Disqus - Latest Comments for silent0

Re: all complementarian sex is rape

silent0 — Thu, 31 Mar 2016 01:07:58 -0000

And for the record, I think you are spot on Samantha. Complementarian theology teaches men and (especially) women that they literally do not own their bodies, but that their bodies and sexuality actually belong to their spouse. If that doesn't complicate consent and create a "culture of coercion" (love that phrasing) I don't know what does.

Re: all complementarian sex is rape

silent0 — Thu, 31 Mar 2016 01:04:46 -0000

I'm an ex-Christian turned Humanist and there are some things I look back on fondly in my Christian past: memorizing the book of Jude, helping the less fortunate, late-night theology binges, even the cheesy music that occassionally rose to a higher level.

But I definitely regret being a Driscoll fan-boy as a young married man. Complementarianism...I don't really know if it's the doctrine, or the culture (or if there's any meaningful way to separate the two)...but it places a really weird idea about sex into men's heads. I literally felt that I was a failure as a man because my wife wouldn't have sex with me as much as I wanted her to. I was a *spiritual failure* because I had desires that outran our sex life (and in a framework that says even fantasizing about sex with another person is a mortal sin, that can be pretty daunting). I knew that the real manly-preachers bragged (not so subtley) about their robust sex lives. Their marriages kept them from "burning up" with lust as the Apostle Paul warned could happen to single men. I knew that my wife and I could have such an amazing sex life too...if only we loved Jesus enough, read the right books together, and prayed together consistently. Just follow the formula, lead your wife to comply with the right theology, and BAM, marital bliss. I can see now of course what a crock of lies it was, what an utterly warped system pretty much guaranteed to produce problems.

Re: The “Reasonable-ness” of the Christian Faith

silent0 — Tue, 08 Mar 2016 10:51:12 -0000

For a blog post prompted by the question "Is the Christian faith a reasonable story to believe?" there is surprisingly little Christian Scripture discussed or even lightly referenced.

Re: Roe v. Wade -- Abortion Won the Day, but Sooner or Later That Day Will End

silent0 — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 13:32:36 -0000

"What you have briefly described here must have been awful."

You say that...and yet the legislation proposed by major pro-life groups ("right to life amendments") would make what this woman did illegal. In an ideal pro-life world, she would have been forced to carry that pregnancy to term (or, more "mercifully" she could have appealed for some sort of official exemption due to health necessity, which would still compound the awfulness of the situation).

Re: Can Atheists Learn Anything from the Religious?

silent0 — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:01:07 -0000

"the way religion always does"

To be fair, many religious traditions do allow for doubt.

Re: Can Atheists Learn Anything from the Religious?

silent0 — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 10:56:44 -0000

I think that science can inform us about truths that are needed to make moral decisions, but I don't think it is the right tool for informing us of what our fundamental moral values (rights, obligations, etc) actually should be. This is the classic "is ought problem" but it goes even deeper. Can science tell me that I value beauty? Not really. It can suggest that I might be inclined by evolution or psychology to value it, but I have to experience my values firsthand and reflect on them (sometimes weighing one perceived value against another). It's not an easy task and I think that philosophy (of a religious or secular tradition) is needed.

Re: Can Atheists Learn Anything from the Religious?

silent0 — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 10:32:53 -0000

I've found a lot of value in Unitarian Universalism since leaving the faith I was raised in. I really like this line printed in the front of our hymnal where it talks about the sources of our "living tradition":

"Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit;"

http://www.uua.org/beliefs/...

Yes, we should respect science and what it can tell us, but the flip-side is that the scientific method itself (and careful scientists) also warn us about the dangers of "idolatries of the mind"...I think that's what you're getting at here when you talk about scientism.

Love the post here and I think it's a good caution for all of us. And contrary to what some religious types would say, I don't think that admitting to some doubt and epistemic uncertainty completely invalidates our position as godless humanists or shows that the divinely inspired have reached a better alternative.

Re: Let’s Embrace the AFHSQ

silent0 — Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:27:44 -0000

"Let’s Embrace the AFHSQ"

Me (and apparently quite a few others in the community here): "Let's not."

Seems to be off to a rough start, though I'm sure plenty of people read this article but were indifferent on the concept. Time will tell if any sort of acronym or initialization like this will catch on.

Re: Evangelical Christianity and Low Self-Esteem

silent0 — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 13:33:26 -0000

I deal with this by writing. Sometimes analytically, sometimes more poetically (such as this blog post http://kch.me/what-i-hear-w... ). Like you I was pretty deep into Calvinism and believed very strongly in the doctrine of total depravity. While there are aspects to my "past life" that I do miss, the self-loathing and guilt is something I am happy to give up. I feel like I've come a long way in just two years. Peace and Freedom.

Re: Should the United States Attempt to Kill ISIS Leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Islam’s Self-Proclaimed New Caliph?

silent0 — Wed, 03 Sep 2014 13:45:04 -0000

"If they're going to hate us no matter what (and frankly, that seems likely) then let them fear us also."

2001 called and they want their Islamophobic bigotry back.

Re: Should the United States Attempt to Kill ISIS Leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Islam’s Self-Proclaimed New Caliph?

silent0 — Wed, 03 Sep 2014 13:41:55 -0000

With America's track record of terror, mayhem and torture in Iraq, the US govt really has no business dropping even a single leaflet there. For the US govt to try and claim some sort of moral high-ground in the region is laughable (plus any opposition we provide against ISIS will help validate their image as the great opposers of Western Imperialism, so there's that).

American troops and bombs need to stay out. ISIS has plenty of natural enemies, some local (Iraqi Shia, Kurds, Iran, Syria, Turkey) and some internal (Sunni tribes & ex-Baathists who joined the movement at a very convenient time but don't align with its global agenda).

Fuck ISIS and fuck US empire and meddling too. STAY OUT!

Re: From where will our salvation come?

silent0 — Thu, 14 Aug 2014 17:41:39 -0000

I don't believe in any sort of a cosmic savior (ideological or religious) for humanity. I'm not even sure that we have a chance of escaping this 3rd rock from the sun before our inevitable extinction (or worse...look at HG Well's vision at the end of The Time Machine). But, I do think that we can still reach for a sort of "kingdom now" salvation which is talked about both among liberal theologians and Humanists. There is still value in my life and I care about the immediate legacy which I will leave, even if I know that *eventually* (either with the end of life on Earth or at the heat-death of the universe) everything that I see value in is likely to collapse. Maybe some new universe will bubble out from the ashes, but it won't be the same place that I know and I (and my descendants) won't be able to enjoy it. This is grim stuff, but I still find motivation to care about the near future.

I'm optimistic for the short-term. I'm optimistic that humanity can get its act together enough to stop supporting endless wars, to promote universal tolerance and to truly thrive as much as possible on our little pale blue dot. While it's easy to point out the negatives of our present time (you mention current disease outbreaks and current wars and conflicts) we should also pay attention to the larger trends. We are living in one of the most peaceful times in human history, and this is despite the fact that we are also living in a time where the Earth supports more humans than it ever has before (should we be consuming less as a species, probably, but I'll set that aside for now). We're doing this not just through advanced technology--something our ancestors of just 300 years ago could hardly dream of--but also through advanced society. Human culture is evolving, though it certainly isn't changing as fast as many of us would like it to. Owning other human beings is no longer seen as acceptable in most parts of the world. War is no longer "glorious" in its own right but must be sold as an answer to national grievances and wrapped up in humanitarian concerns. People are living longer lives and becoming far more connected to their fellow human beings, even those from "alien" cultures...both of those trends help to promote more sound thinking and to increase our natural empathy for our fellow humans. These are all good things and I don't see these major trends slowing down or reversing. In the mean-time there will be problems, there will be strife and brother will take up arms against brother for worthless causes. We can all do our own little part (not saying the effort will be little!) to leave this Earth a better place than how we found it. And if we decide to simply be selfish? Well, history can move on without us...I don't believe that progress has ever required 100% engagement on the part of the human population. Peace and Freedom.

Re: Kevin Sorbo, Star of “God’s Not Dead,” Trashes Atheists on Access Hollywood

silent0 — Thu, 14 Aug 2014 16:38:30 -0000

Wait, God's Not Dead wasn't "preaching to the choir"...they actually thought this could be useful for outreach? I'm so confused.

Re: Living As Functional Atheists

silent0 — Tue, 08 Jul 2014 14:26:12 -0000

"Everything fits together in Jesus alone. Nothing trumps Jesus. All that I am and have—all my belongings, all my relationships, all my beliefs, my philosophies"

This sounds like another form of presuppositional apologetics, but instead of placing the Bible at the foundation as God's revealed word, you are instead placing Jesus (it should be noted that this is specifically a divine Jesus--please correct me if I'm wrong) at the foundation of your worldview and attempting to filter all other facts and observations through that. Of course this is going to cause problems just as the classic presup argument causes problems because you still need to answer how you came to that viewpoint in the first-place. What compels someone to accept Jesus as their foundation versus Krishna or Zeus? If it all comes down to personal revelation, then your argument really is as weak and as egotistical (in terms of seeing your own revelatory experiences as vastly more compelling and true than others claimed spiritual revelations) as the argument made by Sye Ten Bruggencate.

The problem with any form of presup apologetic is the attempt to get around evidence. We have good evidence (the kind of stuff that any non-biased judge should be able to agree on) pertaining to the Bible's literary construction and place in human history. We have good evidence as to the construction of the New Testament (Markan priority demonstrates that the idea of Jesus' full divinity and even his *bodily* resurrection were likely later additions)...careful scholarship also shows us that we have good reason to doubt that any of the NT was written by eye-witnesses (though of course, even if it was that would not automatically validate its claims as historical...there is quite a bit of eye-witness testimony in favor of alien abductions but I presume most Christians reading this would not accept those uncritically).

I do enjoy reading the posts here (I'd rather see a liberal/progressive Christianity flourish than see strict inerrancy and fundamentalism grow) and would love to see a follow-up addressing some of the challenges presented here in the comments.

Peace and Freedom.

Re: Where I stand: a six-month report

silent0 — Thu, 03 Jul 2014 17:16:06 -0000

On the "Dawkins' Scale" I'm a 7 when it comes to the God worshipped by members of my former church and by believers who hold to inerrancy (their view of the Bible is tied into their god claim). I'm a 6 when it comes to the general concept of the monotheistic Abrahamic God and I'm a 5 for all other "god claims," including those I have yet to hear of. I hold the position that extraordinary claims--supernatural claims--should be considered false until the burden of proof is met in their favor ("show me the evidence!").

There are some god/supernatural claims which fall into a separate category, IMO, and that would be those which attempt to redefine god either into "everything" or "nature" or some sort of "divine metaphor." Those types of claims really fall into a different category than god claims that feature a real, interactive supernatural being or or at least a consistently interactive "force" which religious devotees claim an exclusive connection to. To me a god who is "being itself" is poorly defined. If God doesn't exist (and we have 1000s of years of history defining what a 'god' or 'The God' is) then we shouldn't dance around the fact that our theology has now ruled him out...why call it 'god' if it isn't really? (I am willing to hear these arguments out though, but I do find the language itself to be problematic)

Re: Six months, still searching

silent0 — Tue, 01 Jul 2014 16:22:44 -0000

Thanks for continuing to share your journey! I've been following pretty much since the beginning and am looking forward to tomorrow's post.

Re: 5 (Great) Things I Learned As A Fundamentalist

silent0 — Mon, 23 Jun 2014 01:39:36 -0000

How do you define 'fundamentalism'? What in your mind distinguishes evangelical Christianity from fundamentalist Christianity?

Re: Obama mulls Iraq options as strife continues

silent0 — Thu, 19 Jun 2014 12:47:04 -0000

Let's not be fooled again.

Re: Out of the mouth of babes

silent0 — Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:39:41 -0000

Too funny. This will probably be my kids in a few years (they already have avid discussions about the morals and strengths of their favorite characters from Star Wars, Angry Birds, My Little Pony etc).

Re: Refining Reason - Matt Dillahunty Debates Sye Ten Bruggencate

silent0 — Fri, 06 Jun 2014 14:08:47 -0000

Recently saw the debate online. I have to say that your summary here (from 2 months before the debate) is remarkably prescient. Matt did do his homework beforehand though and was quite well prepared for Sye's antics. Sye did make a few attempts at debating a "straw Matt" he pieced together from past video-clips of The Atheist Experience...I guess he realized that he wasn't going to get the real Matt to respond exactly as he wanted during the "debate."

Re: On God & Sex

silent0 — Mon, 26 May 2014 22:01:08 -0000

"I have never had sex outside of marriage."

Good for you. To clarify my statement: Many Christians have sex outside of marriage. I was speaking generally and that's why I didn't say "All Christians..." but rather "Christians." Apologies if my post offended you. I do wonder what the author of the post above thinks about your characterization of premarital sex. I don't really have a bone in this theological controversy since I no longer adhere to Christianity (thoug I do stand by my statements about the ancient attitude towards sex, I'm not going to rigorously defend that point...anyone interested can pick up a copy of the OT and decide for themselves if what I am saying is on target).

Re: On God & Sex

silent0 — Mon, 26 May 2014 13:25:03 -0000

News Flash: Christians have sex outside of marriage! Hey, at least you are choosing to be honest about it.

Hannah, your thoughts on this subject may be an attempt to provoke discussion among your Christian peers ("what counts as a 'really bad' sin?" and other questions arise) but...please don't consider Christianity and the Bible to be the pinnacle of moral goodness. Who says that enjoying sexual relationships before marriage is a sin? It's not exactly clear from the Bible even. In the Old Testament, the emphasis is on virginal purity and "cleanliness." Women who had their hymen broken (which can happen without sexual intercourse) were considered "damaged goods" in that tribal, patriarchal culture. If they got married and couldn't show "proof" of their virginity then they would be stoned by the entire town! Pre-marital fun was simply not an option in a system where you were owned as a good in the same way that someone would own livestock (please re-read those 10 commandments). Some Christians may be willing to entertain thoughts this radical, to look beyond the mores of the Bible and find a way to moral truth which doesn't rely on following a collection of pre-scientific myths and legends (with a bit of history sprinkled in, I don't deny). You may end up finding yourself in such a liberal, accepting group. In the off-chance that you can't find such a religious group to belong to, don't despair. The problem (the disconnect between your actions and so-called "Biblical morality") is not with you...the problem is with Christianity. Enjoy the journey.

Re: ReAsonCon

silent0 — Thu, 01 May 2014 15:44:10 -0000

Pre-Deconversion:

> In-depth, verse-by-verse study of Gospel of Mark (this was part of a year long study/internship at an evangelical church). This study introduced me to the "synoptic problem" and what scholars in general think about the historical context of the gospels. I also learned that many evangelicals accept the modern, 'eclectic' manuscripts. (some versions of the NIV make it very obvious that the longer ending of Mark, for example, is not original to the text)

> Purchased and studied a "Harmony of the Gospels" which contains some good historical background notes and also several apologetics essays. These essays/articles defend the gospels from an inerrantist perspective. The version I have is by Robert Thomas and Stanley Gundry and it is still one of my favorite books (very good printing and cover). The essays, notes and chronology of the book (they have an interesting way of displaying passages side by side) attempt to deal with some of the main contradictions between the four gospels and provide something of a "standardized account" for conservative-minded believers.

> Read "A Case For Faith" which contains some of the same material as "The Case For Christ." (and I've sampled a few other bits of Strobel's writing and speaking)

> Read "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis which relies on the moral argument but also builds up his famous "trillemma" about how we look at Jesus.

> A lot of people recommend NT Wright's historical work on the gospels and the Resurrection. I can't comment on that, but I thought I would mention it. From what I know Wright is very orthodox and is widely respected by both conservative and progressive Christians, but he does not seek to defend strict inerrancy. (I did learn about his views on Romans during that church internship)

-------------------------------
Deconversion period (and afterwards)

> Watched a debate between William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman (sadly I think this is the highest-resolution available on YouTube though you can catch Craig and Ehrman in other, related debates: https://www.youtube.com/wat... )

> Read "Misquoting Jesus" and "Jesus, Interrupted" by Bart Ehrman (the latter is more on-topic here)

> Read two books by a very interesting individual who is considered to be the first published 'atheist' (at least publically). His name is Baron d'Holbach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... and you can download these two books (he wrote a ton more) for free from Project Gutenberg or Amazon Kindle. The two works that deal with this issue head on are "Christianity Unveiled" and "Ecce Homo!" -- Holbach did not have our modern Biblical scholarship (no "Q" yet), but he was still able to make some very interesting points. Throughout most of his writing he works with the assumption that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure and that the gospel accounts tell us *something* about him (though he comes to some interesting conclusions about what that something is). Very highly recommended even though his investigation is now quite out-dated and in many ways appears very "conservative" compared to what progressive Christian scholars today would say.

Current believers could give you better recommendations on what else you could read from the "pro-supernatural" side of things, though be aware that you may find many arguments and assumptions (such as knowing that certain apostles died a martyr's death) to be repeated by different apologists.

I wish you well in your search!

(also, a good general-purpose website that I can recommend is errancy.org ...I did not find it particularly impactful in my search, but I like how they differentiate between serious and minor contradictions in the NT)

Re: ReAsonCon

silent0 — Thu, 01 May 2014 03:15:33 -0000

I think you've pretty much nailed it.

The way I looked at it when I was transitioning from belief to non-belief (in Christianity as I knew it) was that all of my religious opinions fit into a sort of self-contained matrix. As long as I could find all of the right 'puzzle pieces,' I had confidence that things would hold together. Anyone can poke a philosophical hole into Christianity as a generic system. That's easy, but doing that simply invites the Christian to find 3 or 4 theological answers which are in line with their existing worldview. Sometimes those rationale are rather flimsy and un-Biblical, but in other cases (such as with arguments about unnecessary suffering) there has actually been quite a bit of thought put into the problem both by Biblical authors and by later theologians. As long as my motivation was strong enough and I wasn't *too* curious I was able to accept the answers that people who were apparently much smarter and more accomplished than me (mentors, preachers, apologists) were able to provide. And in general I had faith that no matter what philosophical and existential difficulties I might encounter, there had to be an answer out there somewhere since I had been able to resolve other "apparent contradictions" by digging deeper into the Bible and church history.

What tipped the scales for me was 1) increased curiosity about other perspectives (I wanted to re-examine my previous answers to some of those "tough questions" that many Christians face when they become adults) and 2) becoming better informed about the historical case against the Resurrection and the gospel accounts (our main sources for the life and teachings of Jesus). I had always prided myself in believing that I followed a religion which was historically validated and when I discovered how far off the mark that claim was...well, it really helped me to move past my beliefs and allow all of the other problems with Christianity to be seen more clearly and without me being able to fall-back on "well, I know that I can trust that the Bible is God's revelation, so somehow things must work out for the best even if I can't resolve some specific topic."

Re: 10 Questions Libertarians Can’t Answer, and Hope You Won’t Ask!

silent0 — Wed, 09 Apr 2014 00:01:57 -0000

Say it with me (slowly, so you don't hurt yourself): "Sah...tire."

"Satire."

Good. For best results I suggest that you decrease your daily caffeine intake.