disillusioned

No.

What is that "very small portion"? How do you determine which parts of the Bible are suitable for life application? Why do you believe in sin, the cross, the virgin birth, and a creator?

So Knott, you say you believe but don't attend church. You also admit that there's a lot of dogmatic junk. What do you actually believe? Just trying to get more of a feel for where you're at.

Agree with this as well. But the definition of "truly monstrous" is not clear. It needs to be. Also, with respect to the zero tolerance issue, I wasn't trying to say before that there shouldn't be zero tolerance going forward. I think that's where we want to get to. But for those who have engaged in some of the less heinous of these behaviours in the past, and have since reformed their ways, I think there needs to be forgiveness. Otherwise, I can't see how this movement will do anything but become ever more polarising, which I think is counter-productive.

Yes. I did, and I was very indoctrinated. Many others here can say the same.

I agree with this, but I would say that if it is only remarks, then there must be a hard limitation on counter measures that are taken. People shouldn't say shitty things, but we also need to not let what people say define us. That's being an adult. Some people also can't deal with someone telling them to fuck off, or calling them an asshole. I'd wager that most people have done this a time or three. Should we all try to say nicer things to each other? Sure. But I'm not sure that this deserves to be grouped together with actual assault. I agree with this as well, but the question is, what should the consequences be? Again, if we're speaking of someone who makes inappropriate comments, should their career end? Maybe in some cases, but probably not most. Re-education and rehabilitation I think would be a better approach. Some people might just need a stern talking to. If those avenues are exhausted, and the behaviours continue, then further measures should be explored. I don't think zero tolerance is the correct approach to take when we are talking about a major cultural shift in the way we speak and behave. I also agree with this. This is a big issue, and it's a change that really needs to happen. I think I'm having a couple of major issues right now: one is that I think it is important to treat certain offences as worse than others, and not just lump them all in together, and the other is that I think there needs to be some easing up on the zero tolerance approach. This is a major change, and it's a good change. It's past time that it happened. But, by analogy, when slavery was abolished, if all former slave owners had been condemned, that would not have been helpful to the goal of abolishing slavery. Even as it was, it didn't go that smoothly. My point is just that there has to be some kind of amnesty for minor offenders. Otherwise, men will not get on board. I think it's silly to try to change the way society views women without trying to get men on board.

I was raised in a very conservative, fundamentalist, protestant Christian home. I was indoctrinated, and I believed completely and utterly. I was a young-earth creationist. I studied physics and math in University, and I began to realise that some of the things I'd been taught simply could not be true. The young-earth thing was first to go. This was followed by the ideas of biblical inerrancy and literalism. This left a festering question: if the bible requires interpretation, then how can we know that our interpretation is the correct one? No one has ever been able to answer this question. It took me a long time to realize that it wasn't just me who couldn't be sure, and that none of the pastors, elders, worship leaders, really had any more of a clue than I did. But when I did realize that, it was a small step out the door. There were, of course, lots of other significant questions as well, and precious few answers. But that one was the most significant to me though. It seems to me that Christianity is, at base, a claim to know the mind of God. That's a significant claim. It requires significant justification. The bible was supposed to show us the way. But it requires interpretation. So who is qualified to do this interpreting, and what qualifies them? The only answers that I can see are "no one" and "nothing". This is quite telling, in my opinion.

Welcome @Riven! I understand about not having friends outside of the faith. I'm fairly lucky in that a number of my colleagues and I are quite friendly, but I don't make friends easily, and I find that, as I get older, I don't really care as much. One of the benefits of being an introvert, I guess. If I can ask, is your family out as well? That makes things easier.

Christmas is a long way away. Lots of things can happen between now and then.

I'm glad you are here, and posting, Riven. We can always use more quality contributions to the conversation. BTW, if I recall correctly, liking posts becomes possible after 25 posts, when you lose the "new member" tag.

I think this is normal. Most of us feel bitter from time to time, or have felt so in the past. Only thing I can really say is try to focus on other things. Always look on the bright side of life, and all that.

This is a very real struggle. There is no need to rush to a decision. Take the time to get to know yourself as an unbeliever. If you are not sure that you should tell others, you are probably not ready. I waited years before I told my family, and I have never regretted the way I did it.

Welcome slam! It's great to see new members posting. I don't know that I would term this a "scientific" explanation per se, but it is a rational explanation nonetheless. On the belief that God does not exist, life need not have any inherent meaning or purpose. As such, we no longer have a duty to behave a certain way, lest we be punished. We are free from the fear that there is a reckoning coming. This is not to say that we should, therefore, behave recklessly, as if our actions have no consequences. Rather, we should behave as if our actions may have dire consequences in the here and now. But once that is finished, that's it. There is no need to lose sleep over the thought of eternal consequences. Christianity is premised on the notion that God has set the bar just a little out of our reach. We are never good enough. There is nothing that we can ever do to change this fact. Once Christianity is set aside, we are free to realize that, while we might like to be better, there is no ultimate standard that we are doomed to forever fall short of. This, in itself, is a very freeing realization. Karl Marx is often misquoted as saying that religion is the opiate of the masses. What he actually wrote is as follows: "Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." When we leave Christianity, we leave behind the notion that we require salvation. We leave behind the notion that there is eternal life. But we also leave behind the notion of hell, of damnation, and of condemnation. Christians think that they need to be saved, and that they have been saved, and are, therefore, grateful for their salvation. They can't imagine living without it. But if the need for salvation is removed, then everything is fine. Here we are, and here we will stay until we are no more. It isn't fantastic, but it is what it is.

.... Not criticising, but this is Eowyn's thread. Why is it in the den? I get that Knott's contributions may merit the den, but Eowyn's introduction? Really?

Right. Agreed. So let's say that in most cases it isn't about revenge and ruining people's lives. What is the point then? Is it to obtain a recognition or wrongdoing, to get an apology, to see people punished, to change the culture, a combination of these things, or something else entirely? Personally, I think that the goal should be to change cultural norms, while encouraging people to acknowledge (explicitly or implicitly) where they have behaved badly, and change their behaviour. I don't think that punishment in general is particularly productive, except in cases where significant actual harm has been done (Cosby, for example, should rot in jail, in my opinion). But the problem I see is this: people are being punished for what amounts to poor behaviour in spite of the fact that they have repented, and have amended their ways. Not all people, but a significant number. I think this is actually damaging to the movement as a whole. This is a very important moment for feminism. Paradigms are being changed. That's awesome. But if we get carried away, we run the risk of having the whole movement painted black. I don't think that's what we want.