelical lives matter does to them. Again: they think life is nothing but a test of their worthiness to enter heaven. They don't take this life any more seriously than we took gym class. Leading to...

Every instance of human suffering, in their eyes, brings the End Times closer and is to be celebrated. Death, war, plague, etc, they think it means God is going to take them home really, really soon. They aren't interested in peace, because Jesus won't come in a time of peace. They want a worse world so they can "remind" God (who they think needs their help to do it) that it's time to start the Rapture. And this sounds weird, doesn't it? That if God is all-mighty, and even the Bible says no one will know beforehand when it's coming, why would they do this? Well, that leads to the last point...

They do not read the Bible carefully. They are told what the Bible means by their pastor, and that interpretation becomes law. That's why they believe in "the sin of empathy" despite Jesus saying to feed the poor and heal the sick- not only are they told they can't extend charity to non-Evangelicals lest they go to hell, but they are also told questioning their pastor is akin to rejecting the religion itself and thus they WILL go to hell for it. And in fact, interpretations of the Bible offered by others are seen as trickery by a false prophet, that they are being tested to ignore by God. You can't reason with them as another sect of Christian any more than you can as an outright atheist. They will not listen to you. They have been conditioned their whole life to see you as an evil agent of Satan who wants to deny them Heaven. You may as well put on a pair of horns and a devil tail and tell them to worship you.

Again: we tried to tell the public for years that these people weren't to be discounted, that their insanity and fringe beliefs made them MORE of a threat and not less, that it most definitely WASN'T reassuring that they were just "fringe lunatics" because they were working from the start to seize control of the government to turn the USA into a theocracy. Well, what happened? People stuck their heads in the sand and when they took them out, a newborn theocracy was there.

We can still mitigate some of the worst, but if people keep ignoring this and pretending they aren't going to do what they literally said they're going to do, a LOT of people are going to end up dead. Even more than the inevitable amount from climate change now that they've killed our last chance to stay below 2c of warming.

[sophieinwonderland]

I saw someone complaining about my post suggesting we start marketing tulpamancy to youths in religious conservative households, accusing me of wanting to use the same tactics as the fundamentalists. To which I'll say...

Duh.

In case anyone hasn't noticed, liberal Christianity is dying.

This isn't true of evangelicalism. And you know why that is?

Marketing!

Even if someone from their flock does leave, fundamentalists can convert more people. They are willing to convert more people. It's their sacred duty as Christians to save lost souls from Hell.

Liberal churches are too passive. They choose to be respectful of other faiths to such a fault that they don't like converting people to their religion or political ideologies. While fundamentalists were preaching that Donald Trump was a hero for God battling the demonic forces of the Left, the liberal Christian churches twiddled their thumbs doing nothing because meshing politics and religion is "wrong".

They don't convert people. They don't market their religion. They don't use their religious platforms to try to push for positive change for marginalized communities.

They don't do these things because they view these tactics as things the "bad" churches do. And they aren't wrong. These are the exact tactics that fundamentalists employ. But these tactics themselves aren't necessarily immoral. And importantly, these tactics are why the fundamentalists are winning.

This isn't just a problem with liberal churches but the Left as a whole, IMO.

I saw this image going around and I feel it actually sums up the problem nicely:

This is true in a lot of ways. It's obviously a huge problem with our purity tests. The fact that many people were fine abstaining to vote because our candidate wasn't perfect by their standards when the alternative was a fascist who literally promised to be a dictator on day 1 of his Presidency is a great example of this.

But so too is our fear of using the same tactics that our enemies do because of some misguided motion that doing so is immoral or makes us just as bad as them. The notion that "pushing your political views on people makes you just as bad as fascists" has turned modern liberals into an ineffective joke.

And this finally brings us to tulpamancy.

We have a practice that...

Practitioners overwhelmingly report positive mental health benefits from.

While there are a couple edge cases of people having negative reactions, these negative reactions are far less common than you'll find for, say, prescription drugs. We're talking about maybe 1-2% of tulpa systems. And many of those will be because of avoidable mistakes. (People making tulpas that are designed to be critical of them, for example.)

The fact that many tulpamancers will create opposite-gender tulpas means their tulpas are likely to experience some level of gender dysphoria while fronting. In theory, going from a cis singlet to what is essentially a genderfluid system should make tulpamancers more sympathetic to trans rights issues. Those who care enough about their tulpas will want their tulpas to be able to front with whatever gender they identify by. Therefore, a child of a fundamentalist Christian who becomes a tulpamancer is just a bit more likely to vote in support of trans rights.

This is largely a net positive all around.

And what is the price of doing nothing?

The vulnerable people who are looking for something to fill whatever gaps they believe they have inside them will find something to fill those gaps with. Every person we don't reach is someone that the right-wing fundamentalists and fascists can.

Let's be totally clear here. Vulnerable people exist. And if we're not the ones to exploit those vulnerabilities, the fascists will be. Abstaining from reaching out to people in need and offering something that could make their lives better doesn't protect the people in need. It just means someone else will target them instead and lead them down a worse path.

It's been said that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing. And sadly, a lot of liberals have made an ideology of doing nothing, so crippled in the terror that they might do the wrong thing that they avoid actions that both could help people in need and progress their political agendas at once.

[winchesternova-k]

about under the cut

daily clicks

about

call me emily, alex or cas. em, nova & castiel are also fine. 24. they/fae/ze, usually interchangeable. they/them preferred currently.

queer, autistic, adhd, mentally ill, physically disabled/chronically ill and chronic pain. i used to be a care worker. i’m also white australian, tme & perisex.

i’m a writer, artist and gaymer, a sci-fi and fantasy geek, horror connoisseur, doll collector, sword enthusiast and big emo.

i’m also a nondenominational christian, who is highly critical of the church. specifically my beliefs are closest to anglican and catholic as that’s what i was raised as, but It’s Complicated™️. i am firmly anti evangelical/pentacostal/any other fundamentalist or cult sects, and anti missionary. i am pro all other religions. antitheists are not welcome on this blog. atheists and agnostics of course are.

i tag any posts relating to my faith as ‘christian tag’ and posts about christianity generally that don’t pertain to me as ‘christianity’ for blacklisting purposes. if you have trauma surrounding christianity and would prefer not to interact, there’s no hard feelings! i wish you good health and healing :)

i post a lot about my about my special interests and hyperfixations. full disclosure that dragon age rewired my brain chemistry in 2023, so there’s probably going to be a lot of that around for the foreseeable future.

my spins include: the tribe (1999), dragon age, x-men, vampires, supernatural, batfamily, resident evil, horror in general, fashion dolls and associated media (mainly bratz & monster high), sherlock holmes (mainly the granada series & frogwares games). current hyperfixations will always be in my bio and will be edited as needed.

links

i can also be found on:

pronoun page | ao3 | twitter | pinterest | dollect

ask me for my psn & pokémon go :)

icon was made by @/hexblooded

tagging & general housekeeping

anon is currently turned off because some people don’t know how to behave. my dms are always open, and if you want to discuss something privately, you can always reach me there :)

i try to tag common triggers with ‘[trigger] cw’ or ‘[trigger] tw’ without the brackets. if i forget to tag something, pls let me know and i’ll fix it asap. MINORS PLEASE BLACK LIST ‘MINORS DNI’ AND ‘NSFW’. flashing media is tagged as ‘flashing gif’ and ‘flashing video’. i am not currently tagging any queer community related slurs and i do personally reclaim the word fag. please let me know if there’s anything you need tagged and i’ll do my best! the only thing i will not tag the word queer.

i generally tag spoilers. i usually tag for tv for up to a week after. i am currently tagging dragon age spoilers as: ‘dav spoilers’ for veilguard and current marketing. story relevant spoilers are tagged, as is anything else from behind the embargo. this does not include basic marketing. vows and vengeance is tagged ‘vows and vengeance spoilers’ and ‘dragon age spoilers’. these are tagged for 3-4 days after release, but i don’t usually make new posts after that anyway.

tags where i talk are: emily talks, alex talks, cas talks & emily liveblogs [insert media]. spn specific tags are emily liveblogs spn and emily rewatches spn. i also have a doll tag for fashion dolls, some are mine and some are other people’s.

tags where i rb things i relate to are: about me, me and same. i also have a writer tag, a fanfic writer tag, and an artist tag. i also have a separate tag for when i’m actually writing. i also make mods for the sims 4 sometimes (though i haven’t posted any yet). i sometimes post about my dog (though i mostly rb memes). my popular posts.

original characters navi etc.

i mostly post about my dragon age ocs at the moment. my general oc tag for other projects is ‘ocs’.

dragon age specific tags -

‘canon’ timeline: havella brosca (intro) / julian hawke (intro) / aelua lavellan (intro)

‘moonless’ timeline: tal’en surana (intro) / meera hawke (intro) / lunetta lavellan (intro)

‘bleak’ timeline: elyas cousland (intro) / kiernan “hawke” amell (intro) / lysk cadash (intro)

‘elfroot & blood lotus’ timeline: dallen tabris (intro) / valeria hawke (intro) / daniel felix trevelyan (intro)

proper navigational & introduction pages are under construction for all.

discourse, etc.

i’m an inclusionist of all good faith queer identities (yes, that kind too). whatever intracommunity queer discourse you’re thinking of i’m probably pro-inclusion. exclusionists are not welcome on this blog, folks who are looking for answers in good faith, or are former exclusionists are.

i’m an ‘anti’ in the sense that i believe in critical media consumption and am against child pornography. i also believe in holding bigotry, and racism in particular, to account in fandom spaces. i believe dark topics can be explored in fiction, but i also believe romantisization of incest, abuse, pedophilia, etc is Bad. ie. i don’t vibe with uncritical works or works that are straight up pro incest etc. antiantis/proshippers etc are not welcome here for this reason. and since apparently it needs to be said, i also do not believe in harassment or death threats/suicide bait etc. grow up.

dni

general dni criterias - if i catch you being bigoted in any way and you don’t attempt to better yourself after being held to account you’re getting blocked

terfs/twerfs/swerfs/radfems of any kind. this blog loves and supports trans women and sex workers. bioessentialism is bad.

exclusionists of any kind (yes, that kind too)

maps/nomaps/whatever pedophile fucks are calling themselves these day

proship/anti antis/comship/comfic/whatever y’all are calling yourselves

and on a personal note - if you were one of the people who sent death threats and suicide bait around the bbc sherlock fandom on twitter in 2019: fuck off. several people i care about nearly took their own lives because of you and i don’t want you anywhere near me. death threats etc are awful in general but this one was personal.

thanks for reading!

[hillbillyoracle]

Ok, let me redefine what I was saying:

I come from a Christian tradition where you HAVE to be able to physically read the Bible to worship at all. Worship involved debate, allegory, and analysis of the readings the group brought to the table, maybe some choral singing, and what you did with that was personal to you. We also do not know the lore of the Antichrist or the Rapture or The End of Days or whatever - we have our own lore that gets constantly debated and adjusted to take place in perpetual future. So, what used to be called a "mainline Protestant", but with mostly German Mennonite ancestry. The hatred of Evangelism, misogyny, and war in my community runs almost 500 years deep, so I'm sorry I was really intense in my last ask. I'm really trying to understand deeply beliefs I fear, that do not make sense, and are based in things I do not consider real. So, getting that out of the way:

I see absolutely none of what I recognize as Protestantism happening in modern "mainstream Fundamentalist protestantism". What I see is people usually not reading the Bible, letting their pastor decide everything including who they vote for, not engaging in debate, viewing themselves as above everyone else, and forcing their undebated ideas about what the Bible may or may not say on the legal system and people of other religions with no regard to interpretation over thousands of years. It is very painful to me and has been to my community for a very, very, very long time. It does not seem like we are reading the same book or worshipping the same man.

I would not say Evangelicals seemed like they did not develop properly in the critical thinking and dopamine retention departments if I were not convinced so and my community were not convinced so. I would not say they seem overly focused on punishment if I were not convinced so and my community were not convinced so. This is cultural.

This is how former mainline protestants - what few are left - view those who have, in our eyes, destroyed our faith communities. They were never perfect, I'm not trying to say they were, I just want to be able to worship in public as a pink Menno without Fundies getting on my ass for existing. It wasn't always like this. Things have been better and worse for us. Now they are worse.

So, what gives? Why?

That's the thing though - your conviction is no sign of the truth. If you're not willing to question why you're so convinced of that, you're not going to understand.

You're flat out wrong in a lot of what you've said. You've spend more time saying what you think than asking about what is. To then hide behind "It's cultural" is a cop out.

That's a red flag to me. I really hope you'll reconsider assuming "did not develop properly in the critical thinking and dopamine retention departments" before asking yourself what historical and theological context you might be missing.

I'll go on a limb and answer some of what you're asking.

First, lets correct some misconceptions.

Evangelicals in my churches read the Bible far more often than I saw on mainline churches. It was not uncommon - and even to a degree expected once you were in high school - to read the entire Bible every year or so. I think the first time I read it from cover to cover was either late elementary school or early middle school. My mom had the Bible on tape and listened to it a lot of mornings as she was getting ready. It was almost like a status symbol to be able to get through the Bible in a month at least once. I can't speak for every evangelical - my dad for instance seemed to get through the Bible much slower and no prioritize it as much - but I can say most of the ones I knew were very serious about reading the Bible.

I also was on my church's Bible Bowl team where were had to memorize word for word the better part of entire books of the Bible - (John and Kings 1 and 2 come back to me completely unbidden even to this day).

And it was hotly debated. One of the church camps I went to every summer (sometimes multiple times a summer) was held at a Christian college and part of the programming was to take classes that focused on the historical and linguistic aspects of the Bible to deepen our reading of it - often with texts recommended for us to continue reading afterwards. The Young Earth Creationist class was...wild and failed to convince most of us who took it but it did give me a deep understanding of that perspective - and a weird relationship to the Creation Museum just a few hours from me.

Since we were all taking different classes, we'd often sit together outside in the evenings, eating way too much candy, and debate the passages we were focusing on that week from those different perspectives. Adults were encouraged to go on retreats where similar seminars were held. Both youth groups and adults had "Life Groups" where they would pick commentaries to read - some modern some not - to further their biblical education.

This idea that Fundamentalists don't have a grounding in the Bible or it's historical or theological contexts isn't accurate. I'm sure there are ones who don't have that grounding but having at least some was a huge emphasis of the churches I went to.

Funnily enough, it was because mainline Protestants generally didn't have a similar ethos - in my area at least - and it was a big part of why people left those churches. They felt performative and shallow. My Dad and Mom specifically said they didn't feel like they could connect with God where there was more of an emphasis on liturgy than theological education as a whole. That's why they left the Presbyterian and Methodist churches respectively. To them it was the mainline Protestant churches that expected you to show up on Sundays and believe whatever the pastor told you - it's not like they were going out of their way to help you investigate it any other way (in our area at least).

And if your response to that is "but they're wrong" - then you've lost and more people are going to keep leaving. If you keep blaming those outside your community for destroying your faith community, you'll never build something people want to leave fundamentalist churches for. Your belief doesn't change the material reality.

As far as what you mentioned before about the Bible saying to take care of the poor and such - when you read the whole Bible annually you know that the Bible says a lot of contradicting things. And here's why fundamentalism is most definitely an offshoot of Protestantism even to this day - people are going to negotiate those contradictions differently in their personal relationships with God.

I am running out of steam at the moment, maybe another time or another ask I can delve into more of the historical aspects of this.

The simplest answer I can give you as to why they believe such different things about the Bible is that no one - not you, not your pastor or reverend, not mainline Protestant theological writers - no one is encountering the Bible free of personal baggage.

Both your interpretation and their interpretation come from a similar place - your values and your fears.

If you want to understand fundamentalist theology, one of the best ways is to get them talking about their fears and to listen without judgement.

Time after time, I've found people who are pulled into fundamentalism tend to have a core fear that the world is deeply chaotic and dangerous and they value order and stability. Both that fear and that value are understandable. Almost all fundamentalist thought stems from those which means it's possible to understand if you allow yourself.

But there's no use trying until you understand your own flawed beliefs. Can't build a bridge if you don't know where you're starting from.

Anyways, I hope this was at least food for thought.

TL;DR: A lot of fundies have had negative experiences with mainline protestant groups and they're often reading the Bible through a lens that the world is chaotic and dangerous and the solution is order, so that's what they see. I'm not saying you've got the be nice to people who are being assholes to you but if you've got acquaintances, it can be helpful to keep that in mind.

[papirouge]

What’s are your views on “purity culture” among christians

I think it varies between denominations but the idea is still around mainly fundamentalists. It’s definitely important to teach women how important it is to be picky, believe in hypergamy, and ignore probably the 90% of scrotes that aren’t good people but I never really believed in flat out refusing to teach sex ed, what stds and stis are, what Plan B is, and how birth control and condoms work. Which seems like a lot of these more fundamentalists tend to do.

I had this friend who is divorced now. She grew up in that type of environment where they were very strict about her purity but ignored the boys virginity completely. Like she had two brothers who were total opposites. 1 was basically community dick and caught a disease and her parents didn’t care 💀 the other was an incel who was very anti social. And her parents were upset that they couldn’t marry him off because not even the desperate fundie girls wanted his violent outbursts. He’s still single too and approaching 40

She was married young to her ex and had no idea how sex even worked. She was only told to avoid it and it just scared her. So when she got married, she told me how her parents and church counselor were upset that she didnt turn into someone who liked sex immediately. Even kissing was new to her and she didn’t know what to do. She didn’t like it at all/avoided sleeping in the same as her husband and was told by them to suck it up when she expressed she had pain. When she got older she left that church and her husband but was ex communicated by her family for it.

Does that type of stuff happen in France?

Purity isn't much of a thing anywhere else in the world because as I said, most of USAmerican evangelicalism staples are rooted in culture not in Christianism. I've always found fascinating how France & its very liberal "sex culture" was compared to the US (age of consent is 15 years old, birth control & abortion is free, condoms are handed over in highschool, etc.) yet managed to have proportionally lower abortion rate than God fearing United States of America lol

Fundies family don't exist anywhere else in the world beside the USA anon so nope, we don't have this kind of messy affairs here. Catholicism is in a limbo here in France and real Catholic families are very rare. And even when they do, they don't hold such a spiritual grip on their members to guilt trip them into marrying someone. The only stories of people being excommunicated are bishops coming out as gay or being caught dating/having sex with women lol

The story of your divorced friend is very representative of the double standards of women virginity vs male virginity. Although it's quite normal to particularly warn off women about the consequences of sex because, unlike men, they are the ones who'll carry the baby so they have much more responsibility to deal with (as unfair it may sound). But it doesn't mean men virginity is any less relevant.

Many of women will never want a community d*ck, that's why her busted brother is still single at 40 (which is weird bc red pillers always said men got more value as they got older 🤔).

Fornicators are literally filled with demons and should be avoided at all costs.

And yet, I'm sure he's not shamed like his sister was to marry a man she was even attracted to... Her story is so sad.. but she's better off outside of this cult though. She's lucky she if she didn't have any child with him...

I think kids shouldn't be taught sex ed before middle school. I did in elementary school and it lowkey fucked me up. Even when I was 12-13 years old I had a male friend of my age who told me how many times a week he masturbated and it triggered me so bad lmao

Tbh there should be something progressive, like first learning about sexual organs, periods, how babies are made (12~13 years old), than at 15 about birth control(?) IDK the idea of teaching kids sex at school is weird to me but I think I would be even more traumatized if my mom taught me any of this because we NEVER talk about things like that lmaoo I guess it's important to build a trust relationship with your kid from start so that it's not awkward when you actually do? IDK I lowkey hate the sex talk and wish sex wasn't such a big deal in society so I'm probably not the best person to inquire about that lmaooo

[voidingintotheshout]

“But to this group of Wilson-led Reformed evangelicals, Hegseth’s prospective appointment also represents an early return on investment in its yearslong aspiration to create a theocratic state in which traditionalist Christian men lead the military and other essential government institutions. At a minimum, Hegseth’s nomination energizes these Reformed evangelicals to dig in their heels and keep fighting.”

Christians are trying to turn America into a theocracy. I wonder how long it will be before Americans realize they’re being hypocritical by judging Muslim countries negatively by being run by conservative religious principles when America is increasingly being run by a conservative religious principles. I love being in a secular society as a gay Muslim, because I think that being religious should be a choice. It makes religious conviction much more sincere when it’s some thing that you do need to choose. I am also gay and I know that in a lot of these places they are not very welcoming of LGBTQ plus people. The one difference I’ve noticed living in Saudi Arabia versus living in increasingly conservative America is that Muslims generally don’t want you to out yourself as someone who drinks or is gay because then it creates logistical headaches for them that they don’t want to bother with so it’s usually pretty easy to do what you want because no one wants to deal with you. Christian fundamentalists actively want to try to seek you out to root you out (to eliminate vice or wickedness or whatever) and that is a very different living experience. Oddly enough, I’ve even noticed the difference at mosques I go to because mosques that have derived from the African-American community and the nation of Islam in a very vague sense have the same Christian fundamentalist vibe about getting rid of this wickedness in society… but Arab-influenced mosques, generally focus more on the believer and the community of believers, and if you’re surrounded by wickedness, then maybe you as the believer are in the wrong place, which I think is where we get some more secular approach to society. 

The only thing that makes me sad is when I went to Turkey, which used to be a secular Muslim society before Recep Tayyip Erdoğan took over the country, they were people passing out flyers for an LGBTQ Muslim group in Istanbul. I don’t think that would be able to happen today. Countries all over the world are lurching towards conservatism in a way that is extremely worrying. I don’t know where the safe countries are going to be in 10 years. I would’ve thought that New Zealand was safe but then a conservative government took over and started erasing a lot of the cool things that made it a progressive haven. And since Justin Trudeau‘s government is probably (well possibly) going to be falling apart within the next year, it’s entirely possible that a conservative government will come in to Canada for the first time in a decade, potentially wanting to make Canada more conservative to maintain good relations with Donald Trump. Who knows what the world holds. 

[lukedanger]

Ashley Williams Appreciation - Background Theme

Let’s kick this Appreciation Week by @cannot-rest off with something spicy… How about Ashley being religious?

Or more specifically, we should ask what we mean when we say Ashley is religious. The way it is usually bandied about, Ashley is portrayed as your standard issue (Christian) fundamentalist evangelical or a Sister of Battle born thirty-eight millennia too soon. However, this doesn’t actually line up with her characterization. If anything, I would posit that while Ashley is a believer, she is more of a ‘Sunday churchgoer’, and even that term gives off the wrong vibe. For her, it is a personal thing rather than a belonging in a community as the Abrahamic religions usually emphasize.

Ashley’s belief is not that of someone who is performing to identify her tribal group, that must be loudly professed and those willing to join evangelized. Ashley will even explicitly refute the idea that she would want to preach in the CiC if Shepard gets in her grill about it. So, that right there tells us that she is not an evangelical who thinks that everyone needs to worship the same way… yet it also does not mean that Ashley is not religious. After all, not every faith sends out missionaries to convert the other, even among the Abrahamic religions.

So, does she overtly practice any common rites that we might identify? Well, no. In fact, if not for Ashley explicitly confirming that she believes, would we from her dialogue even be able to ascertain it? I would say “yes” because of scenes such as mentioning her belief that Kaidan has to be in Heaven and the discussion about her father being dead, but those are singular scenes. Does this invalidate her being religious? Not at all - consider people you know who are religious but you do not interact with much outside of work. Would you say they are not religious because you don’t see them doing certain actions? Or, for that matter, do you even know what those practices are?

In fact, let’s compare her to Samara as I think this makes the difference telling. Samara’s idle animation on the SR-2 is practicing mediation, she explicitly discusses the Justicar Code as it applies to her and the mission. She is unquestionably a religious squadmate, and we don’t even know if she follows the Athame Doctrine or is a siarist - or maybe believes in both?

Ashley? She does none of this, and again we don’t even know if Ashley is Christian - we only assume it because that’s our ‘default’ for vaguely monotheistic IRL religions in the Anglosphere. Here, we hit the core of where religion factors into Ashley’s character. Namely, it is a facet of her but it is not and never was her defining feature. If anything, it is a part of herself that Ashley suppresses to fit in better given that she explicitly mentions that people considered her weird for it. 

So, does this make Ashley a “bad” religious character? To that I ask what defines a “good” religious character? What must a character do to be a “good” religious character? And, perhaps, we should ask how religious a character needs to be. Look at Dragon Age, specifically the Andrastian companions. How many of them like Sera, Varric, Aveline, Alistair, or Wynne would you consider to be “bad religious characters” because it is not as important to their identity than it is for Cassandra, Sebastian, or Leliana? All those named DA characters are firmly Andrastian, yet only the latter three have it as critical to their identity as a character. And the last three don’t praise Andraste every time Henry Hawke comes to see them.

If you have been paying attention to the comparisons, you might notice that the ones that are hardcore about making their religion a part of their identity are those who are explicitly of religious vocation. Ashley is not. Given this and how rarely it comes up, how can we in good faith* say that Ashley being faithful means it has to be core to her the way it is for a Paladin in Dungeons and Dragons? *pun unintended

Does this mean that being religious is entirely unimportant to Ashley’s character and should have been left off? No, absolutely not. It actually tells us quite a bit about her - it tells us that Ashley believes in there being some order to the world, some rightness to it even if we cannot see it. “Everything happens for a reason, Shepard.” A way for Ashley to rationalize the undue hate she gets for events that happened before she was even conceived. A way to view an unfair world, to give her some element of certainty even if it cannot give her a direct hand in bettering herself. And in that, she is also humble: she explicitly denies the idea of humanity having any sort of divine destiny.

And Shepard recognizes what this points to - that for all the armor of cynicism she wears to protect herself, Ashley ultimately wants the galaxy to be a better place. So what does he do with that? He uses it to present to Ashley a different way of thinking: if the galaxy is meant to be a survival of the fittest where everyone looks out for number one, why even bother with this kind of diversity? And with that, Ashley is able to refocus the lenses she views the galaxy with and begins to comprehend that humanity can save itself by saving everyone - and to consider that the Council may also be viewing things in the same light.

It is an utterly beautiful sequence because in the end Ashley’s core motives all remain the same, but the difference it causes is profound. And even if Shepard does not romance* her and so does not put her on that path, Ashley still shifts her opinions to be more big picture rather than a narrow focus on what the Systems Alliance needed. Would it not make sense that after the experiences she finally gained in the first game, Ashley considered it herself and found a similar conclusion? Shepard can just kickstart it so it’s seen earlier, but in the end Ashely makes that leap of faith herself. *Why, Bioware, why would you lock this behind a romance?

TL;DR - Ashley is not an evangelical character, but she is a religious one. It’s just that to Ashley, religion is a very personal matter rather than one she needs to parade about to show as her tribal signifier or to win brownie points with the big G. Assuming that she has to is to reduce Ashley to a stereotype.

[kinfriday]

Ritual Radical

One of the factors that allowed Christianity to spread so rapidly across Europe was a result of a unified liturgy.  

While there were local derivations, and debates on dates, such as with the Celtic and British churches, there was an overall trend of homogeneity not seen in heathen traditions.  

By and large this made Christianity a type of modular faith, with ready snap ins to infiltrate new cultures, allowing them to assimilate those cultures into their fold. Whereas with the old ways different villages, regions and even families might have different traditions, or venerate Gods at different levels (For some Tyr was the head of the pantheon, others Woden, for instance.) With Christianity elements of faith had a much more rigid structure, which combined with evangelical zeal allowed it to spread.  

Within our modern times in western culture these liturgical traditions have gone to effect me at a deep level. It was after all what I was raised with, having spent many years as an evangelical fundamentalist, ultimately pursuing a degree in the ministry.  

You would not have recognized me twenty years ago. 

This has translated into modern neopagan practice as many of us are converts from Christian paths. We take our cultural traditions of prayer and formalized worship with us and reinterpret and reincorporate them in new ways.  

Yet for all my ascetic ways, and liturgical history, I get very little out of formal ritual.  

Every day, on wake up, I kneel before my altar and recite my vows, my creed, and a daily prayer to the Gods ancestors and spirits. This, along with meditation is about the closest I come to a formal practice. Offerings are not made at these times, rather, I make daily offerings of my favorite things. If I have a banana I give the Gods my favorite quarter, my daily apple, I give three slices, for the Gods, the Ancestors and the House/Landvaetir.  

While these are ritualized actions, they are not exactly the same as the formal high day rituals, the traditional blots and symbels that are normally seen within the germanic traditions.  

This is one of the reasons I’ve remained quite solitary in my practice over the years and remain a type of strange outlier in heathen communities, because a core element of the faith is about community. Still, I’ve always been an introvert, and something of a hermit. It’s difficult, nigh impossible for me to feel any connection to the divine in ritual gatherings, to the point where I feel as if I’m going through the motions, yet my heart and spirit are not connecting at all.  

However, when I recite my creed, utter my vows, and make my daily offerings that have become so normal it is almost casual...there is a connection there.  

“I present these offerings to you, My Gods, to the Ancestors, and to the Spirits of nature, earth and place. I’m thinking about you.”  

It’s dirt simple, but also honest and real for me. It’s how I experience the divine.  

This has led to existential crises in the past, as I’ve wondered if I’m on the right path, or if my faith is valid compared to other Heathens. Like everything in my life, I seem to have to do it my own way to function, which is why I’ve found great comfort in the diversity in the ways of our spiritual ancestors.  

Everything was different depending on where you went from funerary customs, to what ritual structures we’ve been able to devise. Far from having an overall homogenous structure, it is the heterogeneity that grants me comfort.  

The point of ritual, I feel, in all of its many variations and ways is akin to tuning a radio. The systems, routines, smells, sounds, and experience, position the spirit to encounter the divine but everyone’s spiritual radio is a little different which means there will always be outliers like me.  

This is something that the ancient ways seemed to account for well.  

This is where we get to heart of the matter. Our traditions are lived traditions where we seek to connect with the spiritual world around us. It is not about the forgiveness of sins committed, perfect obedience, or the following of a program.  

Our Gods call us to be ourselves, to boldly forge our own paths in life, and I think this does come all the way down to how we worship and approach them.  

We know we are doing it right when we come into a space where we can encounter them, no matter if that occurs in a high day ritual or a simple morning devotional.  

It is our path to wander, and our journey to discover.  

-Sister Snow Hare  

[nikibogwater]

Disclaimer: I meet neither of the qualifications you specified. But this is a topic of interest to me, and I've made a few observations over the years that I figured it couldn't hurt to share. Worst thing that can happen is I'm so off the mark in my conclusions that it's actually hilarious, and you get a bit of free entertainment.

First observation: some folks are just Built Different. My maternal grandparents met when they were fifteen, immediately recognized each other as The One (at least, that's how they tell it), and got married straight out of high school. They've been together for almost 70 years now, and never had any kind of relationship drama. Meanwhile, my parents knew each other for years before they decided to start dating, and they didn't actually tie the knot until they were both in their thirties. They've also never had any relationship drama (unless you count bickering about the best way to fix a leak in the basement). Since both marriages ended up being equally happy, I think it's relatively safe to conclude that it really just depends on the individuals involved. It's not a one-size-fits-all kind of thing. If you can't imagine committing to someone you've only been dating for a year, odds are good that that's just something you can't and shouldn't be expected to do. It doesn't mean you're incapable of having a serious relationship and getting married (assuming you want to, of course). Just that your process of getting there needs to be the slower, more methodical kind, because that's just how God made your brain work.

Second observation (unfortunately this one isn't nearly as nice as the first one): In some Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christian communities, marriage (and more specifically, having children) is more or less treated as the Ultimate Life Goal, an absolute necessity to living a good and God-honoring life. Whether or not it's ever directly stated, there is an expectation for young folks to get hitched and start cranking out kids asap. I have a friend who got tangled up in one of these groups (luckily she got untangled from it pretty quick), and the general expectation was that if you couldn't find a husband by the time you were 25, then you had to become a nun (trust me, I wish I was joking).

Obviously, as a Christian, marriage is inextricably linked to your faith and your relationship with God. But some (not all--probably not even most, if I'm being honest) Christian communities get a little....too hyperfixated on that link between marriage and God, to the point that it's more about marriage for its own sake, and not so much about a mutually uplifting union that draws two people closer to each other and to God.

So....yeah, I don't think I ever actually answered your question there, and tbh, I don't think I could, because I'm in the same boat as you. I guess all I wanted to get across is that love looks different for different people because God is very creative like that, and also beware the pitfalls of certain schools of thought that come from certain well-meaning but still very much mistaken Christian communities.

╮(￣▽￣"")╭

Genuine question for people who are married or in a serious relationship. I've never been in a relationship myself, so I really struggle to understand why someone would become so committed to another person so quickly. Especially in Christian circles where overall, the dating period tends to be shorter than it is for non-Christians. It just seems so foreign to me that a person's romantic interest becomes their entire world so quickly, even though they have friends who have usually known them for longer, know more about them, or have supported them through some of the hardest parts of their life. Does the romantic interest just earn your trust super quickly? And you just decide "yeah, this person, who I've been dating for a year, is the one person on the earth I'm going to be completely and utterly vulnerable with" ?

[talenlee]

Fundamentalism Is A Grift

New Post has been published on PRESS.exe: Fundamentalism Is A Grift

It’s not that fundamentalist christianity is itself fundamentally a grift, it’s just it’s a space that’s always, always, always going to feature some variety of grifters. I don’t have an explanation for why, this isn’t a scientifically researched position or anything, it’s just me noticing a pattern with the same thing, every single time, every single time I stumble into it anew.

It’d be easy to extrapolate that this is related to power dynamics. If a fundamentalist group are all people who defer to a specifically limited interpretation of some source text or ideological position, it almost always expresses as refusal to engage with, or accept, things outside that position. It’s not necessarily the same thing as being big on ‘fundamentals’ per se — I don’t imagine there are mechanics who refuse to fix brake pads because they’re too committed to the fundamental principles of the lever or anything. The basic idea I’m talking about here are ideological communities, usually ones like my fundamentalist evangelical christian background.

I’ve talked about Christian Replacement Media (a few times, in fact) and the way that there’s a market inside these fundamentalist spaces, for, well, everything. You know, you can buy godly books and movies and music and that’s specially separated from the filthy excesses of the other industries around them and so on, but don’t think it’s limited to just the content. It’s also the presentation. Hobby Lobby is infamous for its Christian culture in the fundie space, so buying goods there, and goods with their own branding is a sort of ‘christian’ action you can see in these fundie spaces. We had Koorong bookstores for that.

It’s been perhaps as a byproduct of paying attention to the Content Creation Griftosphere lately that I’ve been so mindful of this lately. Alex Jones wants you to buy his boner pills, the Birchers want you to buy their literature (and distribute copies!), Praying Medic wants you to subscribe to his patreon or whatever, and even actual outright nazis want you to pay into their subscribestars.

Growing up, our pastor was running a business trying to distribute multi-level marketing nonsense, like health-care supplements and alternate medications, I think it’s still around and the brand persists. I know there were atttempts made to recruit my dad into other MLM stuff like Amway, and while we listened to the tapes in the car, nothing came of it. Which was wild as well in hindsight because dad was always a good salesperson, I imagine if he’d gone in on it he might have wound up becoming one of those guys.

It seems almost tautological to point it out: These dudes and it is almost always dudes, are always running a con or a scam. I can’t think of a single fundamentalist christian outlet, people offering to share in the fellowship of the body of christ as indicated by a very specific reading of a text, that isn’t ultimately connected in some way to selling something, and that something is never actively good. Hell, Jones has gotten to the point where he’s now just plain out selling overpriced crap because you’re ‘paying to fight the infowar.’

So fundies are scammers, so what.

Well, not all fundies are in on the scam. In fact, there are a lot of good-faith actors in the space who are shitheads for other reasons, but which don’t realise they’re dealing with other scam artists. And that’s why you may notice most of these people in these spaces tend to be a bit territorial, a bit… exclusive. Most of the time, give these people enough time and even if they overlap on 99% of what they do they’ll still find ways and reasons to be mad at one another, to find some reason to try and keep their audiences and their income stream isolated to just them.

What an example?

Patch the Pirate is the stage name of a guy named Ron Hamilton, a guy who I file happily in the ‘good faith producer’ space of Christian Replacement Media. Note that he is a big dumb shithead for other reasons, what with the misogyny and racism, but it’s the kind of misogyny and racism that he would see as just ‘good old fashioned fun,’ or ‘old fashioned values,’ you know how it is. He’s the source of the truly harrowing I Wanna Marry Daddy song, which he then had his daughters sing on an album, which

Yeah anyway.

Patch the Pirate media is basically karaoke covers levels of qualities of Christian knock-off songs of well-known songs from other sources, praise songs and hymns, and some moral messaging that I understand is derived from in many cases the Pat Boone-ification of other modestly singable songs from Back In The Day. It’s like how a lot of sunday school songs are all built around classic showtunes if you know the right corpus.

What I’m saying is this guy makes the Christian Replacement Media version of Softest Cheese. There is no edge to his music.

But.

But.

He has not escaped criticism.

I was gunna start this article just going ‘hey, here’s a goofy thing from my childhood’ about how fundie music and art sucked and I was going to give you a run through on one of the Patch the Pirate pieces (and I still might, another time). But what I got caught up on here was instead finding this amazing controvery from 2000, back in the still-sharing-tapes time of the Patch the Pirate industry, from again, probably good faith actors who nonetheless understand that you have to defend your turf.

While most of the music produced by Majesty Music of Greenville, South Carolina (headed up by Ron and Shelly Hamilton), is excellent, we must warn that some of the newer recordings are moving in a contemporary direction. This is particularly true of the newer Patch the Pirate children’s tapes. The Mount Zion Marathon tape for example, has a song titled “Lazy Bones,” which is certainly akin to rock music. It uses a syncopated rhythm with a heavy, synthesized bass. The music would be right at home in a nightclub or a sleazy Broadway play. Though it is tame compared to much of the standard CCM fare today, Patch the Pirate’s “Lazy Bones” will help develop an appetite in children for worldly music. Other examples of this can be found on their newer tapes.

David Cloud

CCM in this case referes to contemporary christian music, the idea of Christian music that wasn’t made before the Titanic was. But still, this David Cloud guy (a fundamentalist critic of other fundamentalist work) has problems with a song called Lazy Bones, which would be right at home in a nightclub or sleazy broadway play.

Imagine what this music is.

Please.

Just put it in your mind what it could be.

Ready?

Okay, it’s this:

Lazy Bones

Watch this video on YouTube

Check it out on PRESS.exe to see it with images and links!

[cazort]

One of the weirdest things about modern American Fundamentalist Christianity is the fact that it claims to be sticking to divine truth by interpreting the Bible "literally", but it accepts the canonization of the Bible which occurred by a political process during the early church, and wasn't concluded until around the year 419 when Revelations was added. But the early church grew into the Catholic church, and fundamentalists generally reject the Catholic church as evil and wrong and "not really Christians".

Then Martin Luther (1483-1546) removed certain books from the canon, and this is somehow ignored, yet the new canonization with these books removed, is generally respected as "correct".

So what is it? Do you trust the political processes in the early church or don't you? Why do you trust the processes that led to Bible canonization in its current form, yet you reject the Catholic church, which grew out of this same early church, as evil and wrong and "not really Christian"? If the broad consensus around the canonized Bible texts was really sanctioned by God, then why did the Catholic church that grew out of the same communities holding that consensus, become so corrupt and disconnected from God, as you allege? And why was Martin Luther magically able to remove texts from the canon but no one else is allowed to?

It doesn't make sense.

You know what I think? I think people just never think about this stuff. It's glaringly inconsistent, but people never think that deeply, they just accept the Bible canon as-is, without question. When you start questioning it, it starts to unravel.

To give you an idea of how little people think of this stuff, some American Christians are so ignorant, they genuinely think Jesus spoke English. English as a language didn't even exist at that time!

I'm not saying to reject the Bible as a holy text. I'm saying to embrace the subjectivity in the political process that went into its canonization. Recognize that even if you reject Catholicism as a belief system and disagree with them on important points, that your faith has a shared history with it, and don't demonize Catholics like some mysterious "other". And to maybe consider texts outside the canon as also containing divine truth, as well as considering that texts within the canon may have also been corrupted by all sorts of human limitations. Seek out and study non-canonical gospels and other non-canonical texts from the times of the canonical books in the Bible.

I especially think Evangelical Christians need to change their thinking on the relationship between Catholicism and Protestantism, and start seeing them more how outside observers do: as different branches of Christianity. I don't think one of them is "right" and the other "wrong". Both of them are human institutions, and both have a lot of people within them trying to get at divine truths, yet both are corrupted by politics and cultural biases and a long list of other human imperfections. And yes, this corruption includes the Bible canon itself. I see the canonization of the Bible as political and rather arbitrary and as such I think it is problematic to assign special meaning to the texts your particular branch or denomination considers holy, without acknowledging the subjectivity of the choices of what to include and the processes that led to those inclusions or exclusions.

If you choose to embrace a particular Bible canon, and have faith in it, use it in your tradition, then great. I can respect that choice. A lot of mainline Protestant churches do just this. You can say "these are the texts that we use / include". But I will not respect your claim that that particular choice of texts is divinely sanctioned and all others are wrong. When you make that claim, you're now going too far, you're claiming to know what God wants, that your particular interpretation of truth is divinely sanction and others aren't, and you're putting an awful lot of faith in a human political process in a way that doesn't make sense when you consider all the other things that you reject about the same communities making those political processes. That's an awfully arrogant thing to do, claiming to know with certainty what God wants, especially when the evidence in the world conflicts with your claim.

Go ahead, call me a heretic. It's the only consistent way I can think of to make sense of this stuff without being a glaring hypocrite.

Really what this all comes down to is that people are desperately holding onto one idea: "I'm right, you're wrong." Explain to me how that is going to lead to religious truth? How that is going to cause you to lead a Christ-like life, when Christ teaches us to love others and not to judge them? You can't do it. You can't be a sincere Christian, you can't really live out Christ's teachings without letting go of the idea that you're right and other people are wrong.

And yes, this includes the relationship of Christianity to other religions. I don't think you can really be true to Christian values if you believe other religions are wrong and your particular interpretation of your religion is "fully" correct. You can invent really convoluted logic to justify why you can do this...but it's just that, convoluted. The only simple idea is to acknowledge the subjectivity of your own beliefs, and that is the essence of divine truth that will lead you into the life where you are not judging others.

Yeah, I know this is a radical idea. Like I said, label me a heretic and kick me out of your community, I don't care. It's what I believe.

[ofhouseadama]

I've seen a lot of takes about how Midnight Mass isn't true horror because it ends on a thesis of death being a true neutral, about how we start as energy in the universe and we end as energy in the universe and how everyone who dies gets a neutral ending, despite what they did or didn't do. And if that's what you took away from Midnight Mass, I totally get why and the way we perceive media is absolutely 100% what we carry into the viewing experience.

But as someone who comes from a deeply dysfunctional Catholic family, I appreciated how Midnight Mass focused so deeply on how the true horror is what we do to each other here on Earth, under the guise of "having faith." Obviously the narrative shows it to us in Father Paul/Monsignor Pruitt and Bev most clearly -- two people whose world view and sense of self were so so so colored by zealotry and fanaticism and blind faith -- who destroyed the entire town.

I see the characters as two sides of the same selfish coin. Monsignor Pruitt blindly seeking any scrap of redemption for his sins at the end of his life, even after murdering Joe Collie, finding peace in his lack of remorse for breaking his vow of celibacy, in committing adultery with Mildred, his lifelong negative presence in his daughter's life, all the way to murder. And then you have Bev, who has spent her entire life attempting to smother her insecurities with being the Most Saved and the Most Faithful and the Best Catholic. Who wields cherry-picked scripture and fundamentalism like a truncheon, especially against anyone different, anyone a threat to the ecosystem where she has become a big fish in a very small pond. Neither of them can grasp the harm they have done to others, because their actions and beliefs have kept them "safe."

But they have hurt so many people, so very deeply. And that is the true horror of Midnight Mass. The harm we do to each other. The harm we do, and don't even think to apologize. The things we do not think to be forgiven from the people we have hurt and abused and wronged.

And if you were brought up in a religious household or religious environment, you know the fear that is instilled in you young. The fear, the firmly-held belief spouted from the pulpit that there are Good People and there are Bad People and you have to follow these thousands of years old rules that we are still fighting and squabbling about -- fighting wars about -- exactly right or you are going to hell for eternity. The fear that some of the people you love are going to hell, and you will never see them again for the rest of all time. Or that you are going to hell, because you are gay or you're the "wrong" religion, or you're doing religion "wrong" or you are somehow looked at and judged and found wanting. And that is a horror you carry with you from the time you are old enough to toddle into a Sunday School classroom. Day in and day out. Until it either drives you to harm others or you get out, and you become the sinner you were warned about.

The horror is in fundamentalist Christianity and evangelism. The horror is looking back and realizing all the people you hurt with your beliefs. The horror is in realizing there will never be enough to atone. The horror is in realizing you cannot possibly apologize to all the people who harmed. The horror is in reckoning with that, with all the awful things you have done, and trying to find a path forward.

(Riley's addiction issues fits in nicely with this. The true horror, with Riley, is that he had just found his next step. Not the whole journey, just the next step. And it was enough.

And then it was taken from him.

By someone who wasn't even capable of feeling remorse for their harm. By someone who wasn't capable of seeing the monster he brought into the community. By someone who perverted the ideals of AA from the first meeting he ran.)

The catharsis is the belief that we carry back out into the universe what we carried in -- energy. That no matter how we followed the rules or didn't, we do not die and get sorted into Good People and Sinners. There are no heavenly gates, there is no fire and brimstone. We all flow back together. We will never be separated. Not before life, and not after death. We all flow back together. And there is meaning in looking away from the heavens and looking at each other and asking for forgiveness.

And that to be truly saved means to be forgiven by your fellow man.

And it's okay if that's meaningless to you, or offensive, or makes you mad because it comes across as preachy or pro-Catholicism or pro-atheism or somewhere in between. But as someone who was told her entire childhood by her extended that she was the Wrong Type of Christian for being raised Presbyterian and forced to go to mass and be excluded from communion and all the other rites -- it really resonated with me. I'm carrying out what I carried in.

[idylls-of-the-divine-romance]

Hiii. First of, thank you because you've been quite respectful and that deserves gratitude.

I'm only really addressing this because my post is being reblogged by nonchristians. I do want to say somethings do: American Christians also do not understand Christian theology lol. I was 17 when I learned about the resurrection of the dead - a MAJOR tenet of Christian theology. I am 17 right now! I learned this, after having been Christian my entire life, a couple months ago! I used to think the world would be destroyed and we'd be raptured and that was just what the bible taught and what the church taught. Point is: USAmerica Christianity just sort of sucks in general. Fundamentalist or liberal, there theology is like really bad. Heck, diet-gnosticism was being taught in the pulpit of the Baptist church i currently attend (against my will lol). Many, many American Protestants are low-key diet gnostic (is it the same in Canada? I know literally nothing about the state of Canadian Christianity).

I agree that treating Christianity like a monolith is bad (with the key exception of anything in the Nicene Creed, they reject it they are not Christian.) but that is exactly what the people who made the claims i said were absurd had done: they took there bad experience in some evangelical protestant (one girl apparantly evangelical catholic - wtv that means) American church (some of which were literally cults who didn't actually believe in Scripture) and then made a blanket statement about all christians: Anglicans, Methodiests, Eastern Orthodoxes, Pentecostals, Dutch Reformed, Presbyterian, the Assyrian Church of the East (i know they are sketchy but wtv), Baptists, Roman Catholics, Eastern Catholics, Western Rite Orthodoxes, the like 5 different Oriental Orthodox churches, Anglo-Catholics, Catholic Anglicans, Anglican Catholics (apparently all 3 are different things T-T).

So yeah. Basically my point is we are agreed that treating Christianity like a monolith is bad, and I would add treating USAmerica like the epicent of "true Christianity" is laughable. If i was some kind of high church leader I would freaking ex-communicate this country lol

"The seven deadly sins thing is such bullshit who care-" Tell me you don't actually understand Christian theology/philosophy without telling me you don't understand Christian theology/philosophy.

"Christianity is escapist-" Tell me you don't actually understand Christian theology/philosophy without telling me you don't understand Christian theology/philosophy.

"Who cares about the environment since the word is just going to be destro-" Tell me you don't actually understand Christian theology/philosophy without telling me you don't understand Christian theology/philosophy.

"Christianity teaches a low view of human-" Tell me you don't actually understand Christian theology/philosophy without telling me you don't understand Christian theology/philosophy.

"Christianity teaches thought crime-" Tell me you don't actually understand Christian theology/philosophy without telling me you don't understand Christian theology/philosophy.

"God hates gay people-" Tell me you don't actually understand Christian theology/philosophy without telling me you don't understand Christian theology/philosophy.

"Christianity teaches the rapture-" Tell me you don't actually understand Christian theology/philosophy without telling me you don't understand Christian theology/philosophy.

"Christianity teaches that you should seek martyrdom-" Tell me you don't actually understand Christian theology/philosophy without telling me you don't understand Christian theology/philosophy.

"Christianity teaches that one should sell all their possessions and go live with the poor-" Tell me you don't actually understand Christian theology/philosophy without telling me you don't understand Christian theology/philosophy.

"Christianity is anti-science-" Tell me you don't actually understand Christian theology/philosophy without telling me you don't understand Christian theology/philosophy.

"Christianity is against the physical world-" Tell me you don't actually understand Christian theology/philosophy without telling me you don't understand Christian theology/philosophy.

"Jesus teaches that the greatest form of love is to die-" Tell me you don't actually understand Christian theology/philosophy without telling me you don't understand Christian theology/philosophy.

"Christianity teaches that your body is your enemy-" Tell me you don't actually understand Christian theology/philosophy without telling me you don't understand Christian theology/philosophy.

"Christianity teaches young earth creationism-" Tell me you don't actually understand Christian theology/philosophy without telling me you don't understand Christian theology/philosophy.

"Christianity teaches that emotions are demoni-" Tell me you don't actually understand Christian theology/philosophy without telling me you don't understand Christian theology/philosophy.

"Christianity teaches that no good dwells in humans-" Tell me you don't actually understand Christian theology/philosophy without telling me you don't understand Christian theology/philosophy.

If you don't want to be Christian or if you don't like Christianity that's fine. But what's not fine is strawmaning and using a lack of theological and philosophical understanding to talk bad about a religion that is not your own. If you've been hurt, my heart goes out to you. I hope you get therapy and that you can find peace and wholeness, however that looks for you. But that does not give you an excuse anymore than it gives anyone else an excuse.

Also: Fundamentalism is heresy.

[queerprayers]

i grew up evangelical (which i no longer am) and am stuck in a community that continuously tells me that my faith is wrong. im feeling really lost and alone, i dont know what to do.

Hello! I hear you! This is a horrible position to be in, and I'm so sorry that this is your experience right now.

Something I hear a lot of people bring up is that leaving a denomination/religion isn't just saying goodbye to a faith/rituals/church, it can be saying goodbye to a whole support system/community! Especially for movements like evangelicalism, often people's whole family and all their friends will also be part of the church, and so leaving means ending up alone. I don't know if I have any words that can heal how scary this might be for you, I know that. But here's what I do have:

A Note: You mentioned that you're being told your faith is wrong, so I just wanted to say: it isn't. Obviously I have no idea what your faith is/isn't specifically (I technically don't even know if you're Christian), but I do know that you don't measure faith in right or wrong. I suppose you can have faith in wrong things, things harmful to yourself/others, but I still don't like calling faith right/wrong. Let's measure it in different ways. You're not wrong, they're not wrong. But one of you, from what I know of/my experience with evangelicalism, is toxic and cult-like and harmful. And, unless somehow you're deconstructing your evangelicalism to an even more horrible place or a different cult, you're just finding the right space for you. (Especially if you're on this blog, which I try to keep focused on love and Jesus's words :)

Words for while you're in an unwelcoming space: Do what you can to get through. Grit your teeth. Take what you can from it, grow however you can, love as much as you can. Even as the community around you stays in that toxic place, do your own reading and growing. Find spaces online where you can be yourself, and connect with/read about people who have been where you are. There are so many people who have successfully left evangelicalism and created beautiful lives for themselves. Don't lose hope (easier said than done, I know). Any growth/beauty you create in a toxic environment is infinitely more impressive when you take into account the situation. And God is with you in your deconstruction.

Another Note: Some people are in that place their whole lives, but I desperately hope and pray that you find a new path. I'm not sure exactly how much freedom you have (whether you live at home, are financially dependent on family, have health issues, etc.), but either very soon or sometime in the future, I pray that you have the security and courage to find spaces where you are welcomed wholeheartedly, where you don't feel like this.

Yet Another Note: Obviously you don't have to leave your community. That's not your only option. I don't know the specifics of your situation, and it might not be realistic/possible for you to change your life that much, or you might not want to/be ready to. I'm not trying to tell you what to do, just giving you some thoughts if that's where you're headed. For as long as you're in the same situation, I pray that God may give you strength and help you heal internally, and that you may find a way to be at peace.

Words for leaving/finding new spaces: Sometimes everything has to fall apart so that you can put it back together again. It might be even more lonely at first. Do it. Jump. I promise there's a whole world out there besides evangelicalism, and it's waiting for you. It's up to you what to keep—what family/friends stay in your life, even whether you keep going to church at all. Once you've found your footing, you're going to flourish—I can feel it. You're going to have to let yourself heal—it's not easy. I won't pretend it is. But God is with you in your reconstruction.

Resources/Further Reading:

find organizations/social media accounts I recommend here

on choosing a denomination (from me)

Life After Evangelicalism, Rachel Held Evans

"Exvangelicals" Are Living a Uniquely American Crisis, Scout Brobst, Vice

Deconstructing faith: Meet the evangelicals who are questioning everything, Sam Hailes, Premier Christianity

11 Former Evangelicals Talk About What They Left Behind, Dani Fankhauser, The Salve

The Rise of #Exvangelical, Bradley Onishi, Religion & Politics

"God Is Going to Have to Forgive Me": Young Evangelicals Speak Out, Elizabeth Dias, The New York Times

Searching for Sunday: Loving, Leaving, and Finding the Church by Rachel Held Evans

After Evangelicalism: The Path to a New Christianity by David O. Gushee

Faith Shift: Finding Your Way Forward When Everything You Believe Is Coming Apart by Kathy Escobar

Accidental Saints: Finding God in All the Wrong People by Nadia Bolz-Weber

Religious Refugees: (de)Constructing Toward Spiritual and Emotional Healing by Mark Gregory Karris

Deconstructing Evangelicalism: A Letter to a Friend and a Professor's Guide to Escaping Fundamentalist Christianity by Jamin Hübner

<3 Johanna

[theshoesofatiredman]

When you are deconstructing your faith, it's not unusual that some of the baggage is going to carry over. Deconstruction is a long journey and your faith system likely packed a lot of bags for you. For example, your quest for truth can be just as fundamentalist, just as rigid, inside a deconstructing framework as it can inside the framework of evangelicalism. It's important to deconstruct that fundamentalist approach to truth seeking in order for your deconstruction to not just be more of the same evils you're trying to flee. The same goes for the need to get everyone to believe what you believe.

For example, here is a great post by @eivor-wolfkissed about Islamophobia in ex christian blogs. They make great points about how they are bringing their superiority complex from Christianity into their ignorant critiques of Islam. It enables hate and narrows perspectives.

I also saw a similarly great post by @positivelyatheist about the poor treatment that atheists receive from theists. It's along the same lines though their critique was not directed at ex Christians specifically though I think the same idea applies. Atheists have been subject to gross mistreatment and mischaracterization from the Christian community. This behavior is incredibly wrong, profoundly hurtful, and deeply ingrained inside fundamentalist evangelicalism.

What I currently struggle with in that is not knowing when I am morally obligated, by nature of how toxic an ideology is, to critique and try to change minds. There are things about certain types of atheism and certain sects of Islam that are really bad for other people. There are things about Christianity that are bad for other people. We do not have a set of perfect ideologies out there in the world that is entirely free from toxicity. If we do not talk about it, we will never improve our ways of thinking.

For example, here is another post that is a critique of a specific ex religious brand of atheism that seeks to destroy spirituality, that wields pessimism against the joy and fulfillment that people find within faith based communities, and that may be driven by bigotry as much as it is a zeal for anti-theism. This is incredibly toxic and deserves critique. At least, imo. It may not have the codified systems and entrenched power structures to cause the same scale of damage as militant evangelicalism but I don't think it's that hot of a take to say that tearing down things that bring joy is a societal ill.

I feel like I can like and support the ideas in both the "pro atheist" and "anti atheist" posts here because in my mind they are describing different things that happen to use the broader umbrella term of atheist, simply because, as far as I know, there isn't really language to distinguish between atheist brands. Atheists deserve respect as people but respect for their beliefs, depending on harm, can and should vary. The same goes for other ideologies.

So back to my question - do I have any moral obligation to try and turn people away from harmful ideologies? For example, I believe that QAnon is a wholly toxic thing. No part of it is good. It was created to advance a flawed political agenda, has deep roots in bigotry, is deeply untrue, and prevents a picture of the world and humankind that strips people it stands against of their very humanity. There are members of my family that are Q believers. Am I obligated to try and pull them out of that?

Of course, I have tried to call out the lies when I can and critique the ideology when I've had the opportunity. It is terrible to see them believing QAnon insanity. But this has done little to change their minds. It's very hard for me to convince my parents of anything that doesn't line up with their thinking since I lost all my credibility and moral authority by becoming more liberal and dating a man. But do I have an obligation to keep trying? Does anyone?

We as a society have very strong ethical systems surrounding the preservation of physical life. But what kinds of ethical systems should we have for preserving a person's ideological life? If we would not abandon a person to disease, why would we abandon a person to a conspiracy theory? A false religion? A dangerous cult? A racist political party? A verbally abusive workplace?

I have no desire to abandon my fellow human to any harmful system of thought. Yet, there are times when I am unequipped or ill-suited to deal with the problem. These things seem very case by case, but even then it's hard to parse.

[nochd]

I feel I need to write a conclusion to this thread.

There are of course plenty of other threads by which Evangelicalism and Trumpism are entangled. But I don't feel like wandering off into the weeds.

(If you want my thoughts on Evangelicals and Israel, someone ask me and I'll try and unravel them into something coherent enough to read.)

I started this thread as a follow-up to this one, which was about what leftists could have done differently to change the outcome of the US election. Not that leftists are solely responsible, but our own choices are the one thing we can do something about directly (to repeat the point of that thread).

We can't change Evangelical Republican voters' minds directly the way we can our own.

I've seen individual Evangelicals leave their beliefs behind; I've been an individual Evangelical and I've left my beliefs behind. It happens when you live in a community with people of different beliefs, and you find you can no longer sustain the idea that a good God would send them to Hell.

This would imply that, if you have a pluralistic community and an Evangelical community next door to each other, at the boundary between them the Evangelicals will gradually become pluralists, so that over time the pluralistic community will encroach and the Evangelical one will dwindle.

Which I gather is more or less what is indeed happening in the United States, and that's exactly why the remaining Evangelicals are growing increasingly militant.

Remember, Evangelicals don't see themselves as one group among many or their beliefs as a religion like other religions. They think they worship the one true God and all other beliefs come from Satan. What they see, looking at these trends, is Satan taking over the Earth.

I've seen some well-meaning people on this website trying to assure Evangelicals that "You can be pro-choice / pro-queer / not want to try to convert people (etc.) and still be Evangelical." And they're not wrong; some individual Evangelicals do manage it.

The problem is that framing the issue in terms of you can still keep your identity only makes sense under the cultural consensus that religion is a private matter of personal identity, which -- to repeat the refrain I've been banging on throughout this thread -- is a consensus that Evangelicals never signed up to.

The core of Evangelical belief is that God has provided a life-raft to save humanity from Hell, and that life-raft is called Christianity. Evangelicals are not worried about "If I drop this part of my worldview, am I still allowed to identify as an Evangelical?" They're worried about "If I drop this part of my worldview, will I go to Hell?"

Let me lay out the problem as explicitly as possible: What Evangelicals believe about God is that every belief about God is wrong except for Evangelical Christianity. Hence, if no belief about God is wrong, that means the Evangelical belief about God is wrong.

Evangelicalism and the religion-is-private consensus ultimately cannot coexist.

I'm reminded of Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance -- a society that tolerates intolerance will cease to be tolerant. And it's tempting to reach for the solution where we practise tolerance "not as a moral standard, but as a social contract" (from a tweet somewhere, you've probably seen it).

But what does that mean? Do we suspend the religion-is-private consensus for anyone who disagrees with it?

Is that what people mean who say "Religion is fine, except for fundamentalism"? Is a "fundamentalist" anyone who hasn't signed up to this specific modern Western cultural consensus?

Even setting aside the religious aspect and looking at Evangelicals purely as a political bloc, strategies of intolerance always come with the same flaw, which is

The only thing we can do about that, in the here and now, is

vote for the other candidate.

Which a critical number of American leftists... well... didn't.

Anyway. This thread has been a preview of what you can expect under Project 2025.

Best of luck.

Evangelical Christianity is about to become the ruling ideology of the United States. Like it or hate it, it's going to be something everyone needs to understand.

I was raised in it, and I can explain some things.

I also have this persistent perception -- and I'm coming to realize it's pretty rare -- that the kind of "explanation" of your opponents' ideas in which you emphasize how weeeeeeirrd and sTuPiD and MY GOD IMAGINE BEING THIS FAR AWAY FROM BEING A PROPER HUMAN they are, doesn't actually accomplish anything helpful, however satisfying it might feel in the moment.

In this post I said

Three things happened in the 2024 US election:

Conservatives, led by white Evangelical Christians, voted for Donald Trump.

The Democrats did not shift their policy platform to the left.

A critical number of leftists did not vote or voted third party instead of voting for Kamala Harris.

If either #1 or #3 had not happened, Kamala Harris would have won the election. And #3 is the one that leftists could actually, on the day, have done something about.

I am going to do a post about #1 as well.

This is going to be that post.