Why The Christian's Laughter Is Full Of Pain

[!Fluffy!]

:areyoucra I don't know where you get your information from but you and I clearly do not mean the same thing by "mystic." A mystic experiences oneness with God and as a result loves everybody. If they no longer treat their families with special importance it's because they love everybody, not just some poeple. Because the mystic sees God in all of us. And in all things. The stories that I've heard/read of mystics has them rolling around in the muck, because they have no aversion to muck. Muck is divine.

--------

This is not directed at RFX but more at the OP. Tho because I am reminded of my conversation with RFX regarding Rush Limbaugh, I'll put it here.

This culture worships the self. It worships invidualism, lifting that up to the "highest good." We value individual freedom and liberty without recognizing the responsibilities towards humanity that go with that. We live with the delusion of self-autonomy, failing to recognize our interdependancy. We've gotten to the point where we don't even understand the meaning of community, except as a collection of individuals. We view physical pleasure of the body as what is most "real." And we expect immediate gratification, everything faster, faster, faster.

No wonder then, that when religion seeks to remind us of something greater than ourselves, when it suggests that we might have to voluntarily sacrifice some of our liberty for the sake of others, or suggests that there might be some good in denying immediate physical gratification, it gets seen as something alien and harmful by some of us. The OP wants to suggest that Christianity is a moral view that is imposed upon our natural (and therefore better) state. I suggest that what the OP views as natural is no more natural than any other view. It is simply the predominant view of our time, and therefore the easiest one to be blind about.

Here, here! Amen.

 

[!Fluffy!]

There is something deeper to the original post that you seem to be missing, which is the difference between life-promoting and life-enjoying philosophies and life-demoting and life-hating philosophies.

Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid. (John 14:27)

Whatever house you enter, first say, 'Peace be to this house!'
And if a son of peace is there, your peace shall rest upon him; but if not, it shall return to you. (Luke 10:6)

Jesus said to them again, Peace be with you. (John 20:21)

I have said this to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world. (John 16:33)

The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. (John 10:10)


This is the sort of stuff promoted by Christ, in case anyone was wondering.


​

 

[!Fluffy!]

"... be of good cheer".

 

[Glaswegian]

(Post #57 Continued)

The teachings of the early Christian Church fuelled an orgy of self-destruction among its followers in the Roman Empire which it is difficult for us moderns to comprehend, Radio Frequency X. The Roman authorities were literally besieged by Christian mobs clamouring for martyrdom. Let me give you a few examples of the suicidal madness which gripped Christian believers back then:

One Roman proconsul who was sick of the sight of Christians daily gathered outside his residence baying for martyrdom yelled back at them in despair: 'Go hang and drown yourselves and give me ease!'

The English poet and preacher, John Donne, writes:

'Christians of those times [in ancient Rome] had grown so hungry and ravenous for martyrdom that they even taught their own children to vex and provoke executioners so that they might be thrown into the fire along with themselves.'

And here is an extract from Edward Gibbon's 'The History Of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire' which adds a little more detail to the picture:

'The rage of the Christians for martyrdom was enflamed by a frenzy of an extraordinary kind which cannot be paralleled in any country or in any age. [Gibbon, of course, was writing a couple of centuries before 9/11.] Many of these fanatics were so possessed with the horror of life and the desire for martyrdom that they deemed it of little moment by what means or by what hands they perished. Sometimes they rudely disturbed the festivals and profaned the temples of paganism with the aim of exciting the most zealous of the pagan worshippers to deadly revenge for having insulted the honour of their gods. They sometimes forced their way into the courts of justice and compelled the judge to give orders for their execution. They frequently stopped travellers on the public highways and induced them to inflict the stroke of martyrdom by promise of a reward. When they were disappointed of every other means they would cast themselves from some lofty rock; and many precipices were shown which had acquired fame by the number of these religious suicides.'

The lust for self-destruction had become so chronic among the Christian Church's followers, Radio Frequency X, that even St. Augustine bemoaned: 'Martyrdom is now the daily sport of Christians'. St. Augustine recognised that the Christian craze for suicide had reached epidemic proportions within the Roman Empire and that a drastic remedy was required in order to put a halt to it. So what he did was assemble arguments which 'proved' that 'suicide was a detestable and damnable wickedness' (Incidentally, these arguments were not his own but were only a re-working of Plato's and the Pythagoreans' argument that 'life is the gift of God'. I know, Radio Frequency X: there is nothing original about the Christian creed whatsoever. It is just a mishmash of magical Mumbo-jumbo cannibalised from other religions, philosophies, mythologies and superstitions.)

Anyway, St. Augustine held great sway within the Christian Church and his condemnation of suicide was steadily transformed into canon law by a succession of Church Councils, culminating in the one convened in Toledo (693 AD) which decreed that if a Christian so much as attempted to commit suicide then he was to be excommunicated.

~o0o~​

THE END​

 

[!Fluffy!]

(Post #57 Continued)

The teachings of the early Christian Church fuelled an orgy of self-destruction among its followers in the Roman Empire which it is difficult for us moderns to comprehend, Radio Frequency X. The Roman authorities were literally besieged by Christian mobs clamouring for martyrdom. Let me give you a few examples of the suicidal madness which gripped Christian believers back then:

One Roman proconsul who was sick of the sight of Christians daily gathered outside his residence baying for martyrdom yelled back at them in despair: 'Go hang and drown yourselves and give me ease!'

The English poet and preacher, John Donne, writes:

'Christians of those times [in ancient Rome] had grown so hungry and ravenous for martyrdom that they even taught their own children to vex and provoke executioners so that they might be thrown into the fire along with themselves.'

And here is an extract from Edward Gibbon's 'The History Of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire' which adds a little more detail to the picture:

'The rage of the Christians for martyrdom was enflamed by a frenzy of an extraordinary kind which cannot be paralleled in any country or in any age. [Gibbon, of course, was writing a couple of centuries before 9/11.] Many of these fanatics were so possessed with the horror of life and the desire for martyrdom that they deemed it of little moment by what means or by what hands they perished. Sometimes they rudely disturbed the festivals and profaned the temples of paganism with the aim of exciting the most zealous of the pagan worshippers to deadly revenge for having insulted the honour of their gods. They sometimes forced their way into the courts of justice and compelled the judge to give orders for their execution. They frequently stopped travellers on the public highways and induced them to inflict the stroke of martyrdom by promise of a reward. When they were disappointed of every other means they would cast themselves from some lofty rock; and many precipices were shown which had acquired fame by the number of these religious suicides.'

The lust for self-destruction had become so chronic among the Christian Church's followers, Radio Frequency X, that even St. Augustine bemoaned: 'Martyrdom is now the daily sport of Christians'. St. Augustine recognised that the Christian craze for suicide had reached epidemic proportions within the Roman Empire and that a drastic remedy was required in order to put a halt to it. So what he did was assemble arguments which 'proved' that 'suicide was a detestable and damnable wickedness' (Incidentally, these arguments were not his own but were only a re-working of Plato's and the Pythagoreans' argument that 'life is the gift of God'. I know, Radio Frequency X: there is nothing original about the Christian creed whatsoever. It is just a mishmash of magical Mumbo-jumbo cannibalised from other religions, philosophies, mythologies and superstitions.)

Anyway, St. Augustine held great sway within the Christian Church and his condemnation of suicide was steadily transformed into canon law by a succession of Church Councils, culminating in the one convened in Toledo (693 AD) which decreed that if a Christian so much as attempted to commit suicide then he was to be excommunicated.

~o0o~​

THE END​

Sir, your rant against early church history has nothing to do with your original present-day rant against laughing Christians.

But thanks for the lesson, I love early church history.

 

[lilithu]

There is something deeper to the original post that you seem to be missing, which is the difference between life-promoting and life-enjoying philosophies and life-demoting and life-hating philosophies. Christianity and Islam, for example, both have a history of promoting life-demoting and life-hating philosophies, and instead preach a worship and a hoping after the perfect life to come. How can we better our lives, personally and within our families and communities, without maintaining philosophies and ethics that promote and value human life?

There is absolutely nothing innate in religion (not Christianity or Islam) that requires us to hate and reject the world. This is not about culture, but about value-judgments. When people do not value human life, do not value individuality, and fail to promote life in this world, we get nothing but human suffering and misery. Some religious people seem to praise this suffering and misery as being the moral state of rejecting a false and sinful world. These people are dangerous.

There are many people that believe that we have the right to destroy each other and our environment because "others" and "nature" are in the hands of a spiritual enemy of God. The death and suffering born of this kind of thinking is only an extreme example.

When people begin to praise their own weakness and mock their strengths, they accept an ethic of self-debasement that allows for the debasement of any and all.

I agree (with the caveat that there have always been strains of Christianity and Islam that are not life-demoting). I have made similar criticisms of certain religious traditions in the past, not just within Christianity but also certain strains of Hinduism and Buddhism. (It puzzles me that a lot Westerners seem to think that the Abrhamic faiths have done nothing but evil and the Dharmic faiths have done nothing but good.) But the OP was sooo one-sided, so condescending!!, that I felt that affirming any of what was written would be beside the point.

There's also something else that really grates on me: it's the personalness of the attack. If someone wants to argue, as you have for example, that certain religions tend to promote an ideal that is unhealthy for humanity, I may or may not agree with you but I will respect your opinion enough to engage in dialogue with you. Certainly, I'll agree that there is enough to criticize in religion all around. Otoh, if one were to post, as the OP did, that a certain group of people are so unable or unwilling to think for themselves that they resort to these religions that promote an ideal that is unhealthy, then I am going to write the poster off as an inane bigot regardless of the eloquence of his rhetoric.

 

[Glaswegian]

Sir, your rant against early church history has nothing to do with your original present-day rant against laughing Christians.

My account of the suicidal madness which the early Christian Church's teachings provoked among its followers in the Roman Empire was given in response to the point made by Radio Frequency X that it is foolish and dangerous for a religion to teach hatred and fear of 'this world' and one's existence in it.

But thanks for the lesson, I love early church history.

You're welcome, Moon Woman.

 

[gnomon]

Has it come to this.

 

[kiwimac]

The history lesson was mildly interesting but I am much more interested in the inflammatory language used by Glaswegian in his/her posts. I quote as examples the following phrases and words taken from the last of his/her posts.

" madness; there is nothing original about the Christian creed whatsoever; mishmash of magical Mumbo-jumbo cannibalised from other religions, philosophies, mythologies and superstitions"

I would like to understand what drives someone to demonise an entire faith this way, I have experience with Muslims attacking my faith (Zoroastrianism) but I am interested in what makes Glaswegian so angry about Christianity.

Kiwimac

 

[FatMan]

I'm very disappointed as a Christian that the OP has failed to establish any proof of the "pained laugh" that was the crux of starting the thread in the first place.

I'm further disappointed as a comedian that I think I connect with an audience quite well and have yet to pick up on this concept of a "pained" laugh.

I guess I can only conclude that the OP didn't really care if the "pained laugh" concept was true or not, he just wanted a reason to slam Christianity. It appears he chose the wrong topic, or at least defended it woefully.

 

[pete29]

WOW! The OP is absolutely RIGHT!! :flirt:
Peace,
Mystic[/quote its great to be so happy that you laugh til it hurts:angel2:



]

 

[pete29]

When you hear the laughter of some Christians do you ever wonder why there is so much pain in it? Why it often has the effect of causing tiny alarm bells to start ringing inside of you? Why it can make you solemn and reflective in the way that a great tragedy does? Why you feel a little saddened in its aftermath? Perhaps on witnessing this kind of laughter issuing from the Christian's mouth you have been so shocked by it that you have turned away from him, lowered your head and whispered to yourself: 'My God. The pain in that laughter! Doesn't he realise how awful it sounds?'

No reasonable person would blame you for wondering how the Christian can be blind to the pain in his own laughter given that the pain which fills it is so stark in nature, so blatant and unmistakable, so flagrant as to be nakedly obvious. This is why even though one finds the Christian's laughter excruciating one cannot help but be intrigued by it at the same time. This laughter is so anguished in tone, so forced in its delivery, so hysterical in its outburst that one involuntarily shrinks from it as if from an exploding boil. One feels acutely embarrassed for the Christian on hearing his pained and desperate laughter. Indeed, one is even moved at times to pity him because of it. That said, the pain in the Christian's laughter is so uniquely awful that it demands an explanation.

The reason why the pain in the Christian's laughter creates such a strong impression on rational individuals, and makes them prick up their ears whenever they hear it, is because it reveals more about the Christian's inner being in an instant than a very large book could ever do. What this laughter reveals about the Christian in such an immediate and striking way is that he is an individual who suffers greatly from himself: more precisely, that he is someone to whom something terrible has been done, something shameful, and that the person who has done this terrible and shameful thing to him is none other than himself. How do we know this? Because the Christian's laughter is a laughter which resonates with deep and unrelenting guilt. It is the tortured laughter born of an individual who cannot live with himself, an individual who recognises at some level of his being that he is disgraceful and contemptible, an object to be despised. This is why on hearing it the man of finer feelings and good taste immediately averts his eyes from its source.

The terrible and shameful thing which the Christian has done to himself inwardly, and which fills his laughter with so much pain, is that he has murdered his freedom and integrity for the sake of his religion. The Christian is only too willing to perform this deplorable act of self-sabotage because he is a weakling who is terrified of assuming responsibility and control over his own life and decisions. Rather than determining for himself what kind of person he will become and how he will live, he pretends that a 'Divine Being' exists external to himself so that he can abandon himself to its will and authority. Thus, instead of taking charge of his own existence, instead of being the author of his own destiny, the Christian chooses to adopt an infantile orientation to life by clinging abjectly to his religion, by clinging to a childish delusion, by clinging to the apron strings of 'God'. As a consequence of choosing to be un-free and inauthentic in this way, by choosing to remain locked in a state of permanent infancy, the Christian allows his own existential possibilities to wither and die: so much so, that long before his body expires he becomes something false and vacuous, a shell of a man, a desiccated nonentity, the ghost of what might have been.

The pain in the Christian's laughter, then, should be understood as summarising all the anguish and guilt he feels at having betrayed himself, all the hurt and rage he feels at having neglected and disowned his true potentialities and goals, all his secret shame at having made a travesty of his life. His pained laughter announces to the whole world in a direct and emphatic way that he is a cowardly wretch who dreads his own freedom, that he is unnerved by the innumerable possibilities of existence, that he is so afraid of thinking and acting for himself that he is willing to forgo the possibility of his own self-creation.

Given that what the Christian thinks, says and does are done in almost total compliance and conformity with the directives of a fantasised power which lies outside himself (viz. 'God') this means that he is not really in his 'own' thoughts, not really in his 'own' words, not really in his 'own' actions. This accounts for why he is prey to recurring feelings of emptiness, depersonalization and unreality - and the horrible suspicion that he is merely going through the motions of being alive. The Christian is necessarily divorced from his whole inner life and experience because what he thinks, says and does are informed by, or are done in accordance with, a 'Divine Power' which is perceived as other than himself. The Christian, in effect, exists only in absentia for he is a person who has absconded from himself. His self-being is really a form of death-in-life.

Having considered the above it is hardly surprising, then, that the pain in the Christian's laughter leaves the rational person who has the misfortune to hear it somewhat depressed. For it signifies a human tragedy - the tragedy of an individual who, out of weakness and fear, has failed to achieve an authentic mode of being, who has never grown up, and who has wantonly sacrificed two of the most precious things a human being can possess: viz. his own freedom and integrity.

Regards

James

Everyone has pain. anyone who says they don't is deceiving themselves. no one is free. everyone has someone that they're answerable to. the only people that don't feel any guilt are beings like hitler or stalin. most of the guilt i feel comes from the injury i caused to others back when i was "free" from God. i have never met any Christians like you describe. most of the ones i know are as happy as anyone else on this earth. maybe more so. I give myself to Jesus. as a physical manifestation of giving myself to Jesus i must give of myself to my fellow human beings. what greater love and good can there be than to give of yourself to another. if you can't feel this love i pity you. what i can't understand is why you fear people like me so much. oops i feel more pain coming on hahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

[Booko]

re: Christian asceticism

Again, it is important to remember that this is people of ALL religions. All the world-haters, the life-haters, the human-haters... they use religion as an escape and as a weapon. It has nothing necessarily to do with Christianity.

It has nothing to do with "All" religions either, RFX.

Asceticism is forbidden in my religion. Erm...maybe that's a form of asceticism...having to avoid asceticism? :areyoucra

It doesn't seem to me like UUs or pagans are particularly into ascetisicm either (with the excpetion of Burchfam, maybe).

When you can teach others to devalue themselves, you gain control over their minds. If you get someone to love their weakness more than their strength, you've cut them off from reality, and you've made yourself their idol. If you get someone to love heaven more than they love earth, you've killed them. You've made them useless on earth. They are no longer capable of reasoning with regard to worldly benefits, but will act out in ways to earn heavenly rewards. This makes these people dangerous. But again, this is not just Christianity. The same sickness lies behind homicide bombers in the Middle East.

Yeah. So you just outlined why fanaticism and asceticism are forbidden in my religion...look where it heads. blech.

 

[James the Persian]

Sir, your rant against early church history has nothing to do with your original present-day rant against laughing Christians.

But thanks for the lesson, I love early church history.

I wouldn't thank him too much - his Church history is roughly comparable in accuracy to Dan Brown's. The prohibition against suicide, for instance, he claims comes from Augustine. Why, then, is suicide forbidden in my Church? Augustine's influence on our theology is efectively nil - most of what he did write is rejected as heretical or close to it and always was. Hardly any of it was even translated out of Latin until the middle ages and so it wasn't even available to the east. The fact is that the Church always taught against suicide and always taught that all creation was good. There were Christians who didn't get that and many of them were in early (and some not so early) docetistic and dualist cults. You can't, however, judge the teachings of the early Church by the excesses of such people (excesses that were loudly condemned) any more than you can judge the teachings of the Russian Orthodox Church of 19th century by the excesses of the Khlysty (the cult Rasputin joined). Just because he can write prettily, don't let that fool you that what Glaswegian writes has any merit - it's just ahistorical bigotry, pure and simple.

James

 

[Fluffy]

I have, in my time, made many derogatory, patronising or simply unpleasant remarks about Christians and Christianity. I feel that those statements said more about me than them.

What you are arguing might be true but if you are unable to argue it without insulting somebody then you will preach to the choir whilst alienating everyone else. I personally feel, therefore, that the effort gone into stating the point is wasted.

Having said that, you seem to move from an unsupported premise into a series of conclusions that are unsupported by that premise. More specifically, you have not provided evidence to show that Christain laughter is full of pain nor that any existent pain is due to Christian belief. Moreover you seem to be arguing that a single item of human behaviour can be used to analyse almost the entirety of a person's personality and, from what I understand of psychology, this is very unlikely to be the case. It certainly is in need of some more supporting evidence (or just some evidence at all).

 

[Radio Frequency X]

re: Christian asceticism

It has nothing to do with "All" religions either, RFX.

Asceticism is forbidden in my religion. Erm...maybe that's a form of asceticism...having to avoid asceticism? :areyoucra

This isn't just about asceticism. I've posted a thread discussing toxic religious thinking, and that is really what is at issue here. I don't see how anyone can look at the world's religions, at present and historically, and not see them filled with world-haters. I don't think it is the result of religion, religion is not to blame, but religion has become a safehouse for people who really do stand against the world, who praise weakness and mock strength, who praise sickness and mock health.

I'm a theist and I love the world and there are lots of people that love the world, but that shouldn't make us blind to the fact that there are many, MANY people that do not. And they use religion to push their world-hating ideologies.

 

[!Fluffy!]

I wouldn't thank him too much - his Church history is roughly comparable in accuracy to Dan Brown's. The prohibition against suicide, for instance, he claims comes from Augustine. Why, then, is suicide forbidden in my Church? Augustine's influence on our theology is efectively nil - most of what he did write is rejected as heretical or close to it and always was. Hardly any of it was even translated out of Latin until the middle ages and so it wasn't even available to the east. The fact is that the Church always taught against suicide and always taught that all creation was good. There were Christians who didn't get that and many of them were in early (and some not so early) docetistic and dualist cults. You can't, however, judge the teachings of the early Church by the excesses of such people (excesses that were loudly condemned) any more than you can judge the teachings of the Russian Orthodox Church of 19th century by the excesses of the Khlysty (the cult Rasputin joined). Just because he can write prettily, don't let that fool you that what Glaswegian writes has any merit - it's just ahistorical bigotry, pure and simple.

James

Thank you James, for your articulate response, I truly didn't know. I bow to the master once again. Frubals are in order, I think!
:hug:

 

[Glaswegian]

If there is any pained innerselves caused by religion, it is of legalism or controlism. Legalist or controlist religions can depress anybody. It's not just fundamentalist Christianity, it can apply to fundamentalist Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Buddhism, Roscurianism, any other extremist, controlist and legalist versions of religions.

The 'legalism' and 'controlism' that you refer to in your post, silly geezer, are defining features of what I call - 'authoritarian religion'. Authoritarian religion is characterised by its claim to be in possession of absolute truths, its intolerance of dissent, and its insistence on obedience and conformity among its followers. Because it also enjoys power and the exercise of power, authoritarian religion seeks to control not only the religious life of its followers but what they think, say and do in every other area of their life as well (Yes, silly geezer, even in their own bedrooms). It appeals strongly to weak, frightened and uncertain individuals who need an external authority in their life which they can accept and obey without question. Authoritarian religions typically tell their followers: 'We have the answer. And the answer is to ask no questions. For everything is set out in the holy book. Simply obey and you will feel happy.' Which is to say, these followers will feel safe and comfortable in the intellectual and spiritual death that authoritarian religion offers them.

Elsewhere in this forum, silly geezer, I have written about authoritarian religion as follows:

...There are many individuals who find submission to authoritarian religion extremely seductive and they are only too ready to be dominated and mentally enslaved by it. One of the reasons why these individuals are happy to surrender control over their life and mind to authoritarian religion is because this allows them to escape the responsibility of having to think and act for themselves. It is evident that at some level within the follower of this type of religion the prospect of taking charge of his own life arouses a feeling of dread (angst): thus, the surrender of his personal autonomy to authoritarian religion is an attempt on his part to eliminate the occurrence of this unpleasant affective state. However, making authoritarian religion (and 'God') the master and regulator of one's life has a detrimental effect on one's development as a human being for it results in psychological weakness and dependency. This becomes clear if we look at how religious mental enslavement works in general. Viz...

The type of religious attitude fostered by all authoritarian religions is characterised by submission to an external authority or power. Under the direction of monotheistic creeds like Christianity and Islam, the sense of power and value which individuals feel in themselves are projected onto a Deity. The more steadily individuals remove power and value from themselves and accord them to a Deity the more impoverished they become: so much so, that their centre of gravity shifts from within themselves and they cease to be the active propellant in their own life. Thus, the general effect of authoritarian religion is to remove any autonomy which an individual might possess and replace it with a state of dependency. In other words, authoritarian religion seeks to turn its followers into Big Infants, or as its velvet-tongued spokesmen put it: 'little children of God'.

 

[YmirGF]

Although I do not put much credence into the thoughts of the OP or many thoughts expressed thereafter by its writer, I must admit that I prefer a nice warm cupcake and a good roll in the muck from time to time. They are some of my secret pleasures.

You see, when my mouth is full it really does suppress my urge to giggle and well, obviously giggling whilst rolling in the muck can be somewhat rewarding but one does tend to ingest a bit of dirt with each renewed bout of euphoria.

When I think of “Christian” I tend to think of NetDoc (he is such a good person), Dawn (now there is a real Christian woman), Moon_Woman (Although she is lacking in common sense, but oddly I usually know what she means) Katzpur (What is there NOT to like about Kathryn and the others in the LDS faction?), Michel (a kindred spirit *giggles*), Comprehend (an amazing man), Dr. No’s (brilliance in easy to digest nuggets), Angelous_Evangelous (who IS my daddy, of course), Victor (a saint if ever there was one), Pope Benedict XVI (A true genius amongst us), Mother Theresa (the incarnation of compassion), James the Persian (a true man of god), Scott1 (a deep thinker if ever there was one) and so on. One might ask them why they are chuckling. Perhaps they know something the writer of the OP doesn’t.

(Dear "left out" Christians, I am sorry if your name did not appear, but I am getting old and can't remember all of you. I'm sure I feel your joy and laughter though. IF you are smiling and you are laughing, I am already there with you chuckling right along too.)

Me? Well, I don’t call myself a Christian, but am quite fond of their Christ. He was/is a rather remarkable fellow and hardly worthy of scorn. Though I am hardly a follower, I certainly consider him a friend. The Oneness is odd in that regard. Now if you will forgive me the cupcakes are piping hot and my mudbath awaits… Yeeeowwoosa Buwahahahahahaha.

*leaves the disreputable thread singing*
“Rolling, rolling, rolling… Keep the mudbath flowing…"

 

[Glaswegian]

The other common Christian practice (and again, it's not limited to Christianity) that seems to carry a weight of self-hatred to me is the evangelical Christian who insists that he or she has some insight by which to "convict" others of their "sins" so that they will "ask Jesus into their hearts." The approach is dripping with disdain, judgment and self-righteousness.

What's sad about it is the insecurity and fear that must drive a person to say such things to others in the vain hope that the evangelist's vision will be reinforced by forcing by use of fear on others.

You are right, doppelganger, to identify 'insecurity' and 'fear' as being two of the motivating forces which underlie the evangelical Christian's attempt to convince other people about the 'truth' of his religion. Perhaps you are also aware that the evangelical Christian's insecurity and fear stem from the doubt which afflicts him about his own religion at an unconscious level. After all, the evangelical Christian knows in his heart of hearts that because his religion is only a matter of faith there is every possibility that it is utter nonsense, that it may be nothing more than a childish delusion, a form of self-deception.

Needless to say, the doubt which the evangelical Christian feels towards his own religion is too painful to be allowed to enter his conscious awareness and so some of it becomes repressed deep in his psyche and some of it is projected onto others. By projecting this doubt onto others the evangelical Christian can avoid having to confront it in himself: thus, once this defence-mechanism is up and running, once he has shifted his own doubt about his religion onto others, once he has made his mind lighter in this way, he gushes to himself with relief: 'I am not the one who needs to be convinced about the truth of my religion. Absolutely not. It is them - the infidels, the heathen, the unsaved ones who need to be!' Therefore, when the evangelical Christian attempts to persuade others about the 'truth' of his religion what he is really doing is attempting to persuade himself. As the English psychiatrist and author, Anthony Storr, observes:

The religious evangelist is usually convinced that he has discovered 'the truth' and the fervent certainty with which he proclaims this accounts to a large extent for his ability to persuade others of it. However, we should suspect that the conviction expressed by the evangelist is less absolute than it appears in that his apparent confidence needs boosting by others. There is reason to think that all evangelists harbour secret doubts and that this is why they are driven so strongly to win converts.

It can be said, then, that the more fervently the evangelical Christian proclaims his religion to be 'true' the more severe are the doubts that he secretly holds about it.