The Evangelist Conspiracy against Self Determination

I have been percolating this idea for quite some time, and having participated in many religious arguments over the decades of my life, some things are starting to become clear.

To clarify before I continue, when I am speaking of Evangelists in this particular thread I am referring to biblical literalists, those of the Baptist branch of EXtianity as well as the fundamentalist branches that share a common belief of certain things.

From examining the arguments presented from this side of the fence, I have noticed an insidious trend running through every perspective put forward; that being that they are emphatically against self-determinism.

In a greater sense, it is the idea that your life is in God's hands, and that there is no real free will that I surmise underlies the core currents of these arguments.

A) Pro-Life. The argument for life at conception is put forward for the sacredness of life that God has created. The result of this argument tends to present that the Woman bearing the child cannot self-determine her fate or her child's fate, that once the act is committed, no choice can exist other than to allow the life to exist as God willed it to be. Arguments for the difficulty of such choices on most females often falls on deaf ears. In the matter of Pro-Choice versus Pro-Life, Choice is not accepted as an option... and choice is the cornerstone of Self-Determination.

B) Homosexuality/Bisexuality/Transgenderism. On the one hand, Christians often put forward the argument that these states of being ARE a choice, but they are erecting an argument of condemnation; that to choose these as a choice is to become a bad person. The argument is an effort of peer pressure and utilization of the fear structure established through hell, sin, and eternal punishment. Likewise, the argument is pressaged into a seemingly conflicted argument that they care for the person who does not accept the path that the arguer has decided is right, and that Christ wants their opponent in the debate to conform to standards familiar to the arguer. This, as the Pro-Choice argument, lends itself against Self-Determination through an emotional play on loneliness. It is bad to be different, different is sinful, making sinful decisions is bad, good is making Christian decisions that do not involve embodiment of the self or being true to how you were made. You cannot embody your gender or sexual identity because that would be the wrong choice.

This argument is even more insidious when paired with the "Negative-impact on society" argument, wherein the group of people who exist in these states are considered to be the root of societies problems, to blame for the degradation of Family structure, as well as the cause for many social ills. Through making these groups the target of such thought, you again create a situation where conforming to Christian standards is viewed as the best option by the one presenting this argument. Any other choice is put forward as purposely contributing to evil in the world, though these words are rarely (if ever) used.

C) Evolution. Many of the arguments presented in contrast with the subject of Evolution from the Evangelists tend to borrow half of the scientific argument structure, making a play at half-logic. This is possibly the strongest argument put forward, largely because the evolution of Man is incomplete. However, the argument is often contributing to a false dichotomy; that being Either 6,000 years old and God OR Evolution. As a small contribution to the overall argument against self-determination, it is assumed that God exists and thusly that those who are proponents of evolution are Deceivers whose purpose is to mislead the righteous and their children.

D) Religion. For a faith that claims to pursue the example of love thy neighbor and enemy, the arguments where concerns religion are often the most heated. It is not infrequent that an Evangelist EXtian will openly criticize non-denominational Christians, Gnostics, or flavors of their own religion as vigorously as they criticize others religions. This is a holdover of the missionary mentality of spreading the good word, especially where the good word is spread to people who neither want it nor need it. This, like other things, is an insidious intolerance which gives rise to the "Persecuted" Evangelist, wondering why nobody wants to love Christ and barring the intolerance of such a tactic from their awareness. There is often no room for alternate interpretations, nor is there room for religions which do not recognize Jesus.

In this way, Self Determination is combated upon the personal front of how people identify themselves, the spiritual front in their relationship to their respective deities, the front of their decisions whereas it concerns deep impacts to their lives or others and the front of how people choose to understand the world.

This is merely the beginning thoughts of a much more convoluted examination of the Evangelist EXtian forms of argumentation, but as social conditioning goes, I feel this counts significantly as a conspiracy.

E) Sex Education. While no-one is arguing that teenage pregnancy is a good thing, the Evangelists tend to argue that it is not the public schools business to teach about sex and sexual intercourse. It is important to note that up till 200 years ago, the term teenager didn't really exist in either vernacular usage or literal. For most of the duration of Humanity's stay on the earth, and for the entire span of civilization what we term as teenagers were classified as adults.

Coming-of-Age rights existed from time immemorial attesting to this fact. What we in our civilized time classify as a secondary category of "CHILD" was considered to be an adult for all practical purposes. As such, they were responsible just as any adult was for the decisions that they made concerning their life, and they often had to live under the same harsh conditions as their parents had.

I bring this conceptualization of teenagers up because Evangelists, and even the common sensibilities brought about by Evangelists, is that Teenagers are not capable of making informed decisions or are incapable of making wise decisions at their age. It is due to note that most adults aren't very good at making capable or wise decisions, even into their 30's and I cite the housing bubble collapse as evidence.

Just as with the other examples previously noted, it is a denial of self-determination to individuals who would have been considered adults, were it not for state laws differentiating them as less-than-adults with all the impulses of adults.

Whilst the Evangelist might argue that they merely wish to fend off temptation and forgo sin for their progeny, it is important to understand what Self-Determination is in and of itself; Freedom.

That is freedom to make the mistakes in your life, freedom to err and freedom to choose for ones self.

Teenagers are often denied this sort of liberty on the grounds that they are either undeserving (Still being children), that the parent knows better (Without elaborating why), or that decision-making is a parental responsibility. Many parents will perpetuate this meme for as long as their children allow them to get away with it.

Yet just as the other subjects, there is a definite will to suppress individuation and decision-making which clashes with the religious doctrine.

Concerning Homosexuality, I know for a fact that it's a choice, I've had homosexual friends that found Christ and went streight, so there ya go.

reply to post by jimmyjackblack


Are you putting forward that it is better that they have found Christ and gone straight than it would have been had they found Christ yet remained Gay?

If so, then you are putting forward that the acceptable and correct decision is to be a heterosexual worshiper of Christ, which is exactly what I am discussing when I refer to the Conspiracy against Self-Determinism.

Is it not enough that they find Christ, must they also become Heterosexual?

I hope that this topic does not become strictly about Homosexuality/Heterosexuality as there are many different facets of this subtle conspiracy.

reply to post by jimmyjackblack


Why are you using an example of someone who chose to be heterosexual as evidence that homosexuality is a choice? Now if you're trying to make the case that both are totally elective, could you tell us when you sat down and decided, "you know, I think I like girls more than boys"?

Or, boys more than girls, depending on your gender, I suppose

TheColdDragon,

Fundamentalists are all about choice. For themselves. They want to make your choices for you, because in their minds, only they truly understand what god wants. And if god wants you to hand your daughter over to the good reverent, or drink from the big bucket of kool-aid in Guyana, well, by god...

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Fundamentalists are all about choice. For themselves. They want to make your choices for you, because in their minds, only they truly understand what god wants. And if god wants you to hand your daughter over to the good reverent, or drink from the big bucket of kool-aid in Guyana, well, by god...

And yet those same Evangelists tend not to make their decisions based off of sound reasoning, rather it is more often a form of group think. I'm sure somewhere up the tree someone comes up with the ideas, but the effect on self-determination is the same down the line.

There's another I forgot.

F) Moral Relativism. Many Evangelists rail against moral relativism, and most that I've encountered have not taken any basic ethics class which discusses differing morals across culture. The outrage stems from the Evangelists, who in practice preach a form of Moral Absolutism; the morals of western EXtianity are good, and all else is bad.

This is often the root at what is termed "The Ugly American" which is often mentioned across varying cultures, but the root is certainly in our morals, which are quite frequently wrapped up in our religion and upbringing.

The Evangelist argues that moral relativism is repugnant and disgusting, as it allows everything. The direct inference is that Moral Absolutism is good. When this argument is put forward, it tends to forgive any and all errors in other arguments, as the Evangelist is arguing from a Morally Absolute standpoint which can only be defined within the subset of their religious views and understanding.

Quite often, the contradictions as to how the Evangelist lives their lives (And the current day amenities that they take for granted) versus what their literature states is good are glaring. Cultural normalities tend to creep into the Evangelists views as "GOOD", even when they may have been designed for reasons nefarious or unapparent on their face.

Often, norms that existed throughout all of recorded history (And which were fine for humanity up until the 1800's) are considered as the basis for moral outrage towards other countries, or individuals that do not adhere to the Absolutism which the Evangelists espouse.

Oftentimes, those who have a morally relativistic view tend to be ganged up on by the same people who believe that right and wrong are ingrained from birth rather than learned behaviors, and these people who believe this are often unwittingly espousing the same Absolutist ideas which the Evangelists tend to bolster all of their arguments with. Thusly, there is spillover from religious tradition into daily life which directly effects socialization in America.

One of my friends that went strieght (I have several homosexual friends), found Christ and DECIDED to go strieght. The bible says it's a sin, and for good reasons. There are many men I love, but I'd never make a baby with them, marrige is more than a ceremony, when you have sex you are marrying that person (two becoming one and creating a new life). My friend was not forced or pressured into becoming strieght. He felt the Holy Spirit telling him it was wrong and he soon found a love for women he never had before. People are not born gay, it is a choice, a choice like everything else, I'm a virgin by choice, I may choose to live a life without marrige or sex, not because I can't get a girl, but because I choose a different way. we all make choices, the world tells you one thing, but the Holy Spirit tells you another. I have a small bitterness problem with women, I've had my heart stepped on too many times, but just because I've been mistreated by women a lot doesn't mean that I should do the same to them, it takes a lot for me to love women (or being kind to them and being there friend and caring about them), but I choose to do the right thing, the easy thing would be to harbor hate in my heart the rest of my life. Homosexuality results in death, men are made to love women, when I was a boy a lot of people in my family (not my mom or dad though) told me that I was gay because I din't like any girls, I actually started to think this at one time, but realized that I do like girls, however if I kept believeing this then I may have eventually became gay (some of my family members still think I'm gay cause I'm not banging anything in a skirt). Some children are sexually abused by the same sex and that somehow messes with there mind and they end up being gay, there are many reasons why they become gay, just like there are many reasons why people join cults, mostly cause they want a family or want to be excepted by somebody. I don't hate homosexuals and I don't have any Christian friends that hate them. I treat them like I treat everyone else, with love. Bottom line, the Bible says it's wrong and that's what I believe and I am intitled to that, I have many valid reasons why I know it's wrong. I have male friends that I love, but not in a romantic way.

-Jimmy

reply to post by jimmyjackblack


Or it's possible that some choose and some are born homosexual. Both are not mutually exclusive possibilities.

of course the bible says it's a sin, but we are all equal in the eyes of Christ. No person's sin is greater or lesser than anyone else's.

If your friend is happier straight, kudos to him. Living a happy and fulfilling life for yourself is a very great thing. However, there are very strong societal biases in Evangelist culture that drive denial of self and acceptance of the definition the church chooses for you.

The church tends to put forward that repression of the self is preferable to sin, which runs counter to what it is to exist as a human being. All the subjects I have mentioned thus far in this thread have been in direct relation to this unconscious "Shaping" of western culture as a whole

reply to post by TheColdDragon


Allthough I don't completely understand what you are saying (I guess I'm not use to your terminology) I agree that people should be excepted in a church no matter what they're into. Some Christians struggle with homosexual tendancies, they don't want to be a homosexual, but it's been such a big part of there life that it's become a stuggle for them to end it. It's kinda like smoking, smoking's not good for ya and it's adictive, some people think smoking is just fine, but others think it's wrong (and seriously it is, it kills your body and others), but when they try to quit, it becomes a big trouble for some, some don't have any problem with it.
Jesus said doctors heal the sick, not the well, so He comes to save the sinners, not the saved. We're all humans and should be loved no matter what we are into. Are people born pedophiles? Some people say they are, so should we except and condone there sin? No, but we should love them and try to show them a better way.

-Jimmy

reply to post by jimmyjackblack


Well, the trouble is, for at least some of those people, trying to "go straight" is going to be about as successful as if I were going to try to "go white." It's just something that can't be helped, and even if society has a problem with it, tough cookies, it's the way you're made.

But if someone wants to force themselves straight (or bleach their skin, I suppose) well, they're free to deal with their neuroses as they see fit - none of my business, really, any more than if they didn't. But it's still a sad thing to see.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


But how do you know that they're born that way? Is it because scientists (which get it wrong all the time) or society says so? Science says that some people are born pedophiles and born serial killers, so should we say that what they're doing is ok? pedophiles loves children the way normal people love a spouse, but it doesn't make it right. Same goes for homosexuality, we have it driven into our heads these days that it's ok and normal, when before it was considered a mental desease, I don't believe it's a mental desease, but I do believe it's not right, but if they wanna live that way, they have the right to, but i have the right to not agree with what they believe, but it seems this country is trying to slowly take those rights away.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

But if someone wants to force themselves straight (or bleach their skin, I suppose) well, they're free to deal with their neuroses as they see fit - none of my business, really, any more than if they didn't. But it's still a sad thing to see.

Why is it sad? If someone makes a choice, and through their choice, becomes happier than they were before, it would seem to be a good thing.

I think you are unconsciously subscribing to the idea that change outside a particular agenda is bad, but change into that same agenda is good. That, I believe, is the basic argument the OP is speaking against, only from a different perspective. What makes one happiest, not wealthy or powerful or influential, is the goal. True happiness (IMHO) can never come from intolerance, immorality (to one's own morality), selfishness, money, greed, or hate. It comes from within, from realizing that you are truly contented with your life and not worried about the consequences of your actions.

Now should someone be forced by society to accept a way of life that does not make them happy, that I would see as sad... perhaps that was the impression you got. I took it another way, that the person was happy with his choice. It will soon become evident whether or not this is the case, as forced changes which are not pleasurable are usually short-lived.

I agree with the OP, mostly wholeheartedly, I simply see the issue as not being confined to the area of Christianity, or even to the area of religion. I see it rather as being a problem with humanity.

TheRedneck

reply to post by jimmyjackblack


You see, there's this thing called 'consent,' Jimmy.

And feel free to "disagree" with their being gay. I'm sure there's plenty of other people who treasure their right to disagree with your being half-Mexican. Hell, I know there's plenty who disagree with my being half-native. Of course, most people have a different word than "disagreement" for this sort of thing.

As for how I know at least some gay people are born that way, I happen to be a gay person's older brother. Now, you say you have gay friends, cool, but I don't suppose you've known any of them since five hours after they were born? It's pretty easy to theorize and assume about other people when all you know about them is that they're attracted to people you find unattractive, I suppose - but it's a pretty different perspective when you see a kid grow up right under your nose like that.

Redneck,

If it makes them happy, that's one thing. But as you mentioned, a lot of these people go this route because they are pressured to do so. How can you measure how happy they are, in such a case?

"He's so happy now that he's gone straight and married that nice girl" certainly is rather meaningless, if while he was gay, the people saying this were the ones leading the charge, attacking and insulting him, calling him godless, a threat to society, equating him to serial killers, pedophiles, and rapists, and laughing when their own children beat him senseless in the gym.

Which brings us back to the original point about people wanting to remove any semblance of choice from us, by hammering us with their own religious / moral sledgehammers.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox
I would judge their happiness by its longevity. As I stated, a lifestyle change that 'benefits' only those who would pressure the change will not last.

I will bow to your observations on your brother. I obviously have no way to understand the situation as you do. I do, however know a few homosexuals who have situations in their past that could have very well 'turned' them gay. I know others who have no such indicators. Perhaps it could be different for different people?

"He's so happy now that he's gone straight and married that nice girl" certainly is rather meaningless, if while he was gay, the people saying this were the ones leading the charge, attacking and insulting him, calling him godless, a threat to society, equating him to serial killers, pedophiles, and rapists, and laughing when their own children beat him senseless in the gym.

Hmmm... agreed. Is this what you have experienced with your brother?

You truly have my sympathy, if that means anything to you at all. I have seen these things happen, and it is a horrible way to treat any human. Actually, I should say, your brother has my sympathy. I hope he never has to endure anything like that again.

These people who tormented him were not Christians. Oh, they could call themselves that, but I could call myself black and it wouldn't change the color of my skin. Jesus, God, or any church rightfully ordained and following Jesus' example did not hurt your brother... arrogant, evil, self-righteous people did.

Peace to you and yours, my friend.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
These people who tormented him were not Christians. Oh, they could call themselves that, but I could call myself black and it wouldn't change the color of my skin. Jesus, God, or any church rightfully ordained and following Jesus' example did not hurt your brother... arrogant, evil, self-righteous people did.

Of course, this stands the question of if they truly are evil, self-righteous people or if their indoctrination and subsequent value of Peer Pressure causes them to behave in a certain manner.

You are right that it may well be an endemic behavior of humanity to subsume one's self in group think, but I strongly feel that many of the social structures (School, Religion, Politics) are purposely engineered to encourage this "Conspiracy of Divisiveness".

I am truly of the opinion that the topics mentioned throughout my posts, as well as many others (Just in the religious sector, mind) are orchestrated to create a certain mentality; A artfully machiavellian engineered waking dream.

I would greatly appreciate any additional observations of like focuses in either argumentation or perception from the Evangelist standpoint, as I am focusing on that particular conspiracy of thought in this thread.

Considering that may of the subjects I quoted are some of the most contentious and heated topics of the age, I would hope we could discuss all the points rather than just Homosexuality.

Good, thoughtful post Dragon.
That means you won't get many replies, so let me say kudos for presenting your view with reason and respect.

reply to post by TheRedneck


Sister, actually. Yeah, they make gay people in "female" these days, what will they think of next?

As for them not being Christians... Right. And the Klan isn't white. It certainly seems, whenever a Christian does something dumb, the rest of you are awfully quick to trot out "But he's not a real Christian!" - the message from this is, of course, Christians are flawless, and people who have some sort of failing are "not really Christians."

Sorry, bud, but these chicks were Christians. I'll concede that maybe they weren't terribly good at being Christians, sure. But they are definitely Christian. I'd actually be reluctant to call them bad Christians, considering what the majority of Christian opinion is regarding homosexuality, what the many Christian leaders say on the subject of homosexuality, and the numerous calls to kill homosexuals found in the Bible.

I mean look, we have a guy, Jimmy there, and don't get me wrong, I consider him a bright guy, good poster... but he seems pretty adamant about his right to be "against" someone's sexuality. Now sure, he can go right ahead, freedom of speech and all, but, why even worry about something so trival? He probably isn't too concerned about his right to disagree with people who put ketchup on their eggs, so what makes sexuality such a big deal?

Also as I noted on another thread... In the West at least, there's no real need or desire for Christians to act in a Christly manner. In modern Christianity, the only concern of a believer is keeping their own butts out of hell. And to achieve this, all they have to do is believe they've been saved. It's a lazy, selfish philosophy that doesn't at all resemble anything Jesus ever taught about how to conduct oneself.

TCD,

Well, thing is, a lot of what you mentioned ties in to the homosexuality angle - and homosexuality is a little easier to grasp, since it's talking about people, rather than abstracts.

What in particular ties into homosexuality? Sex education and the pro-life angle. Fundamentalist outlooks on all three subjects ties into control over and subjugation of women.

Take a moment and look at some of these pro-life outfits. You see lots of condemnation of abortion. Do you see them running adoption services? Maternity care? Do they offer contraceptives, prophylactics, or other methods of birth control? Do they have a charity to put money towards delivery and postnatal care of a child and its mother? No, on all counts. Hopefully some poster will show me one or two that actually do some, or even all of this, but I have never seen it.

What you do see, is an amazing amount of guilt, blame, stereotypes, and condemnation towards the mother in question. She is a slut, a whore. There's repeated statements from the pro-life side of things that the women in question need to "Accept responsibility for their actions." That "sex is dangerous, and she took a risk!"

Add it all up here. There is no care for the mother or her child if she keeps it, only bile and aggression if she doesn't. To these people, sex is a crime, and pregnancy is the divine punishment for that crime. A baby is not a life, it is a burden, a curse from god as punishment for immoral behavior, something that the woman should not be allowed to "evade" through abortion.

This is also why they oppose any sex education beyond "just say no!"-style abstinence. Decent sex education stresses the use of protection and contraceptives as a means of preventing disease and unwanted pregnancies. You would think that a pro-life organization would be all for fewer unwanted children, and thus, fewer abortions. But again - pregnancy and disease are not biological conditions. They are messages from god that you have sinned.

The goal of all this, of course, is to strip any sort of power over their own bodies from women. It may seem rather droll to say today, but in the context of history, women being able - and allowed! - to enjoy the same sexual freedoms as men is absolutely revolutionary. It's quite probably one of the largest gains towards equality of the sexes possible. And... the fundies don't want sexual equality. They're threatened by hte thought of women being on equal footing as men in the sexual arena, becuase to them, women are there solely for the pleasure of men.

So where does homosexuality come into the picture? As I just pointed out, the Fundamentalist movement is very sexist and chauvanist. Where do gay men fall in the order of things here? They are less than women, to the fundie mindset. They're essentially "sex traitors" and deserve to be punished most severely. For the longest time, these "Christians" did not give a damn about the men languishing in hospitals from HIV AIDS. They saw - and still see! - it as a positive thing, the wrath of god coming to put these "men" into their place, or wipe them out trying.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
No, on all counts. Hopefully some poster will show me one or two that actually do some, or even all of this, but I have never seen it.

I'm certain there are some religious outfits that do promote the things you mention, but the Evangelist branches which are spiritual successors to puritanism do not.

There's repeated statements from the pro-life side of things that the women in question need to "Accept responsibility for their actions." That "sex is dangerous, and she took a risk!"

Well, I'd have to say that women do need to accept all responsibility for all of their actions. However, I am not for women being forced to have unwanted children, as that compounds the societal problems in a long term sense. However, that being said, abortion as a form of birth control is an abrogation of responsibility... and I cannot in good conscience accept it.

Add it all up here. There is no care for the mother or her child if she keeps it, only bile and aggression if she doesn't.

What care should there be, if I might inquire?

To these people, sex is a crime, and pregnancy is the divine punishment for that crime.

That's the long and short of it, sex is abhorrent unless you're married; A blaspheme against the almighty. Me, I think sex is great and shouldn't have barriers placed on it so long as everyone is careful to not contract diseases.

But I'm some strange mixture of Christian and Polyamorous views.

Decent sex education stresses the use of protection and contraceptives as a means of preventing disease and unwanted pregnancies.

Don't forget oral sex and anal sex as alternatives to vaginal intercourse, since neither results in pregnancy.

You would think that a pro-life organization would be all for fewer unwanted children, and thus, fewer abortions.

Ahh, but the Evangelist tends to have a logical disconnect where it comes to logical progression of consequence. They advocate more children as a general rule, but sex is bad (as is most pleasure). They advocate ignorance concerning sex, but ignore that teenagers have adult sexual impulses and a desire to breed like jackrabbits (I recall my teenage years and a whole lot of desires to do so). When you aren't aware of the risks and the options you have concerning sex, there's a high probability you'll mess up and end up with a kid.

The goal of all this, of course, is to strip any sort of power over their own bodies from women.

Familiar with Paglia, Fox?

And... the fundies don't want sexual equality. They're threatened by the thought of women being on equal footing as men in the sexual arena, because to them, women are there solely for the pleasure of men.

Seems the other way around nowadays in most social situations, but I digress.

Seems you have a lot of animosity towards Christians, from your posts here and in a lot of other threads I've read with you in them. I'm certain experientially you've got your reasons, but I'd like to claim that I am a Christian. It doesn't bother me if you have a dislike of the faith or its practices.

The subjects I mentioned are only the tip of the iceberg; there is a cornucopia of subjects whose arguments contribute to the Evangelist Cognitive Dissonance. I would put forward that those Christians which put forward such spiteful or unwittingly hateful positions on matters are victims themselves of carefully orchestrated brain-washing, evidenced by their lack of proper reasoning skills in the myriad subjects at the fore.

Great thread. Regarding the OP, I've always felt that monotheism demotes self determination - partly in the ways already mentioned, but overall, in the sense that 'you need not do anything because God has a plan'. You need not fight injustices because 'God has a plan', you need not better yourself because 'God made you what you are and we're all born sinners anyway' etc etc.

And in extreme cases, this results in people praying for God to save someone's life instead of saving it themselves.

Be your own god.