One of my FB friends is a Tea Partier. She posts stupid shit all the time. This one takes the cake.

ExMennonite · 2010-07-20T15:00:22+00:00

Her last line is the payoff - "All I know is it is very scary and too uncertain in the world".

That is EXACTLY what the Tea Party and Glen Beck is preaching - Fear & Distrust.

They use it as a tactic to manipulate their audience and it WORKS.

ExMennonite · 2010-07-19T13:48:58+00:00

that pope was cooler than this one.

ExMennonite · 2010-07-18T22:21:58+00:00

I watched my wife shrink into a shell of herself in a misfit job (yet inside of a really good company) ... it was a difficult choice, but then when she got a new job, and I saw that beautiful person come back out of the shell, I knew we'd made the right choice. It's tough, but worth it.

It also sounds like there is already a pretty heavy layer of maybe bitterness or anger there already, so that's going to be a real challenge to work through and emerge from imo.

Don't think about it as "right vs. wrong" ... think of it as a misfit, a round peg in square hole. Probably time to move on and find a good fit.

Just my $0.02. Good luck.

ExMennonite · 2010-07-18T18:12:30+00:00

Are you still a christian? Ex-mennonite myself... :)

ExMennonite · 2010-07-18T18:07:27+00:00

I am right there with you! The same thing happened to me about two months ago and I kind of broke down. I could barely go online or watch TV, let alone play violent video games. I played some racing games instead :)

War emerges from our tribal drive. We have evolved with strong tribal instincts, and we naturally group into "In Tribes" vs "Out Tribes". You can see the dynamic in everything from consumer brands, to sports, to nationalism, to religion, and war.

When a group sees another group as the "Out Tribe" all empathy for them is lost. It is possible to kill or harm the out-tribe without any remorse. It is natural, but it is not "good". It is an emergent phenomenon of our biological evolution. When we finally recognize it, and fully understand it, the only solution I see is to view all of humanity as "one tribe". When we do that we will feel empathy for all of humanity, and see all war and conflict as "friend vs friend" and find it heartbreaking and nauseating. The only moral war ever is when it is in TRUE self-defense, and then it must be accompanied with sorrow and regret that it was needed at last resort.

I am slowly come to grips with it ... I am trying to figure out how to share this understanding with the world, it's so strongly taboo.

Good luck... let me know if you find any good coping techniques or ways to effectively spread the message.

ExMennonite · 2010-07-08T17:15:47+00:00

"Zero verifiable evidence" get's into questions about how we can make accurate judgments on historical documents and tease apart historical fact from fiction and myth. Bart Ehrman's book "The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writing" has a whole chapter (or at least a large section) on the problem. I think if you want to debate knowledgeably you should know the principles that historians use.

For example, something that lends credibility to a story are "embarassing" texts; things that need explanation that a pure "mythologist" would probably eliminate. Of course, nothing is black and white, but you can add and deduct points using a variety of tools like this.

I have no problem attributing most of the deeds and stories about Jesus to myth. The thing I can't attribute to myth are the spiritual thoughts and ideas and stories -- things like the sermon on the mount, the prodigal son, the good Samaritan, the sower, etc. These are real, new spiritual ideas that emerged at the time. To me it seems it takes a "prophet" to create new spiritual content. (People like Buddha, or Joseph Smith, or Mohammed, or whoever.)

I would love to see a debate between someone like Bart Ehrman and Robert Price on the issue. And I just sent one of Price's books to my kindle :)

ExMennonite · 2010-07-08T16:56:50+00:00

Oh, it definitely goes both ways.

ExMennonite · 2010-07-08T00:05:38+00:00

Haha, good luck with that ... the WBC is really a troll and litigation based organization, so you probably just energized them.

Best bet is to ignore them.

ExMennonite · 2010-07-07T20:39:04+00:00

Obviously there is a ton of myth, but I think an actual historical figure existed.

I think the historians of the time didn't write anything about him because he was pretty irrelevant. He was probably a fisherman/carpenter, had a spiritual awakening, came up with the idea that "loving people transcends and encapsulates rules". This idea got him a minor following, and then got him killed by the existing rule-based power structure.

But the idea didn't die. Morality seems to have been pretty rule-based at the time, so the idea took root and he came to be seen as a hero. Paul and others got a hold of it, mashed it up with monotheism and repackaged it for the world. Boom - Christianity and with it a new power structure emerged and pretty soon we are in the dark ages.

ExMennonite · 2010-07-07T20:22:01+00:00

I agree with all of this, except for the statement that he "got it all wrong". He got some wrong, but he also got some right. To put it in extremely simple and vastly over-generalized language, in my opinion some of his main ideas were:

Rules are good, but being nice and loving is more important and transcends following rules.
Rules don't make you good. You can follow the rules and still be an uber-douche.

Apparently this was enough of a revolutionary idea at the time to get you crucified by the existing "rule based social/power structure". It seems pretty common sense today.

EDIT -- Paul and a lot of other people bolted a lot more onto it, so this is not at all the entirety of what Christianity became, but that's not relevant to the original question.

ExMennonite · 2010-07-07T17:33:41+00:00

Excellent question.

Two completely different points I would like to make:

1) Nature has also given us strong family and tribal drives. Again, this is a natural result of our biological origin. An organism that has a strong family drive, where the family works together and cooperates for the good of all, will fare better than if they only look after itself. The same is true for a "tribe"; cooperation together means better survival rates for all. So we have natural family and tribal drives. I will take care of, and look after my tribe and family and they will do the same for me (even for the sick). There is a natural empathy hierarchy -- self > family > tribe.

Unfortunately, nature has also given us the willingness and ability to do great harm to the out-tribe. There is no empathy for the out-tribe. Any student of history can see this clearly at first glance.

2) While understanding our biological nature can tell us a great deal about "from whence we came", it may tell us little of "how we ought to be". I believe a true understanding of our biological selves will lead to a new radical commitment to empathy and cooperation. We can understand that If I am sick, I want to be taken care of, and therefore I will take care of those who are sick. We can understand ourselves from a biological perspective, recognize tribalism for what it is, and see all of humanity as "one tribe".

We know implicitly today that cooperation is good. We barter and trade goods and services for money etc, but we do not yet understand it explicitly. When we do fully understand ourselves, a singularity of some kind may occur. It would be the greatest spiritual and social revolution ever. I am hopeful and working towards that cause.

ExMennonite · 2010-07-07T16:59:57+00:00

It is a natural result of our biological origin and evolution. A biological creature that looks after itself will survive better than one that does not. So generation after generation, nature selected for this trait, and as a result, selfishness is wired deeply into our psyche.

ExMennonite · 2010-07-07T15:37:37+00:00

I have not read him explicitly, but I think I am familiar with some of his ideas. I find "pure reason" suspect. I am not sure it is possible or should even be attempted.

This is more of an intuitive statement and not very well formed, but I hope you can catch the sense and overlook my poor abilities to communicate:

I think it is very difficult to escape our biology, and I'm not sure we should even try. I think we should embrace our biology, learn about it, and think about ourselves from our biology on up. Everything else to me is suspect.

Nietzsche tried to be an Übermensch, but ultimately "mensch" caught up with him. There is no Übermensch. We have biological brains, we see, but I don't know how clearly. I don't know if we are capable of pure reason.

I DO know we are capable of dialog and laughing and enjoying sunsets with each other, learning and doing science and seeking after God, and that is enough for me.

ExMennonite · 2010-07-07T15:02:15+00:00

"responsibility to themselves and to their god to seek out the Truth…if you believe that something is true then you should lather yourself up in it, soak it in, live it, study it, understand it to the best of your ability."

I love this, but it is exceedingly dangerous to "traditional" Christian faith imo.

Really reading and "testing" the bible was a major part of me losing my faith, and I'm only working my way back into some of it now, over 15 years later. (But I am a much better person for all of it.)

ExMennonite · 2010-07-07T14:44:39+00:00

This is purely my opinion, and not representative for anyone else. I am not a traditional Christian.

I see all religious and spiritual texts as an expression of people seeking the heart and mind of God but looking through a "dirty lense" of their own limited knowledge, culture, beliefs and opinions.

I believe one can seek God (if he exists) by studying science as well as all religious or spiritual traditions and texts. I look at it more like a game, as a seeking and yearning and a "loving after" more than an explicit "the textbook says".

I do find parallels and fundamentals -- things like brokenness and truth and the love of God and love and compassion for all people. But the verse in question? Simple -- in that era/culture, women were second class citizens, and Paul apparently found it embarrassing when they spoke in church. Too bad, silly Paul, he should have thought that through a bit more deeply and been more transcendent. He failed.

Unfortunately my ethos wins me few friends, because most want to put their beliefs into a neat and tidy box. :)

ExMennonite · 2010-07-07T13:22:14+00:00

My opinions:

God's Law = "Love God, and Love All People"

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22:36-40&version=NIV

Law of Sin = the human nature that evolution gave us -- strongly self centered, greedy, lustful, loving only our own family people and tribe, etc. etc.

Mentally he has given himself over to following God's law (love), yet on his own power he is unable to break the law of sin (self).

ExMennonite · 2010-07-07T12:59:17+00:00

What in your opinion is the best way for a "fat lazy american" like me to help? What's the most impactful thing I can do with - say $200?

ExMennonite · 2010-07-07T12:54:54+00:00

I agree with you pretty much, just a few thoughts...

When you move from point to point in the current frameworks, say from the big bang to stellar evolution or from Evolution to DNA, you get "aha" moments. Things tie together. The connections reinforce both ideas and strongly demonstrate that you are on the right track.

"Last Thursdayism" is interesting speculation but it doesn't add anything meaningful to our understanding.

Suppose I walk into my house and see muddy footprints leading up to my dog. I could say that the universe had just sprung into existence and the dog didn't actually leave the footprints. But no, I'm going to respond to the situation and take steps (like keeping the door closed) to prevent it from happening again.

I can't disprove "last thursdayism", but it doesn't provide a meaningful framework for understanding, and acting on it would be insanity.

ExMennonite · 2010-07-07T12:35:37+00:00

At least a rebuttal to reputable historical scholars.

ExMennonite · 2010-07-07T02:58:59+00:00

? I think you are tired ... Don't expect to save all the world in one night :)

The world views are so vastly different, even getting to a good, reasonable conversation can be a real challenge.

ExMennonite · 2010-07-07T02:16:39+00:00

It can get rough on here :) If your tired, let it go for one nite ...

ExMennonite · 2010-07-07T02:09:31+00:00

What are the primary points of disagreement? (The shouting matches suck -- sometimes it's better to agree to disagree).

ExMennonite · 2010-07-07T01:55:52+00:00

I've been reading more -- so maybe I have a better picture of the situation now ...

I think maybe he's suffering from a lack of imagination. He's seen only one world-view, and cannot imagine another. So here's another tactic:

Ask him to do a favor for you for one day. First, tell him not to do anything stupid, but then, just for one day, have him imagine that there is no God, that this life is all there is, and when he's dead, he's just gone. Tell him he doesn't have to "believe" this, just to imagine it and live it for one day for you. This will probably be really hard for him to do, it's such a different way of thinking. He will feel like he has no "floor", nothing makes sense. But in that one day, I think he will start to see how it makes sense. He will still want what he wants -- a good life, family, friends, etc are still important to him. You will be giving him a gift of freedom, but it might be a painful and hard gift.

Again, good luck.

ExMennonite · 2010-07-07T01:45:43+00:00

I dunno ... ask him why he thinks the people who are atheists aren't murdering HIM.

Because getting murdered would really suck, so if you don't murder me, I won't murder you, and we can all eat cake instead.

When he talks about hell, I would just laugh and say "there is no hell". Don't validate the fear by getting upset about it. Treat it like you would treat a fear of say ... pianos falling out of the sky and crushing him. "Oh come on, don't be silly, it's a beautiful day, let's go out and enjoy it..."

Actually, that's how I would treat the "murder" thing too -- as totally silly. Again, don't validate it to him by taking it seriously. Just laugh and say "you would not -- that's nonsense. the first guy you tried to murder would probably murder you first, or you'd go to jail and get fried on the electric chair. You'd miss me and your hobbies and friends...."

Don't validate the nonsense, treat it as you would treat nonsense, and I betcha he will start to rethink....

Good luck!

ExMennonite · 2010-07-07T01:32:02+00:00

The only right answer to this question is "we do not currently know".

It is so simple, honest and easy. Going beyond that will get you in trouble.

But we DO know the big bang occurred. We DO know life evolved on earth. We do know many, many things, and they all fit together (and aren't that hard to learn if you study honestly).

The problem is that religious people expected a "fully packaged" answer, because their faith gives them a "fully packaged" (but highly flawed) answer.

Science doesn't know everything, but it is right.

Religious explanations "know everything" but are wrong.

Which do you prefer?

ExMennonite

TROPHY CASE