Christianity Is Antithetical To Family Values

[Bhim]

Evangelical Christians commonly claim that they promote family values.  Here in America we often here the Evangelical Christian Party (a fair nickname, I think for the GOP), talk about this issue of "family values."  Most often it is discussed in the context of abortion, homosexuality, HPV vaccinations of children, or other cases in which the Republican party wishes to control the sexual practices of American citizens.  A specific instance that comes to mind is the Family Research Council, a conservative group which lobbies for the Republican social agenda.  Recently I drove past a church whose name included the two words "...Family Church."  And my former church teaches that the family, not the individual, is the fundamental unit of the church, i.e. the church is a family of families.

 

So then, Christianity is supposed to support family values.  I find this claim to be poorly thought out and tragically flawed.  Evangelical Christianity teaches a practice that is antithetical to family values: conversion.  On the one hand we have Christians in America claiming to support the institution of the family, and on the other we have Christians proselytizing international students on college campuses as well as people in other countries with a dominant religion other than Christianity, enticing people to discard their own upbringing and family in order to become Christians.  It's probably hard for evangelicals themselves to notice the problem.  Here in America most people are at least nominally Christian.  The primary opposition to Christianity is atheism, and even most American atheists come from culturally-Christian backgrounds.  So "coming to the Lord" usually involves developing a belief in a deity and embracing the religion that your family already holds to, to some extent or another.  Most former-atheists I know who converted to Christianity have at least nominally Christian parents, and those who don't have Christian grandparents.  So when such a person becomes a Christian, he's not really walking away from his family.

 

Not so, if you happened to grow up Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist (I deliberately exclude Islam because frankly, it's the one religion I find to be worse than evangelical Christianity).  In this case, your parents raised you with certain beliefs, values, and traditions, and the evangelical would have you utterly reject this.  I hope that some Christians will respond to this thread, because I have to ask how this is remotely in support of "family values."  I submit that evangelical Christianity is no friend to the family.  And to bolster my claim, I would add the words of Jesus from Luke 14:26,

 

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

 

Family values indeed.  As anyone who's read my first post in Testimonies is aware, my value of the family is precisely why I left Christianity.  I grew weary of hearing my fellow Christians talking about how proud their parents are that they've kept to their families' faith, while telling me to keep my distance from my Hindu parents.  As someone who has always believed in both God and the value of the family, this was something that I ultimately refused to do, even if it took me a few years to figure this out.

 

Therefore, I would further submit that Jesus is a homewrecking villain who seeks to undermine the millenia-old institution of the family.  In tens of thousands of years of civilization, humans across the world have been raised in families.  Who is Jesus to undermine this ancient tradition?  Jesus, the self-styled son of man, stands opposed to the family structure created by God, and ought to be rejected as quickly as he demands that we hate our families.

[Ravenstar]

Agreed

 

and if you compare with say.. Buddhism, which promotes acceptance and non-judgment of all (the entire human race is 'sacred' and ultimately 'family'), it is a stark difference.

[florduh]

Evangelical Christians commonly claim that they promote family values.

 

 

 

Most commonly these days, that's simply code for anti-homosexual.

[bornagainathiest]

Hey Bhim!

 

Please check out this thread... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/56739-how-to-be-saved

 

I reckon the content ties in nicely with your idea of Jesus being a family-wrecking monster.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[leopardus]

Don't neglect to hammer on the christian way of ostracizing anyone who leaves the faith or doesn't follow the family's particular brand of the faith.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

Evangelical Christians commonly claim that they promote family values.

 

 

 

Most commonly these days, that's simply code for anti-homosexual.

 

 

They claim to promote family values, but what "family values" actually means is "gay bashing".

[Bhim]

Don't neglect to hammer on the christian way of ostracizing anyone who leaves the faith or doesn't follow the family's particular brand of the faith.

 

That's a good point.  I obviously don't have any personal experience with this.  But back when I became a Christian, my family did not ostracize me.  That wasn't even on their minds.  Only under the tyrrany of Jesus does religion trascend family.  Again I maintain that Christianity is incompatible with family values.

[Bhim]

Hey Bhim!

 

Please check out this thread... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/56739-how-to-be-saved

 

I reckon the content ties in nicely with your idea of Jesus being a family-wrecking monster.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Hi BAA.  I read your post on unborn children and salvation with great interest.  Many of my old Christian friends staunchly maintain that unborn children who die in the womb do indeed go to hell.  In the Christian tradition of circular reasoning, they justify it by saying that it makes for a strong argument against abortion.  To be fair to them, that's not the end of their reasoning.  They also claim that to say otherwise negates the necessity of belief in Christ for salvation.  Many of these people have infant children.  If, God forbid, one of these children should die, I have to wonder how they would cope with their belief that their child must be burning in eternal hell.

 

I strongly agree with your description of Jesus as a monster.  A lot of people, including atheists, Jews, and even my fellow Hindus, say that Jesus is a good moral teacher, a prophet, or even an incarnation of God (one among many).  So many people, while rejecting Jesus as the Son of God and only Savior, nonetheless receive him as a friend.  Evangelicals, of course, would be offended.  They claim, along the lines of C.S. Lewis, that he must be receieved as Lord, or nothing else.  I, however, think that "monster" is more apt than liar or lunatic, and certainly more than Lord.  Here we have a man who calls himself God, invents a place called hell, and threatens to send you there for not believing the right things about him and loving him more than people you've physically interacted with.  Bear in mind that the allegedly evil and genocidal "Old Testament God," in all of his wrath and fury, never conceived of a place of eternal punishment (except arguably in Daniel 12:2, where it is not remotely connected with belief in religious doctrine).  Hell is the original creation of Jesus.  Jesus, and Jesus alone, requires all people throughout the world to convert to a Western European religion or face eternal fire.

 

Where people got the idea that Jesus is a good person, I do not understand.  All of his ethical teachings can be found in Jewish writings from other authors, and in more complete form.  And the Jewish authors won't send you to hell for disagreeing with them.  I think that evangelicals don't think much about how truly unjust the punishment of hell is.  The phrase "even Hitler doesn't deserve..." can't be completed with a lot of words, but "hell" fits the bill.  No crime committed in heaven or on earth deserves the punishment of eternal hell.  Even the collective sins of all humanity do not merit an eternity of punishment.