Warning: Religious topic
So, I got involved in a conversation online with a self-proclaimed born-again Christian, who claims to print out pamphlets about her faith and leave them in public bathrooms and laundromats and the like. She showed a complete lack of interest in my salvation, claiming that so long as she got the word out, what I did with it was my business.
I must admit, I find born-again Christians uniquely puzzling. As a secular humanist, I find all religions fascinating, and I love to discuss and debate religion, and do so with a great effort at being respectful and open-minded. All religions have their beauties and their horrors, in my opinion, and, while I have no intention of joining any of them, I find them a fascinating and omnipresent facet of the human experience.
But, more than any other, I have observed that born-again Christians are the least tolerant of other people's points of views. I'm not accusing them of being intolerant of non-believers' existence; just of our disagreeing with them. This woman didn't get antagonistic. She didn't call me names or tell me I was going to hell (although I'm sure she believes I am). But she was absolutely, categorically unwilling to hear what I had to say. And, since what I had to say related to her self-assigned task of saving souls*, and how to more effectively accomplish it, I found that strange.
I have a theory. I could be completely ass-backwards, but here is my theory. It appears to me that those who call themselves "born-again" tend to be those who have, in some crisis of their lives, found relief and help and new identity through the help of some church. Grateful and awed, they have not only joined said church, but have embraced its tenets to a fierce degree, espousing them constantly as the only Truth, the only salvation, the only rescue.
They did not (or so I assume) come to their faith through internal means (study, meditation, soul-searching), but were offered it from an outside source who, through their faith, gave them the path to changing their lives, and escaping their crisis.
It is my theory that, because the source of their faith was external, they need the world outside of themselves to constantly reinforce it. If a person can give you the path to God, cannot another person take it away?
Now, it could be argued that, because religion is cultural and not instinctive, all theists are given the path to god. They are taught the tenets of their faith as children, or as adult disciples of some found faith. We learn all our views of the universe and its function, and our function in it, from others.
So, what makes the born-again so particularly diligent, so particularly intolerant, so notably fearful of opposing points of view? If their way is the only way, if their relationship with God is nurtured on both sides, how can a conversation with me threaten that?
(It sort of reminds me of the gay marriage issue. How can the marriage of gay people have anything to do with mine?)
The Catholic Church, famous for centuries of absolute intolerance, doesn't seem to have the same issues nowadays. Most of the Catholics I know feel sorry for my eventual damnation, but are quite comfortable debating the issues with me. The Jews are the Chosen People, and make you _seriously_ work for it if you're trying to join their gang. Buddhists don't care. It's part of their faith; not caring about things. My mother, who is studying to be a minister of the United Church, finds great comfort in her faith, and occasionally asks to pray for me if I'm going through a difficult time, but otherwise is quite comfortable with my athiesm, convinced that, as I get older, I'll change my tune.
Only the born-again cannot abide the _conversation_. They even seem to have trouble explaining their own point of view, beyond the route rhetoric printed on the pamphlets...
I dunno........
*I was trying to explain that, if you want someone to cross a bridge of faith, standing on your bank and shouting is less effective than taking their hand and leading them across. ie: Backing your arguments with "The Bible says.." when we have neither agreed on the existence of God nor the validity of the bible is ineffective. Whereas starting with, "The world is a miraculous place, unique in the universe, which is best explained by a higher power" and then moving on to God, and THEN moving on to the Bible, which you have actually studied, strikes me as a much better and more effective way of converting people.
I must admit, I find born-again Christians uniquely puzzling. As a secular humanist, I find all religions fascinating, and I love to discuss and debate religion, and do so with a great effort at being respectful and open-minded. All religions have their beauties and their horrors, in my opinion, and, while I have no intention of joining any of them, I find them a fascinating and omnipresent facet of the human experience.
But, more than any other, I have observed that born-again Christians are the least tolerant of other people's points of views. I'm not accusing them of being intolerant of non-believers' existence; just of our disagreeing with them. This woman didn't get antagonistic. She didn't call me names or tell me I was going to hell (although I'm sure she believes I am). But she was absolutely, categorically unwilling to hear what I had to say. And, since what I had to say related to her self-assigned task of saving souls*, and how to more effectively accomplish it, I found that strange.
I have a theory. I could be completely ass-backwards, but here is my theory. It appears to me that those who call themselves "born-again" tend to be those who have, in some crisis of their lives, found relief and help and new identity through the help of some church. Grateful and awed, they have not only joined said church, but have embraced its tenets to a fierce degree, espousing them constantly as the only Truth, the only salvation, the only rescue.
They did not (or so I assume) come to their faith through internal means (study, meditation, soul-searching), but were offered it from an outside source who, through their faith, gave them the path to changing their lives, and escaping their crisis.
It is my theory that, because the source of their faith was external, they need the world outside of themselves to constantly reinforce it. If a person can give you the path to God, cannot another person take it away?
Now, it could be argued that, because religion is cultural and not instinctive, all theists are given the path to god. They are taught the tenets of their faith as children, or as adult disciples of some found faith. We learn all our views of the universe and its function, and our function in it, from others.
So, what makes the born-again so particularly diligent, so particularly intolerant, so notably fearful of opposing points of view? If their way is the only way, if their relationship with God is nurtured on both sides, how can a conversation with me threaten that?
(It sort of reminds me of the gay marriage issue. How can the marriage of gay people have anything to do with mine?)
The Catholic Church, famous for centuries of absolute intolerance, doesn't seem to have the same issues nowadays. Most of the Catholics I know feel sorry for my eventual damnation, but are quite comfortable debating the issues with me. The Jews are the Chosen People, and make you _seriously_ work for it if you're trying to join their gang. Buddhists don't care. It's part of their faith; not caring about things. My mother, who is studying to be a minister of the United Church, finds great comfort in her faith, and occasionally asks to pray for me if I'm going through a difficult time, but otherwise is quite comfortable with my athiesm, convinced that, as I get older, I'll change my tune.
Only the born-again cannot abide the _conversation_. They even seem to have trouble explaining their own point of view, beyond the route rhetoric printed on the pamphlets...
I dunno........
*I was trying to explain that, if you want someone to cross a bridge of faith, standing on your bank and shouting is less effective than taking their hand and leading them across. ie: Backing your arguments with "The Bible says.." when we have neither agreed on the existence of God nor the validity of the bible is ineffective. Whereas starting with, "The world is a miraculous place, unique in the universe, which is best explained by a higher power" and then moving on to God, and THEN moving on to the Bible, which you have actually studied, strikes me as a much better and more effective way of converting people.