5 ms·

I'm considering joining a church almost exclusively for the social aspect. Christianity does teach some good lessons and taking my kids would be a net positive.

I'm considering joining a church almost exclusively for the social aspect. Christianity does teach some good lessons and taking my kids would be a net positive. I wonder how many people who attend church and identify as Christian hold similar views to mine: overall it's a pretty good system but very few stories in the Bible are historically accurate.

adrianN 6y ago
Consider joining the Freemasons. They also teach some good lessons but are more tolerant of different beliefs.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  “You must believe in a Supreme Being” killed it for me.
  - millipedegears 6y ago
    "Supreme Being" is just concise and archaic language. This is all it means. "You must believe we may not be in the base level of reality and our universe could be a simulation"
  - EdwardDiego 6y ago
    Turns a bunch of people away from Alcoholics Anonymous too. I mean, I get the gist - admitting something bigger than you exists can help frame your inability to manage your addiction, but yeah, in this day and age, it's an extra barrier.
dctoedt 6y ago
UT Austin journalism professor Robert Jensen joined — and was welcomed by — a liberal Austin Presbyterian church even though he didn't believe traditionalist theology, christology, or soteriology. From a Texas Monthly article: "Jensen, who joined the church in 2005, did not come to St. Andrew’s in search of protective cover. On the contrary. In an article posted on the church’s Web site, he explained that he came in search of a moral and political community .... He told the congregation that he did not accept the divinity of Jesus, but he did endorse the core principles in Jesus’ teaching and pledged to be a responsible member if they would have him. That was enough for the folk at St. Andrew’s." [0] (That didn't sit well with traditionalist elements in the larger church and led to ecclesiastical trouble. [1]) [0] https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/st-andrews-presbyterian-church/ https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/st-andrews-presbyteria... [1] https://killingthebuddha.com/mag/confession/the-inquisition/ https://killingthebuddha.com/mag/confession/the-inquisition/
- hinkley 6y ago
  He might have forgotten the Church’s role in colonialism...
jeofken 6y ago
I don’t think the stories need to be historical facts to hold truths
- gshubert17 6y ago
  Robin Lane Fox, a historian, in his book _Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible_, wrote that as he finished this book, "a friend reminded me that I had once remarked to him that I believed in the Bible but not in God. . . . Twenty-five years later, this book has turned out to be an explanation of what I meant." The history of the Jewish and Christian scriptures and the subsequent history of the many faith communities who read them, shows how much time and effort people have spent trying to understand themselves and the world.
- millipedegears 6y ago
  It is a nice thought; that religion is the communication of useful (not literal) truths. However religion is also about control. As Jesus said: "You are my friends - if you obey me."
paulryanrogers 6y ago
> ...taking my kids would be a net positive. Being raised in the church and briefly having taught kids there, please don't do this. Even in progressive churches the lessons they risk being exposed to will teach lazy thinking: trust in authority, testimony above hard evidence, etc. At worst they may be taught to hate or despise themselves, others, or natural desires.
- RickJWagner 6y ago
  To the article's point, I can see how wokeism has brought about "lazy thinking: trust in authority, testimony above hard evidence, etc. At worst they may be taught to hate or despise themselves..." as well. I really think the article's author is on to a good line of thinking.
Swizec 6y ago
Europe is full of atheist Catholics. It’s a pretty cool system. You get the holidays and culture, nice set of shared stories and a shared common sense. Thinking any of it is factually accurate or that god is a thing or being that actually exists is almost considered weird. In Slovenia (where I’m from), for example, about 70% of the population identifies as Catholic, but only 25% say there might be a god. Another 30% say there’s probably some sort of greater spirit, but not necessarily god. The American version always seemed odd to me. Believing that stuff in the Bible is factually true, not just fables with lessons ... that’s weird.
- text70 6y ago
  I like to chalk it up to just a bit of lost in translation, but I know it is probably more complex than that. Think about going from early Aramaic/Hebrew, to Latin, Greek and Turkish, to medieval Italian, German and Slavic, to Old English and French, to Modern English. You are bound to lose the real meaning of the original texts after several millennia in the game of lingual telephone.
  - phd514 6y ago
    Translations are usually done directly from the original language into the target language. The study of early Hebrew and Aramaic and Koine Greek remains an active field and there are lots of people who can read those languages fluently.
- lebuffon 6y ago
  It's worth remembering that large groups of fundamentalist Christians left Europe to go to the "new world" to escape actual persecution or the perception that they were not free to express their form of Christianity. Culture IMHO runs very deep and lasts long after the death of the originators.
  - EdwardDiego 6y ago
    The fun part was when their form of Christianity involved persecuting others but the government said no.
lisper 6y ago
I'm an atheist who runs a weekly Bible study: https://www.meetup.com/Bible-Study-for-Skeptics-Agnostics-and-Apologists/ https://www.meetup.com/Bible-Study-for-Skeptics-Agnostics-an... I'm also a regular on the creationist debate circuit. In fact, I'm doing one this afternoon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDfp2GZHcEU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDfp2GZHcEU
- jollofricepeas 6y ago
  That’s fascinating! At first glance, it appears that agnosticism is more rooted in science and evidence than atheism. What is atheism’s general view of BioLogos and evolutionary creation as supported by the former head of the Human Gene Project and NIH, Francis Collins? https://biologos.org/about-us/what-we-believe/ https://biologos.org/about-us/what-we-believe/
  - lisper 6y ago
    Well, atheism's general view is that it's bullshit. My personal view is more nuanced than that, but it's much too long a story for an HN comment. The TL;DR is that the divergence between science and religion happens very, very early in one's thought process. Humans seek to explain their experiences, but there are two very different kinds of explanation you can choose to seek. You can pursue mechanism, i.e. what are the laws that describe the phenomena we observe, or you can pursue teleology, i.e. what is the purpose of the phenomena that we observe? If you choose the former, you end up with science, and if you pursue the latter, you end up with religion. Neither approach subsumes the other. Science fails to identify purpose, and teleology fails to identify a mechanism. But humans want both, so we struggle to put together some kind of synthesis. BioLoogos is a valiant attempt at a synthesis, but it's not really supportable by anything other than our desire to construct a unified theory of our existence, i.e. to tell a story that makes us feel warm and fuzzy. IMHO it's problematic from the perspective of both theology and science. But, like I said, it's a long story.
    - beaconstudios 6y ago
      Telos isn't strictly linked to religion. Emergent properties can be seen as a form of telos. Even atheists talk about evolution teleologically - "evolution fits species to their environment". Personally I liken the typical materialist denial of telos to only trusting quantitative data, which is something they also do. You don't even get half the picture because the two halves form a greater whole. To be honest, it was a catastrophe when the dualism of the Abrahamic religions was split down the middle and the spiritual half was abandoned. Its no surprise that modernism is so unfulfilling when the default philosophies that are compatible with pure materialism are hedonism and nihilism.
supersour 6y ago
I would say: more than you think. Someone else responded to you about European churches and honestly that sounds quite appealing to me. My experience in Canada is that there are a lot of people who would most closely align with Liberal Christianity[0] but then spend their time in churches which are more "traditional". I think there is a bit of disconnect and tension in the current state of the churches here, though I think as this subgroup of Christians grows it will have to be addressed. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity
dragonwriter 6y ago
> very few stories in the Bible are historically accurate. Outside of a particular brand of Protestantism which happens to be quite popular in the US, Christians doctrine doesn't hold that the Bible is a literally factual narrative. But beyond that, which obviously doesn't quite cover the degree of divergence you seem to be suggesting, there are probably Churches you'd fit into without hypocrisy, though som e might argue they they are only partially or historically Christian, e.g., some Unitarian Universalist churches.
EdwardDiego 6y ago
Tbh, you'd have to choose the right church. Something like the Anglicans or mainstream Presbyterians. Unitarians would be ideal. Otherwise you're soon running into creationism, or purity culture, or speaking in tongues and the evil of backsliders, or why women can't hold jobs, why dolls violate the 2nd commandment, or, imo, one of the worst, Calvinism and it's TULIP doctrine[1]. I'm not sure what's worst, L, wherein God only saves some, and sends the rest to hell as an example of his grace to those going to heaven, or P, where if you express reservations or concerns about the church, you're obviously not actually saved and are going to hell. [1]: http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_41.html http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_41.html
dctoedt 6y ago
> taking my kids would be a net positive When our kids were very little, my Episcopalian wife said we needed to raise them in a religious tradition "so they'd have something to reject when they grow up." So we did; both were baptized (as infants) and confirmed (as teens) at her parish. Fast forward three decades: One now-grown and -married kid is on the vestry (board of directors) of the parish, while the other hasn't darkened the door of any church since he was a teenager, apart from his sister's wedding. (Later I ended up joining as well; see https://www.questioningchristian.com/2005/05/why_i_call_myse.html https://www.questioningchristian.com/2005/05/why_i_call_myse...)

adrianN 6y ago

Consider joining the Freemasons. They also teach some good lessons but are more tolerant of different beliefs.

sokoloff 6y ago
“You must believe in a Supreme Being” killed it for me.
- millipedegears 6y ago
  "Supreme Being" is just concise and archaic language. This is all it means. "You must believe we may not be in the base level of reality and our universe could be a simulation"
- EdwardDiego 6y ago
  Turns a bunch of people away from Alcoholics Anonymous too. I mean, I get the gist - admitting something bigger than you exists can help frame your inability to manage your addiction, but yeah, in this day and age, it's an extra barrier.

dctoedt 6y ago

UT Austin journalism professor Robert Jensen joined — and was welcomed by — a liberal Austin Presbyterian church even though he didn't believe traditionalist theology, christology, or soteriology. From a Texas Monthly article: "Jensen, who joined the church in 2005, did not come to St. Andrew’s in search of protective cover. On the contrary. In an article posted on the church’s Web site, he explained that he came in search of a moral and political community .... He told the congregation that he did not accept the divinity of Jesus, but he did endorse the core principles in Jesus’ teaching and pledged to be a responsible member if they would have him. That was enough for the folk at St. Andrew’s." [0] (That didn't sit well with traditionalist elements in the larger church and led to ecclesiastical trouble. [1]) [0] https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/st-andrews-presbyterian-church/ https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/st-andrews-presbyteria... [1] https://killingthebuddha.com/mag/confession/the-inquisition/ https://killingthebuddha.com/mag/confession/the-inquisition/

hinkley 6y ago
He might have forgotten the Church’s role in colonialism...

jeofken 6y ago

I don’t think the stories need to be historical facts to hold truths

gshubert17 6y ago
Robin Lane Fox, a historian, in his book _Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible_, wrote that as he finished this book, "a friend reminded me that I had once remarked to him that I believed in the Bible but not in God. . . . Twenty-five years later, this book has turned out to be an explanation of what I meant." The history of the Jewish and Christian scriptures and the subsequent history of the many faith communities who read them, shows how much time and effort people have spent trying to understand themselves and the world.
millipedegears 6y ago
It is a nice thought; that religion is the communication of useful (not literal) truths. However religion is also about control. As Jesus said: "You are my friends - if you obey me."

paulryanrogers 6y ago

> ...taking my kids would be a net positive. Being raised in the church and briefly having taught kids there, please don't do this. Even in progressive churches the lessons they risk being exposed to will teach lazy thinking: trust in authority, testimony above hard evidence, etc. At worst they may be taught to hate or despise themselves, others, or natural desires.

RickJWagner 6y ago
To the article's point, I can see how wokeism has brought about "lazy thinking: trust in authority, testimony above hard evidence, etc. At worst they may be taught to hate or despise themselves..." as well. I really think the article's author is on to a good line of thinking.

Swizec 6y ago

Europe is full of atheist Catholics. It’s a pretty cool system. You get the holidays and culture, nice set of shared stories and a shared common sense. Thinking any of it is factually accurate or that god is a thing or being that actually exists is almost considered weird. In Slovenia (where I’m from), for example, about 70% of the population identifies as Catholic, but only 25% say there might be a god. Another 30% say there’s probably some sort of greater spirit, but not necessarily god. The American version always seemed odd to me. Believing that stuff in the Bible is factually true, not just fables with lessons ... that’s weird.

text70 6y ago
I like to chalk it up to just a bit of lost in translation, but I know it is probably more complex than that. Think about going from early Aramaic/Hebrew, to Latin, Greek and Turkish, to medieval Italian, German and Slavic, to Old English and French, to Modern English. You are bound to lose the real meaning of the original texts after several millennia in the game of lingual telephone.
- phd514 6y ago
  Translations are usually done directly from the original language into the target language. The study of early Hebrew and Aramaic and Koine Greek remains an active field and there are lots of people who can read those languages fluently.
lebuffon 6y ago
It's worth remembering that large groups of fundamentalist Christians left Europe to go to the "new world" to escape actual persecution or the perception that they were not free to express their form of Christianity. Culture IMHO runs very deep and lasts long after the death of the originators.
- EdwardDiego 6y ago
  The fun part was when their form of Christianity involved persecuting others but the government said no.

lisper 6y ago

I'm an atheist who runs a weekly Bible study: https://www.meetup.com/Bible-Study-for-Skeptics-Agnostics-and-Apologists/ https://www.meetup.com/Bible-Study-for-Skeptics-Agnostics-an... I'm also a regular on the creationist debate circuit. In fact, I'm doing one this afternoon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDfp2GZHcEU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDfp2GZHcEU

jollofricepeas 6y ago
That’s fascinating! At first glance, it appears that agnosticism is more rooted in science and evidence than atheism. What is atheism’s general view of BioLogos and evolutionary creation as supported by the former head of the Human Gene Project and NIH, Francis Collins? https://biologos.org/about-us/what-we-believe/ https://biologos.org/about-us/what-we-believe/
- lisper 6y ago
  Well, atheism's general view is that it's bullshit. My personal view is more nuanced than that, but it's much too long a story for an HN comment. The TL;DR is that the divergence between science and religion happens very, very early in one's thought process. Humans seek to explain their experiences, but there are two very different kinds of explanation you can choose to seek. You can pursue mechanism, i.e. what are the laws that describe the phenomena we observe, or you can pursue teleology, i.e. what is the purpose of the phenomena that we observe? If you choose the former, you end up with science, and if you pursue the latter, you end up with religion. Neither approach subsumes the other. Science fails to identify purpose, and teleology fails to identify a mechanism. But humans want both, so we struggle to put together some kind of synthesis. BioLoogos is a valiant attempt at a synthesis, but it's not really supportable by anything other than our desire to construct a unified theory of our existence, i.e. to tell a story that makes us feel warm and fuzzy. IMHO it's problematic from the perspective of both theology and science. But, like I said, it's a long story.
  - beaconstudios 6y ago
    Telos isn't strictly linked to religion. Emergent properties can be seen as a form of telos. Even atheists talk about evolution teleologically - "evolution fits species to their environment". Personally I liken the typical materialist denial of telos to only trusting quantitative data, which is something they also do. You don't even get half the picture because the two halves form a greater whole. To be honest, it was a catastrophe when the dualism of the Abrahamic religions was split down the middle and the spiritual half was abandoned. Its no surprise that modernism is so unfulfilling when the default philosophies that are compatible with pure materialism are hedonism and nihilism.

supersour 6y ago

I would say: more than you think. Someone else responded to you about European churches and honestly that sounds quite appealing to me. My experience in Canada is that there are a lot of people who would most closely align with Liberal Christianity[0] but then spend their time in churches which are more "traditional". I think there is a bit of disconnect and tension in the current state of the churches here, though I think as this subgroup of Christians grows it will have to be addressed. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity

dragonwriter 6y ago

> very few stories in the Bible are historically accurate. Outside of a particular brand of Protestantism which happens to be quite popular in the US, Christians doctrine doesn't hold that the Bible is a literally factual narrative. But beyond that, which obviously doesn't quite cover the degree of divergence you seem to be suggesting, there are probably Churches you'd fit into without hypocrisy, though som e might argue they they are only partially or historically Christian, e.g., some Unitarian Universalist churches.

EdwardDiego 6y ago

Tbh, you'd have to choose the right church. Something like the Anglicans or mainstream Presbyterians. Unitarians would be ideal. Otherwise you're soon running into creationism, or purity culture, or speaking in tongues and the evil of backsliders, or why women can't hold jobs, why dolls violate the 2nd commandment, or, imo, one of the worst, Calvinism and it's TULIP doctrine[1]. I'm not sure what's worst, L, wherein God only saves some, and sends the rest to hell as an example of his grace to those going to heaven, or P, where if you express reservations or concerns about the church, you're obviously not actually saved and are going to hell. [1]: http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_41.html http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_41.html

dctoedt 6y ago

> taking my kids would be a net positive When our kids were very little, my Episcopalian wife said we needed to raise them in a religious tradition "so they'd have something to reject when they grow up." So we did; both were baptized (as infants) and confirmed (as teens) at her parish. Fast forward three decades: One now-grown and -married kid is on the vestry (board of directors) of the parish, while the other hasn't darkened the door of any church since he was a teenager, apart from his sister's wedding. (Later I ended up joining as well; see https://www.questioningchristian.com/2005/05/why_i_call_myse.html https://www.questioningchristian.com/2005/05/why_i_call_myse...)