Martyr Culture in some churches

[Rageaholic]

Found this patheos article through google.

To summarize, it describes what I like to call "Martyr Culture" where people are discouraged from looking after their own interests even when not doing so would cause no harm to anyone. Being abused by your husband? Well Jesus suffered for your sins, so you owe it to him to endure. Good singer and on your way to stardom? Well god wants you to give it all up to be a pastors wife. Why would god want you to be unhappy and miserable? No one knows, but apparently, that's what God wants and who are we to question.

I know not all churches are like this, but for those that are, fuck them. All they do is make people feel unnecessarly guilty for doing what's best for them. I would go further and say that any church that tells you that you have to suffer for Christ is toxic. It's the most counterproductive way to live and for what? Some bullshit cultural reasons? FUCK THAT SHIT.

Sorry for the rant, but as you can probably tell, it's something I feel strongly about. No one should feel guilty for not wanting to suffer.

[Andara Bledin]

Last I checked, Christ suffered for our sins so we wouldn't have to.

Faith is supposed to enrich a person's life, not force them into decisions that they don't want and are against their own best interests (and not against others, of course).

[Rageaholic]

Last I checked, Christ suffered for our sins so we wouldn't have to.

Faith is supposed to enrich a person's life, not force them into decisions that they don't want and are against their own best interests (and not against others, of course).

Yeah that's what I thought the whole thing was about and what it should be about. (of course, I have my own issues with the idea that anyone needs to suffer for anyones sins, but that's neither here nor there).

It doesn't help that these fucking martyrs advertise themselves as the only true Christians, giving people the impression that this is what faith is about.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I see a problem though: justify that it is ever in someone's personal self interest to donate to charity. Unless you keep a list of who is donating and society rewards them later, there is no upside. The closest is the tax break, but that only really results in not paying twice for public goods which is why the exemption exists at all. You can pay 30% to a shelter or 30% to food stamps, but you're going to pay.

I tend to view the biblical view on this as essentially a religious acknowledgement of the free-rider problem before secular political scientists had ever defined it. Whether it be building roads, educating, or as a direct result of economic activity society tends to create costs borne by society as a whole. No individual is ever benefitted by bearing those costs hence you see religion (a culturally unifying force) either directly bearing them or defrauding money under the guise of doing so. But it's all based on everyone giving up a little to deal with issues far bigger than they are. It's not about blank checking your spouse. Religion calls it "sacrifice" and defines it as noble. That's certainly a better selling point than, "you benefitted from how our society functions, now pay up."

Basically, I tend to see two slippery slopes on this topic. One, that the bible calls for no self sacrifice and the other that no sacrifice is big enough ever.

[Andara Bledin]

There is no problem. This thread is about people who either suffer or tell others they should suffer with no good coming of such suffering other than a masochistic satisfaction that what they're doing is somehow righteous.

Sacrifices made for the betterment of society as a whole are part and parcel of enlightened self-interest and are beneficial to the person making the sacrifice.

Now, if it floats a person's boat to get satisfaction out of engineering their own misery in the name of religion, that's their lookout. But when they try to export that misery to others, or claim that their way is the only way, or even just crow about how devout they are by showing off their sacrifices, then they're crossing a line.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Well at least we know absolutely no one will argue the distinction between self-interest and enlightened self interest.

[Panacea]

I see a problem though: justify that it is ever in someone's personal self interest to donate to charity. Unless you keep a list of who is donating and society rewards them later, there is no upside.

If you view self interest solely in terms of tangible gain, then you are right. But you are forgetting the intangible benefits of donating to charity. Not only that it makes you feel good (and is good for your mental health if genuine), but that it is pleasing to God. Also, there are social benefits to charity (which comes in a wide variety of forms) in terms of social cohesion and civil society that result from charitable work.

I tend to view the biblical view on this as essentially a religious acknowledgement of the free-rider problem before secular political scientists had ever defined it. Whether it be building roads, educating, or as a direct result of economic activity society tends to create costs borne by society as a whole.

There are also gains that are given to society as a whole: improved economies, improved exchange of information and knowledge, access to new resources and opportunities.

Traditionally, most of the tax burden has always fallen on the rich because they had the most resources. Now we have tax systems that fall disproportionally on the poor, and yet they often benefit the least from the gains resulting from economic activity. So I don't buy the free rider argument.

No individual is ever benefitted by bearing those costs hence you see religion (a culturally unifying force) either directly bearing them or defrauding money under the guise of doing so. But it's all based on everyone giving up a little to deal with issues far bigger than they are. It's not about blank checking your spouse. Religion calls it "sacrifice" and defines it as noble. That's certainly a better selling point than, "you benefitted from how our society functions, now pay up."

That's never been the purpose of religion, although it may have been used by those in power to perform that purpose.

Basically, I tend to see two slippery slopes on this topic. One, that the bible calls for no self sacrifice and the other that no sacrifice is big enough ever.

I looked at the original link and just groaned. That whole section of the Bible has been taken completely out of context with the historical situation that was going on at the time it was written.

Peter's admonisment for wives to obey their husbands wasn't coming from a desire on his point for women to submit to traditional roles because the man was the man and the woman was the woman.

Rather, he was addressing the fact that early Christianity was extremely popular with women, and the wives often converted before their husbands did. Some husbands reacted violently to the news their wives had become Christians, or their slaves. So Peter was advising them not to respond to their husbands anger, but to show their faith through actions and not words, and let the husband change his mind on his own. By doing so, and accepting any abuse that might have come thier way, they would indeed be following Christ's message because Christ repeatedly told the Apostles how difficult it would be to follow Him, and the personal sacrifices they would have to make to do so. Peter is emphasizing THAT message.

He wasn't saying that Christian women should take abuse from Christian husbands to make them more like Jesus.

[Rageaholic]

Basically, I tend to see two slippery slopes on this topic. One, that the bible calls for no self sacrifice and the other that no sacrifice is big enough ever.

The way I see it, the line is crossed people threaten you with hell if you don't stop living "selfishly". I put selfishly in quotations because I've seen it described differently. The way I see it is if you're doing things at the expense of others, you're a selfish asshole. But I've also heard selfishly described as anything that benefits only you (even if it's not hurting anyone else). I mean, yes, that' technically selfish, but not something that would make me go "wow what an asshole!".

[Panacea]

The way I see it, the line is crossed people threaten you with hell if you don't stop living "selfishly". I put selfishly in quotations because I've seen it described differently. The way I see it is if you're doing things at the expense of others, you're a selfish asshole. But I've also heard selfishly described as anything that benefits only you (even if it's not hurting anyone else). I mean, yes, that' technically selfish, but not something that would make me go "wow what an asshole!".

We tend to assign a negative connotation to the word "selfish." But the truth is that many times enlightened self interest is what propels things in this world: people put effort into the things they do, things that benefit society as a whole, when they believe they will get something (tangible or intangible) out of it. That's why capitalism tends to work better than communism or extreme forms of socialism that discourage the efforts of the individual to succeed (though extreme forms of capitalism can do that too).

Jesus put an emphasis on the immaterial things becasue he understood that the focus only on the self is ultimately self destructive to a productive relationship not only with God, but with other people. He lived to a standard that most people can't achieve, and he openly acknowledged this.

[Sarah Valentine]

I tried to click the link at the top but all I keep getting is a blank page.

[Rageaholic]

Fixed the link.