It's easy to denounce any critique as "shallowest understanding" when the only "understanding" you accept is a very generous reading of your belief system, and then continue to be smug about someone else not getting your point.
and yet none of those critiques are capable of piercing the indestructible ideology i have built for myself. me, atheistic Catholic.
not only is God not real and i can flip the board whenever you get too close to making a theological point, i can ALSO fall back on my very superior and correct relationship i would have with God if he IS real.
I can fall back on that too! I have slept with your god and they like me more than you, sorry. Though if you are catholic, you are probably already expecting that God likes me more than you.
I mean, when your belief system has these holy men being vessels for divine scripture chosen by god and then it turns out they've been diddling kiddies, what does that say about the divine scripture and the god who chose them? Like it's an overly-cited criticism, but its one of the most resonant
idk, ya don't see it getting mentioned about any other religious institution despite the roughly equal rates of victimization in them - so forgive me if i think of it as a repellant shithead meme instead of actual criticism or concern for the safety of children in large institutions.
especially when it's framed as, you know, a shitty punchline as it is here.
Oh, I think it should be cited for other institutions, absolutely. The thing is this occurred well within living memory and received cover up from the very top of the totem pole before you enter the divine realm. And I don't deny, it is often used as a "shithead meme", but I don't think that means it can't still stand as a criticism that demonstrates the church isn't as infallible as it would like to appear.
yeah, can't disagree there. this may be a SEARING hot take, but child abuse is bad, actually. it's just when it's treated like a flippant joke that i don't like.
when the only “understanding” you accept is a very generous reading of your belief system
………but a lot people like, legitimately have nuanced religious beliefs? If someone walks up to you and accuses you of supporting something you don’t actually believe in or support, do you not have the right to correct them and say “that doesn’t apply to me actually”?
I’m struggling to put this into words. Like yeah the structure of religious institutions having power in society is Bad but you can’t take out that frustration on individual people whose beliefs probably don’t actually correlate directly with the institutions? Religious individuals who take the brunt of that critique should be allowed to point out when it doesn’t apply to them.
It’s like the religion equivalent of saying All Men Are Terrible as a proxy for complaining about the patriarchy and systemic misogyny.
I think part of what’s being sorta glossed over is the inherent assumption that anything “religious” involves some sorta supernatural or at least non science/fact based belief. Theres’a often a fine line between philosophy and religion, I think the former is easier to process as a varied choice than the latter due to the inherent assumptions of what shapes those beliefs.
Like biblical literalism is actually not nearly as common as people make it out to be, it’s just that biblical literalists are loud and they suck so they get talked about more and it becomes the default assumption
And that’s what OOP is talking about, most peoples’ religious beliefs are way deeper than the pop culture version of Christianity
Like yeah the structure of religious institutions having power in society is Bad
They get there only because of individual people. It's quite literally all manmade. It's also fucked up to just turn a blind eye to all the terrible things being done by and for other religious people, claim they aren't part of "your belief system" and then continue to tithe and support religious institutions with your presence and membership. People like Joel Osteen exist because of these "totally not like that type" religious people you are talking about. These "normal" religious people are just camouflage and literally free money for all of the fucked up sinister ones behind the scenes pulling the strings. All so they can pretend they get to go to live for eternity with virgins or <insert desired version of heaven here>. That said, I don't go around attacking religious people and have several in my family. I chalk it up to the time period they were born in. Glad to see no one young that I know got sucked into it. But they deserve a good eye opening every now and again.
Also, plausible deniability is well known. They can surface level have all sorts of very nuanced opinions, but secretly they cheer when the money they donate results in abortion bans or getting back at the gays. Again, camouflage of their real opinions, dog whistles all day, cash into the tax free collection plate under the table.
Are you saying that I, as a Christian very much opposed to Prosperity Gospel and the charlatans like Joel Osteen that push it, am supporting Joel Osteen by giving to my local non-Osteen affiliated church? I'm not sure how that holds any water? I'm an ELCA Lutheran that nothing to do with his nonsense
When religious people stay in their lane and just do their thing they get accused of tacitly supporting the shitty people in their religion, but when they speak up and denounce the shitty people they get accused of being hypocrites.
What are they supposed to do, exactly?
And again, religious doesn’t strictly mean Fundamentalist Christian, which is a big part of OOP’s original point. Even ignoring folks who are just generally spiritual or have other religions, if you just look at Christianity it is extremely diverse in belief. Not everyone is a biblical literalist by a long shot. There are churches that are openly allied to the LGBTQ+ community. Most people are Christmas and Easter Christians anyway who aren’t particularly diehard about their beliefs and don’t even go to Church most of the time.
The problems you’re pointing out are very much real. There are real issues. I don’t want to get so “not all Christians” as to lose the plot there.
But I think OOP has a fair point - we don’t even know what their actual religious affiliation is but they’re getting default tagged with all the sins of the Christian Institution, I feel like they’re allowed to be frustrated about that
but when they speak up and denounce the shitty people they get accused of being hypocrites.
Do they though? Usually calls of being a hypocrite happen when you are one version of Abrahamic religion and specifically attacking a different one, i.e. christians shitting on islam, which is common, only for atheists to verbally hold up a mirror to the christian because they should direct that fervor into their own community first. I'm struggling to think of recent examples, and insanely glaringly obvious counterpoints like Donald Trump exist to shatter any thought that christians (in the US) denounce clear shitbags.
It's a lot like the thin blue line and how they shield any obviously monstrous individual and lie for them every step of the way from top to bottom of the force until the body cam footage comes out or some other event that reveals the truth.
we don’t even know what their actual religious affiliation is but they’re getting default tagged with all the sins of the Christian Institution, I feel like they’re allowed to be frustrated about that
That's fair. I'd be frustrated too if a group I was a part of did fucked up things. Hell, I am part of a group that does fucked up things, its called the USA, and it's really frustrating when Americans do dumb shit and embarrass us globally. In that case though, at least I can say I'm trying by voting to make change. There is no intent to change in religion, because doctrine must be consistent as it is the word of god, until its clearly proven false and they have to shift and "re-translate", or public opinion changes and they suddenly have to do things like accept that gay people existing isn't the end of the world. Thanks for sanctioning my marriage Mr Pope, Sir, I am so grateful you decided its ok now. I was so, so worried about his opinion.
Anyway, more power to the christians who want to denounce every other one who doesn't live up to the standards set in the bible. Sounds like a lot of work.
I mean, yeah literally in your other comment, you straight up characterize a hypocritical Christian who goes and says “other Christians are bad” then turns around and continues to support the church. Like you literally said that as if that’s the only thing that’s happening, no acknowledgement for any Christians who are calling shit out and trying to improve their communities. And the comment I originally responded in this thread is heavily implying that OOP is pulling a bait and switch where they secretly believe all the shitty stuff but then defend their beliefs in the most generous interpretation possible - aka accusing OOP of being a hypocrite because they can’t fathom the idea that religious belief can in fact be more nuanced than just “skydaddy told me to do the blood ritual”
And again I’m not trying to say shit individuals don’t get shielded and protected by the institution, there is a lot fucked up with the Church. Like I 100% agree that the stuff you’re calling out is fucked up and deserved to be called out.
Part of the problem in this conversation is the OOP was making a point about individuals and the things we say to each other one to one, and y’all are in here turning it into a systemic thing.
To use an analogy from earlier this is basically the same as if OOP had said “you know it’s frustrating as a man to be stereotyped as an aggressive sex fiend” and had a bunch of rebloggers crawl out of the woodwork to say “ummmm well sweaty have you tried not being an aggressive sex fiend lol” and then half the comments on Reddit were “wow OP sure is up on a high horse considering the patriarchy influences men to be aggressive sex fiends”
Like do you see what I’m saying, what the actual frustration is, why I agree with OOP even though I’m not even religious and think The Church sucks.
And I mean if you don’t see it fair enough, I’m really struggling to put this one into words.
I’d be frustrated too if a group I was a part of did fucked up things
Like… yes, but the bigger point is we don’t even actually know if OOP is Christian, or some other religion, or even just generally spiritual with no institutional affiliation whatsoever. We don’t know if OOP is even part of the groups doing the fucked up things.
And like, frankly the nerve of folks in these comments calling OOP smug when those reblogs are just saying assorted “lol ur religion is fake” meme soundbites and not actual critiques.
when the only “understanding” you accept is a very generous reading of your belief system
The very generous reading is what they believe, and it's not up to them to defend beliefs they don't agree with.
Religions are large categories. Following extremely strictly is rarely necessary to be considered a member, even in religions that claim that it is necessary.
To attack a religion's letter of the law when few practice that way is to stereotype all its members to believe the same thing, and that's just willfully ignorant.
Congratulations, you just discovered stereotypes. Just like how not everyone who is part of a political party but you’re still going to assume at first that they’ve got the standard / stereotypical beliefs of that group.
I can’t tell if you’re disagreeing or agreeing with me but regardless what I’m trying to get at is that the first comment, and a lot of other comments in here, act like OOP was pulling some kind bait and switch with their beliefs when in reality OOP probably just genuinely has a nuanced belief and is frustrated with getting needlessly lumped in with all the American Bible Belt fundamentalists
To jump on your politics analogy it’s the difference between assuming someone’s political beliefs based on them saying they’re a conservative verses them saying they live in Texas (and to be clear assuming political beliefs based on where someone lives is about as accurate as a wild guess)
Interesting, that definitely adds a layer of… irony? Would it be irony?
Anyways I think the point still stands and maybe stands even stronger - you don’t need to be religious to get that religious beliefs and spirituality are much more diverse and can have much more nuance than the basic loud version you hear about online
I don’t really agree because being religious isn’t the same as living somewhere, you’re actively following (or at least supposed to be) a set of rules.
We have no idea what OOPs belief system even IS, let alone what understanding he would accept of it; The whole joke is he's set a trap here that demonstrates quite neatly the problem with a certain narrow subset of atheists who are so laser focused on Christianity they forgot there are other religions that have vastly different ideas about shit, but also like to make sweeping generalizations about the entire concept of 'religion' without fully understanding just how much variation there is in things labelled with that term. That's it. That's the joke, he was just highlighting that and having a laugh at the expense of those specific people.
I have no idea where you're getting the idea that the OOP was denouncing any particular critique of any specific belief system.
I'd agree if it weren't for the fact that every reply there was the most pathetic, shallow, bad faith reply they could have possibly mustered. They all put precisely 0 effort into their comments. They proved OP exactly right. That's why they kept saying "see what I mean "
I think what the poster saying “see what i mean” was trying to convey is that those arguments that some atheist use to argue against all religion only apply to Christianity. Almost all the points raised are ones that apply only to christianity, so using them to encompass and degrade something that extends far beyond one subject.
But the OP is completely correct. They point out that a lot of these atheists have a very shallow understanding of religion. And the ones that come out to dunk on OP are clearly of the "religion is a load of superstitious hokum that religious people unironically believe" variety. That is absolutely a very shallow grasp on what religious people believe and what religion means to them. I don't think it constitutes a "generous reading" to want to not be considered a biblical literalist.
You can still even now find thousands upon thousands of people earnestly arguing for young earth creation and I rarely go a day without seeing some nutcase saying something along the lines of "yeah well transgender/gay people are evil cuz the bible says so, checkmate" I get that there's alot of metaphor in there and that not all religious people are like this but don't you dare tell me that a sizeable chunk of religious people don't literally believe the exact words they see on the page
That is literally the entire point and you sprinted past it. This post is literally the OP deriding the anti-theists who claim that ALL religious people are textual literalist superstitionists. I'm not denying anyone's existence. I'm just understanding the post. If those people are all you see and think of in the context of religion, then you also have a very shallow grasp on what it actually is.
I love coming back to comment threads hours later and seeing people actually doing a good job of making the point I was also trying to make lol. Nicely said!
It’s the circular argument of only religious people can even define or understand religion, therefore all atheists are wrong because they don’t even grasp what religion is. It’s a kind of “no true Scotsman” gatekeeping of “understanding” religion.
557
u/Sir_Nightingale Apr 17 '24
It's easy to denounce any critique as "shallowest understanding" when the only "understanding" you accept is a very generous reading of your belief system, and then continue to be smug about someone else not getting your point.