I deconstructed for nearly a decade and reconstructed. Thank you Randal for showing me Christians have reasons not to swallow the whole narrative hook, line and sinker. Helped me come back to faith. My deconstruction had zero to do with sexual ethics. I’m kind of a prude and think sex is way more serious than society treats it. Even when I was an agnostic atheist, I never hopped on the ‘free love’ boat. I just had less of a moral reason to hold my stance during that time. Deconstructions are often a heartbreaking realization upon investigation that the thing you’ve loved and believed isn’t as solidly true as you were told and believed it was. It sucks. That’s what Frank is not understanding. The anguish and destabilization these people face. Sexual ethics are a motive for many people, but it is usually the rights of people who are not heterosexual rather than the desire to just have loads of sex…although that seems to be a motivating factor for many.
@@2SnakesI think that would be an incredibly dangerous stance to take. Could someone just ‘trust Jesus’ and be a Christian? I think they could. However, I think Jesus would draw them to correct doctrines if that relationship actually existed and was healthy. I don’t at all affirm they’d be exactly like the doctrines many Christians think are biblical. We have guidelines like the Nicene Creed that lay out basic Christian beliefs. This creed has been the standard for over a thousand years and has plenty of room for a variety of thought while laying out fundamental Christian beliefs. If someone is not even believing those basics, I’d question why they are choosing to use the Christian label. It would seem irrelevant at that point and I’d want to hear their reasoning.
Paul Ens (Paulogia) lost just about everything -- his job, his friends, his marriage, and his children -- when he deconstructed, and he's not the only one who has suffered from leaving the faith. It can be quite traumatic for some people. For me, leaving was as easy as walking away, but the idea I did it for sex, or any other gain, is laughable. I just didn't believe anymore.
I'm a trans Christian. I left the faith when I was a teenager, mostly for nonsexual reasons, but the sexual ethics of the branch of Christianity I was raised in did indeed prevent me from coming back until I was much older and found a liberal church that doesn't preach all the homophobic/misogynistic/puritanical stuff I was used to. I don't really think it's fair to say my deconversion was "because" I wanted a license to sin without judgement, but of course, I reevaluated all the teachings on sex I was taught once I was free to do so.
Hey Randal, I appreciate your critiques of Protestant apologetics, because the only way we Christians can get better at defending the faith is by hearing critiques and looking inward, consequently refining our arguments and making them more nuanced and logical. Just out of curiosity, if you are knowledgeable on the subject, what do you make of Orthodox apologetics (Eastern and Oriental)? I was raised Protestant, but I'm thinking of joining the Coptic Orthodox church, because I like how 1) it places more emphasis on humility and introspection (intellectual and emotional), 2) it has many practices (i.e., Sacred/Holy Tradition) which have stood the test of time, and 3) it has more formal checks and balances to limit the influence of bad apologists and bad arguments (without being overly-organized, global and "infallible" like Catholicism - to clarify: I respect Catholics; I don't mean to disparage anyone). I was wondering if you can recommend any good vs bad Orthodox apologists/theologians (I already know a few), and/or if you have any particular or general thoughts on them?
The term "deconstruction" will always feel weird to me. I remember being really into Christian conservative apologetics in the early 2000s and then, after a long process of doing research and studying the Bible, coming out of it. I started learning about interpretations of the Bible that predated modern American conservatism. I didn't need a word for it. I was just understanding Christianity better. The so-called "conservatives" are the ones redefining things. They're the ones deconstructing Christianity.
Realistically "deconstructing" doesn't actually mean your definition in how it's used though; as whenever I say I 'deconstructed' from a reasonably liberal faith to a more conservative one people get mad at me. Whether it practically means Turek's definition, though, is up for debate. I don't think Turek is making an apologetic argument here though, so I would refrain from analysing it as if it was one. Don't overthink random things people put on twitter. Although to be honest I feel like this is an argument for refraining from twitter altogether. There is rarely anything of substance there.
I didn't claim Turek made an "argument". An argument has premises and a conclusion. Rather, he made a statement that committed several fallacies. And the things he posts on Twitter aren't "random". He posts with intention.
Turek is plain awful but every time I try to label him the worst I remember WLC, Ray Comfort, the AIG goof, Dr Dino, and basically all the other apologists still exist. Randall is one of the few I can respect and feel like they aren't insulting our intelligence.
Add Bob Dutko to your list. He basically just plagiarizes Kent Hovind, AiG and other low-rent apologists can employees of variety of logical fallacies and straw man arguments
I would put him on a par with Comfort and his Wretched colleagues. He might be a little more tolerable to listen to than those guys, but his arguments are about the same in terms of sophistication -- i.e. not very.
@scripturalcontexts never heard of this Dutko character but at this point I do my best to not hear apologists. If I stumble across someone with some integrity that's fine
@Apanblod I disagree. WLC gave us the "if there's even a 1 in 1 million chance..." quote which is uniquely terrible. He also had that conversation with (I forget the guy's name) that got recorded where he's admitting to things he would never admit to in public or in a debate which basically undercuts everything he argues for. Really damning stuff. Not to mention his support for genocide. He's lock step with all these guys & SJ 🤣. He even lost a debate to Jordan Peterson, which is amazing to me.
I think Frank is accidentally 100% correct: thinking you might be happier if you f'd around and found out with some gay stuff is a pretty great reason to reconsider whether or not there's an actual reason not to. Great point, Frank! How very Progressive of you!
I find atheists and Christians alike are surprised when I mention Turek as somebody who doesn't make great arguments. I don't think he's as detrimental as Ken Ham but he's only one tier above.
@@thetruest7497 I don't think most atheists think that anybody makes good arguments, because all the arguments are either genuinely bad or go over most atheists heads, and sometimes both at the same time. But I think that most atheists think that Turek is supposed to be one of the best because he gets a big platform.
@harlowcj well I'll educate you here. Size of platform doesn't mean quality to atheists. That is a Christian phenomenon because arguments from authority are the lay of the land and a large platform gives authority. The arguments for God don't go over our heads lol, all of the arguments are bad AND (this is a big one) you can't argue a god into existence you have to produce one. The way I distinguish apologists is in their honesty. Are they willing to acknowledge problems in the text and theologies? Do they deny science? Do they advocate for moral atrocities?
I doubt if anyone would ever describe Turek as a empiricist. If you look at atheist RU-vidrs Paulogia, Mindshift, and Pinecreek sexual ethics is irrelevant. All had issues with biblical literalism. A recent survey of people leaving the church suggested some issues with sexuality. Not that people were interested in escaping church teaching. It was more a revulsion of some more conservative Evangelicals attitude to gay people.
I think Turek (who I had never heard of) has a point, albeit a small one. If you find that one of your behaviours is diametrically opposed to the belief system you hold (or your church environment holds), one of those needs to give eventually. Most homosexuals will not be able to exist in a fundamentalist evangelical church. At some point they will leave. But, there are other churches (increasing in number) in which they will be accepted. We will have to see whether the acceptance of homosexuality will eventually win out within the wider Christian church as remarriage has (an impossibility 100 years ago). The active service of women is currently in the process of being accepted. But I believe the conclusion that sexuality has a huge role to play in "deconstruction" is probably not borne out by the data. The majority of deconstructing Christians, especially those who study the bible and its historic context, deconstruct as they come to the conclusion that the bible is not inerrant, infallible or completely coherent. The bible itself also does not explicitly teach its own inerrancy; it only suggests that it is inspired. Fundamentalist Christianity which teaches biblical inerrancy is just one of many religious developments which have been derived from interpretations of ancient texts. It is, like many religious teachings, a human explanation and interpretation of a given text. It is not necessarily "God speaking"; it is "humans deciding" what God has said. Where is there a "prayer of faith" in the bible; where is the clear exposition of the "trinity"? These are human interpretations of texts which were seen as inspired. They may be correct, they may be incorrect. However, if these things were so important for our eternal destiny, why did an omnipotent God not mandate that these teachings are clearly expressed in the bible?
It seems like there can be a correlation sometimes between deconstruction and more loose sexual behavior. But as has been said many times, correlation is not necessarily causation. You may deconstruct for totally objective reasons. But the sexual impulse is a strong thing in humans. If you are not attending church services that often tell you how serious sexual sin is, you may not follow those churches' "rules" as much as people who do. One thing I've noticed through the years is that the more conservative a church is, generally the more services and other meetings they have. I assume this comes out of the idea that humans are constantly at risk of falling into sin and need frequent guidance. One exception to this may be Lutheranism. Even conservative Lutheran churches don't seem to have more than one service a week.
Thing is, in many cases Christians are just as "loose" with their sexual behavior as non-believers anyway. The vast majority of Christians have had sex before they get married. Surveys have found it's at least 80% and that's only those who are willing to admit it to a stranger. There's also very little difference in the amount of porn consumption between the most religious states and the least religious. And so on. And there's also the fact (confirmed by studies) that most people prefer to have a regular long term partner anyway, and it's only a very small percentage of people who enjoy the "hedonistic lifestyle" of hooking up with different people every night. Sexual relationships are hard for many people, even without the pressure of religious mores breathing over them.
@@tedgemberling2359 It seems like conservative Christians are the ones who spend the most time thinking about sex and about what everyone else is doing in their own bedrooms with their own bodies. I don’t understand why they’re so preoccupied with this, but it’s very off-putting and I wish they’d just live their own lives and let others do the same.
I'm an atheist. I find Turek's content teeth-grindingly poor. His "reasoning" is weak and loaded with Christian presupposition. And he doesn't really care about explanations. It surprises me that he has such a following.
He makes his fellow evangelicals feel reassured in their faith. That's the only audience that matters to him, since that's where the views and money comes from. He knows that, I'm sure, but he can't let on.
Is Frank making fallacies? or is it Randal?? What premise is the "hasty generalization" applied to? That Frank _has_ seen what he says he's hardly seen? Randal, you are an activist. For liberals. That all. Why doth thou protest so much about "hedonistic motives"?
It's truly amazing that people can miss the point so incredibly. Did you actually listen to what he said in the video? Not just hear the words, but actually listen.
@@Randal_Rauser I didn't make one ad hom! And you didn't answer the real substance of my questions! Are you imagining an adhom to avoid the issue? Frank is indeed de-legitimizing those who deconvert. But if Christianity is _true_ then everyone who deconverts is wrong. Why are you trying to make it legitimate? 🤔
@@ScuddotWobbrel Yes. I heard Randal saying that Frank committed a hasty generalization fallacy and almost immediately say that Frank words made him immune to such an accusation. (Because how would we know what Frank has seen?) But then double down and say his guilty. But from the X comment there is no premise stating what Randal has imagined, that all deconverts bring up some sexual ethic as the reason why they left. Frank doesn't say that. Not once. So Randal is strawmanning Frank all the way. How can you not see that??
I can honestly say with complete integrity that my own deconstruction had absolutely nothing to do with sexual ethics. It was all about textual criticism of the Bible and the complete absence of the tangible presence of God in my life in the face of great suffering. Turek is incredibly wrong.
It seems like Frank's statement is carefully crafted to include non-obvious emergency exits that he can use if anyone pushes back on any part of this statement.
My deconstruction began with textual criticism of the Bible and historical-critical studies of the Bible, the ANE, and early Christianity. That's *after* spending a lengthy period as a progressive evangelical much like Randal. Then as my confidence in both OT and NT's historical claims waned, re-looking at the whole paradigm and asking myself which made more sense of the world as humans experience and understand it - Christianity (of any type) or either naturalism or a bare, deistic theism virtually indistinguishable from pure naturalism for all practical purposes? While I concluded the progressive Xian story of the world wasn't *impossible I also concluded it didn't seem by any stretch to offer the *most probable* account of the way the world is, and in terms of living a fulfilling and good life it didn't offer anything not already available through a generous secular humanism
I left Christianity and became an atheist bc of the lack of evidence for a God, and bc there's no God that intervenes in people's daily lives. It's all a contradictory concept.
Most Christian pop apologists are remarkably bad at apologetics. It’s more apologetics for the religious status quo instead of Christ. It’s about protecting the system.
@@Athabrose "the system"? You mean Orthodoxy? Aren't you and Randal attempting to protect "a system" that you think is worthy? I think you're wrong, but thats why we have dialogue. Randal runs away when he's called out though so there's that..
I’m an orthodox Christian so your assumptions are misguided. Most apologist are not defending orthodoxy but a modern American fundamentalist view of Christianity and God.
I recently listened to Turek answer questions about “free will” and his logic was really non logic and cognitively dissonant. Grossly misrepresenting Father, Son and Spirit. Some things he has good answers to, on others, not so much.
I think people like Randal Rauser pick on more conservative Christian's in hopes that he will gain "street cred" with non-believers and slowly entice them back to the faith. It's kinda cringe.
Randal's not that dumb. Everyone knows the audience for apologetics videos consists almost exclusively of other Christians. Some atheists do watch too, of course, but if the professionals out there didn't have a massive following among their fellow Christians, they wouldn't be making any money at all. I can't speak for him, obviously, but if anything, I suspect he's hoping that those who are fed up with the antics of right-wing fundamentalists will find reasons in his content for a soft landing into a more rational and moderate form of Christianity rather than bombing out of the faith altogether. In any case, what's wrong with leaning into the algorithm a little? Reaction videos are a staple of RU-vid apologetics, and always have been.
@@2Snakes I think it’s fair to be the tiniest bit charitable and presume that he can accurately describe his own motivations and beliefs. A big part of being wise is fully accepting that different people can be very different from you and from each other, while all still being motivated by sincerity and good intentions.
It comes from the same erreneous school of thought put forth by Ray Comfort, "You just love to Sin". It's a classic tactic of many fundamentalist evangelicals. Rather then engage the argument(s) or reason(s) by the other side. They have to erect caricatures that fit inline within their own narrative.
There are definitely worse apologists than Turek -- Ken Ham and Kent Hovind instantly spring to mind -- but there aren't that many with as high a profile in the evangelical movement. There are thousands of worse apologists on RU-vid, but they tend to have a few dozen followers and not last very long.
It's telling that the "hedonistic" desire to enjoy sex is apparently accepted even by Rauser as an "illegitimate" motive. Christianity's enduring hostility to sensory pleasure speaks volumes about how it remains a deeply patriarchal ideology, one which still fears and insists on stigmatising that which cannot be controlled by the patriarch
I recommend Louise Perry's work. Sexual hedonism actually benefits men (the patriarchy) more than it benefits women. Remember: reliable birth control has only existed for about 70-80 years. For most of human history, sex was extremely risky for women and many vulnerable women and children were hurt by male sexual hedonism. Do you know what's one way archaeologists can identify (ancient) brothels? Huge numbers of infant skeletons. Similarly, in Victorian England, where prostitution was widespread, the streets were littered with dead, neglected babies. I don't know if you're familiar with a book called Sex at Dawn, but a lot of its ideas have spread into the broader culture (so I wouldn't be surprised if you've taken up some of them). However, Sex at Dawn is complete pseudoscience. The book spends FAR more time and effort attacking the moral/political motives of its opponents, rather than trying to support its own arguments with evidence and logic (this is called bulverism). What little evidence it does present is either weak, or HEAVILY misrepresents the very sources which the book cites. As such, it has been torn to shreds by academics in numerous fields.
@@jonah_da_mann You have confused mere hedonism with a license to exploit. The existence of brothels is not evidence of "sexual hedonism"; on the contrary, it's an expression of patriarchal power. It's the concrete expression of the "Madonna"/"Whore" dichotomy that Christianity has had at its heart since the story of Adam and Eve. After all, what was the state religion of Victorian England? That doesn't mean that societies outwith the Abrahamic world were or are idyllic in this regard. Pregnancy and childbirth is inherently risky. But EVERY sensory pleasure includes the possibility that harm may come if it is indulged without care or respect for self and others. That's the case for mental activity too - consider the consequences of endless videogame playing, "meditation" - or overindiulgence in theological debate. The singling out of sexual pleasure - and especially female pleasure - as if it were an unquestioned hazard is characteristic of patriarchal religion.
@@goldenalt3166 I only see that sentiment (that young people should marry if they can't stop having sex) among very conservative Christians. Most Christians I know (liberal and conservative) would agree that getting married because you want to have sex is a terrible idea.
@@jonah_da_mann A lot of the problem is down to education and expectations. A few years ago an American pickup artist went viral with a blog post complaining that Swedish women were cold and unwelcoming -- in other words, they didn't fall for any of his usual tricks. They have come to expect more from their men.
