Assuming others are Christians

[cloudyday2]

I can sympathize to a small extent. Both sides of my family are quite conservative and quite strictly Baptist or Baptist-ish. For the most part I avoid discussing religion and politics with family in order to avoid confrontation. I'm not exactly sure which they'd be bothered by more, that I'm a Lutheran or that social politics are left-of-center.

-CryptoLutheran

Yep, that's a perfect example. It's nice to avoid subjects where people have strong and opposing opinions - like religion and politics. This is why I think the European way is the best way. Christians should keep their beliefs more private. Christians should not assume that other people are also Christians, because Christianity is declining rapidly in the US. For many ex-Christians, Christianity is a painful subject that they don't want to be reminded about constantly. Not all ex-Christians are public in their disbelief. Some like myself prefer to keep it secret or ambiguous for various reasons.

 

[oi_antz]

I suspect that you believe so strongly in Christianity that you can't imagine how anybody else who truly believes and understands could ever stop believing? I would call this the "no true Christian" argument ( No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ).

I'm not sure if you make that assumption only about me or if you make that assumption about all ex-Christians. If you are only talking about me, then that is fine. I never was very successful at believing in Christianity. However, if you are talking about ex-Christians in general, then you are wrong. There is an ex-Christian forum with extimonies that you could browse to see that many of them were very sincere believers at one time.

No, I have some understanding of that, and experience of it. What has made you think that of me?

 

[oi_antz]

Christians should not assume that other people are also Christians.

I usually don't, BTW. I assume their beliefs are what they are according to the way the person is. I encounter people of many types of belief from day to day: Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Buddhist, Whatever-it-is, atheist, doesn't-matter, secret, etc. It's the person and their beliefs that I recognise, not their religion, because to judge a person based on their preferred religion is to use an inaccurate stereotype. But to judge the person's beliefs is most accurate.

 

[cloudyday2]

No, I have some understanding of that, and experience of it. What has made you think that of me?

Thanks, I'm glad you have some experience with ex-Christians. Many Christians are blissfully ignorant of ex-Christians and find them inscrutable (if they even acknowledge their existence). What made me concerned was the following quote:

Sounds like you have believed at some time what you have been told without really understanding it or accepting it. It sounds too like you have been offended by people doing the same thing and acting toward you or others according to the judgements that those beliefs impose.

Obviously I read more into your statement than you intended. To clarify, I think I had a good understanding of the most popular forms of Christianity, but I have never been very successful at believing. I always wanted some evidence from God.

I usually don't, BTW. I assume their beliefs are what they are according to the way the person is. I encounter people of many types of belief from day to day: Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Buddhist, Whatever-it-is, atheist, doesn't-matter, secret, etc. It's the person and their beliefs that I recognise, not their religion, because to judge a person based on their preferred religion is to use an inaccurate stereotype. But to judge the person's beliefs is most accurate.

O.k. that's good. I think the assumptions are a bigger problem in the US, because up until recent decades most people were Christian.

 

[oi_antz]

Thanks, I'm glad you have some experience with ex-Christians.

I have experienced being anti-Christian but never atheist or non-theist.

Many Christians are blissfully ignorant of ex-Christians and find them inscrutable (if they even acknowledge their existence).

I feel that way quite a lot, not just about a person's theological beliefs, but also in general about trying to understand why people do what they do.

What made me concerned was the following quote:

Sounds like you have believed at some time what you have been told without really understanding it or accepting it. It sounds too like you have been offended by people doing the same thing and acting toward you or others according to the judgements that those beliefs impose.

Obviously I read more into your statement than you intended. To clarify, I think I had a good understanding of the most popular forms of Christianity, but I have never been very successful at believing. I always wanted some evidence from God.

I would expect to find that you have believed it, but you haven't accepted it. For a while you allowed yourself to be convinced that it was true, but over time the problems you had with it caused your belief to become unraveled. If you like to exchange the words "believe" and "accept" in this sentence to find agreement, let's do that for now. They are very subtle differences. Concerning evidence from God, I always imagine Him just getting really frustrated when people do that. But then, I can also imagine Him throwing His hands in the air.

O.k. that's good. I think the assumptions are a bigger problem in the US, because up until recent decades most people were Christian.

It seems like it is due to some group mentality, but I am intrinsically against that.

 

[cloudyday2]

I would expect to find that you have believed it, but you haven't accepted it. For a while you allowed yourself to be convinced that it was true, but over time the problems you had with it caused your belief to become unraveled. If you like to exchange the words "believe" and "accept" in this sentence to find agreement, let's do that for now. They are very subtle differences.

I'm curious about the distinction between "believe" and "accept".

Is the distinction obedience such as Abraham demonstrated by his willingness to sacrifice Isaac as commanded by God?

 

[Albion]

Do you guys see this as a problem? If so, how do you deal with the problem?

(1) Many churches teach that non-believers go to hell.

No, not a problem.

(2) Many non-believers used to believe and later lost faith.

Not a big surprise.

(3) Many non-believers are married to believers, children of believers, coworkers of believers, etc.

So what?

(4) Non-believers often prefer to keep their views private for a variety of reasons. Maybe they don't want loved ones to worry about them spending eternity in hell. Maybe they don't want to jeopardize friendships, marriages, etc.

Yes, and so...? That is their choice, if you ask me. They aren't required or induced to behave that way by the religion.

I know as a former believer, that it is hard to imagine that others do not believe.

Not at all. We all know non-believers.

Often others used to believe, so it is natural to assume that they continue to believe. For this reason, the believer might casually makes comments where the non-believer must either keep silent or share his/her private views of Christianity.

That would be the non-believer's decision. If I choose to inject religious idea into a conversation, I assume that others (including non-believers) are apt to give their own in return.

This is a growing problem in the US, because we are transitioning from majority Christian to minority Christian.

Maybe in a century that will be the case. In the meantime, there is a lot of changing that would need to take place for Christianity to become a minority POV in this country.

Do you think Christians should be more sensitive that spouses, children, friends may no longer believe and therefore keep their own beliefs more private?

No. What it desirable, however, is politeness.

Do you think non-believers should be more outspoken?

Not especially, but that's their decision to make. Again, politeness and civility would be hoped for. That would be more important than whether they speak out or not, just as I said was the case with believers.

 

[cloudyday2]

(1) Many churches teach that non-believers go to hell.
(2) Many non-believers used to believe and later lost faith.
(3) Many non-believers are married to believers, children of believers, coworkers of believers, etc.
(4) Non-believers often prefer to keep their views private for a variety of reasons. Maybe they don't want loved ones to worry about them spending eternity in hell. Maybe they don't want to jeopardize friendships, marriages, etc.

...
Yes, and so...? That is their choice, if you ask me. They aren't required or induced to behave that way by the religion.
...

Albion, you responded to each point individually, but points 1 through 3 are background or support for point 4. Point 4 is the real problem. The loved ones of an ex-Christian are likely to be very distressed to learn that the ex-Christian no longer believes. Nobody wants a loved one to go to hell.

In my case, if my mother becomes aware that I do not believe at all, then she will be very worried that I am going to hell. My mother is 70 and not too stable psychologically, so I feel better hiding my disbelief. I see my mother almost every day, and everybody I know has contact with my mother too. So I must hide my disbelief from everybody. I find myself wishing the Christians in my life would keep their religion to themselves. I don't want to argue with them about religion, but I don't want to have to quietly go along with their religious remarks.

IMO it is rude to talk about religion and politics, because they are divisive. If we would all just keep it private, then everybody can believe whatever they want and mind their own business. I believe that is how it works in Europe.

 

[Albion]

Yes, I understand that, Cloudyday2, but I thought my answer needed to indicate that there's nothing about points 1-3 that is wrong or shocking.

I find myself wishing the Christians in my life would keep their religion to themselves. I don't want to argue with them about religion, but I don't want to have to quietly go along with their religious remarks.

I do understand how this could be distressing, but isn't that between you and them? You could ask them not to speak of such things in your presence, or you could avoid those people as much as possible, but you haven't shown us anything in their behavior that the average person would consider generally threatening or vulgar or proselytizing or anything of that sort. What if you were offended that they instead talk about sports, or shopping, or the lives of Hollywood personalities?

IMO it is rude to talk about religion and politics, because they are divisive.

Then I think you're going to have to tell the people involved of your feelings. They aren't going to know how something that most people take for granted is affecting you. But you can't expect to make this into something that "Christians" generally should be ashamed to do--speak of their faith or aspects of their religious life--because one person within earshot doesn't think they ought to.

 

[cloudyday2]

Yes, I understand that, Cloudyday2, but I thought my answer needed to indicate that there's nothing about points 1-3 that is wrong or shocking.


I do understand how this could be distressing, but isn't that between you and them? You could ask them not to speak of such things in your presence, or you could avoid those people as much as possible, but you haven't shown us anything in their behavior that the average person would consider generally threatening or vulgar or proselytizing or anything of that sort. What if you were offended that they instead talk about sports, or shopping, or the lives of Hollywood personalities?


Then I think you're going to have to tell the people involved of your feelings. They aren't going to know how something that most people take for granted is affecting you. But you can't expect to make this into something that "Christians" generally should be ashamed to do--speak of their faith or aspects of their religious life--because one person within earshot doesn't think they ought to.

Thanks In my case, my only option seems to be what I have been doing - pretending to be a disillusioned Christian with just barely enough faith to save me from hell. This keeps my mother from worrying too much about me.

I hoped that by starting this thread some Christian readers might see how carelessly assuming that others share their religious beliefs can put their friends and family in a position where they must pretend to agree or open a can of worms. Most non-believers just want Christians to keep their religious views private; they don't want to explain their reasons for non-belief or face problems in their relationships with spouses, parents, etc. who still believe.

 

[Albion]

I guess that the main reservation I have with this is that it's not a national, international, systemic, philosophical, moral or any other such kind of a problem. It's your personal problem. And it's not much different from wishing that people you meet wouldn't talk about steak dinners, or sports, or homosexuality, or just about anything BECAUSE that might unknowingly offend a vegetarian, sports-hater, gay person, etc. in the room.

The great majority of people in this country are Christian, meat eaters, and heterosexuals who like sports, so they can hardly be considered to be thoughtless for talking about what everyone else in life seems to like talking about.

If this happens, the ball is in YOUR court, it seems to me. Either politely speak up and try to get them to switch the subject, hang out with a different group, or else live with it but without thinking of yourself as a victim because of your choice. Do one of these.

That said, deliberately insulting talk should be off-limits, whatever the topic, and everyone should know that. However, I take it that this isn't your issue, but just that ANY talk about church, etc. makes you feel put on the spot.

 

[cloudyday2]

I guess that the main reservation I have with this is that it's not a national, international, systemic, philosophical, moral or any other such kind of a problem. It's your personal problem. And it's not much different from wishing that people you meet wouldn't talk about steak dinners, or sports, or homosexuality, or just about anything BECAUSE that might unknowingly offend a vegetarian, sports-hater, gay person, etc. in the room.

The great majority of people in this country are Christian, meat eaters, and heterosexuals who like sports, so they can hardly be considered to be thoughtless for talking about what everyone else in life seems to like talking about.

If this happens, the ball is in YOUR court, it seems to me. Either politely speak up and try to get them to switch the subject, hang out with a different group, or else live with it but without thinking of yourself as a victim because of your choice. Do one of these.

That said, deliberately insulting talk should be off-limits, whatever the topic, and everyone should know that. However, I take it that this isn't your issue, but just that ANY talk about church, etc. makes you feel put on the spot.

Just to clarify, I am not asking for advice on how to handle my problem. I already know how to handle my problem, and that is what I've been doing.

I described my problem as an EXAMPLE of a more general problem with Christians in the US. I hoped that a few people might read this thread and try to be a little more sensitive to non-Christians who might wish to keep their disbelief private or might not wish to be confrontational.

It seems like several people understand what I'm saying, so good for them.

Also I don't mean to suggest that you are insensitive or inconsiderate. Probably you're a very decent person.

 

[TheBarrd]

Just to clarify, I am not asking for advice on how to handle my problem. I already know how to handle my problem, and that is what I've been doing.

I described my problem as an EXAMPLE of a more general problem with Christians in the US. I hoped that a few people might read this thread and try to be a little more sensitive to non-Christians who might wish to keep their disbelief private or might not wish to be confrontational.

It seems like several people understand what I'm saying, so good for them.

Also I don't mean to suggest that you are insensitive or inconsiderate. Probably you're a very decent person.

I agree with Albion. If you don't want to be around people who talk about their faith, then you probably shouldn't hang around with people who have faith. You are allowed to believe, or not believe anything you like. You must accord that same courtesy to others...

 

[cloudyday2]

O.k. I think I've made my point. Some will see agree and some will disagree. I hope I have done some good.

 

[oi_antz]

O.k. I think I've made my point. Some will see agree and some will disagree. I hope I have done some good.

I agree with you btw. But if the people you are with believe that you are comfortable with their views then you can only blame yourself for their misunderstanding. If they know the truth and are they are uncomfortable with the truth, you can blame them for that. But you may prefer to sacrifice your own comfort for their sake. I see that everyone here sympathises with your preference in your situation. But why are you uncomfortable with the content of their views? Does it condescend who you really are?

 

[oi_antz]

I'm curious about the distinction between "believe" and "accept".

Is the distinction obedience such as Abraham demonstrated by his willingness to sacrifice Isaac as commanded by God?

Believing and accepting are quite different. It might be difficult to explain. But if you think about it you might be able to sort of get what I think I understand about it. I will just hint at it and see if you might be able to figure out what I mean: people believe stuff that isn't necessarily real. In fact, people's beliefs often contradict reality. If you believe an idea then you are committing to always support it or anything that consists with it, and to oppose anything that challenges it. But it is not necessarily necessary to accept an idea in order to believe it. Some people might choose to believe an idea because they are afraid not to. That is feigning the belief. And although they might delude themselves to believe the idea, so that they can be confident about their position or appear to be genuine, if they have not accepted the idea then there is always that opposition within them. That opposition might be buried by self-delusion, but it is still there.

 

[Jesse2014]

Just subscribing

 

[cloudyday2]

Believing and accepting are quite different. It might be difficult to explain. But if you think about it you might be able to sort of get what I think I understand about it. I will just hint at it and see if you might be able to figure out what I mean: people believe stuff that isn't necessarily real. In fact, people's beliefs often contradict reality. If you believe an idea then you are committing to always support it or anything that consists with it, and to oppose anything that challenges it. But it is not necessarily necessary to accept an idea in order to believe it. Some people might choose to believe an idea because they are afraid not to. That is feigning the belief. And although they might delude themselves to believe the idea, so that they can be confident about their position or appear to be genuine, if they have not accepted the idea then there is always that opposition within them. That opposition might be buried by self-delusion, but it is still there.

O.k., that's a different usage of "believe" and "accept" than I was expecting, but I agree that there are many details, and these words mean all different sorts of things to different people in different contexts. This makes discussion confusing. I've often wondered if religious discussions would benefit from a technical vocabulary with newly minted words.

By the definitions in your post, I agree that I "believed" (tried to live by Christianity) but I never fully "accepted" (overcame my doubts with evidence).

 

[oi_antz]

O.k., that's a different usage of "believe" and "accept" than I was expecting, but I agree that there are many details, and these words mean all different sorts of things to different people in different contexts. This makes discussion confusing. I've often wondered if religious discussions would benefit from a technical vocabulary with newly minted words.

By the definitions in your post, I agree that I "believed" (tried to live by Christianity) but I never fully "accepted" (overcame my doubts with evidence).

Would you agree it was rote faith rather than real faith?

 

[cloudyday2]

Would you agree it was rote faith rather than real faith?

Faith is another one of those words that means so many different things, so I would need to know your understanding of rote faith vs. real faith to be able to answer. Without knowing for sure what you mean, I can say that as a child I assumed Christianity was true, and as I grew-up I developed questions and suspicions. I felt I needed some personal evidence, so I tried going to a charismatic church in college. Sometime just before or after graduating, I began to consider myself an atheist, but I still left the door open for God if he decided to visit me. I had psychological problems a few years ago that caused me to consider myself a Christian briefly. As I got better psychologically, I became confused and suspicious and gradually more doubtful. Today I am atheist with respect to Christianity, agnostic with respect to something more like Hinduism, and generally burned-out on religion.

Actually I was thinking about starting a thread for brainstorming the intricacies of these issues like faith, belief, choices, etc. - not in hopes of defining a universally accepted vocabulary, but for highlighting the intricacies and the potential for confusion in discussions.